Goodmorning

I always thought it would be a good thing if welfare checks were distributed as the WIC (Women, Infants, & Children) checks are, meaning, each family would be alloted an amount of milk, bread, eggs, meat, and vegetables per week. I think it would cut down on frivolous use of the welfare checks and would make the poor healthier too.

Mandating the cost of healthcare seems like a good idea. Of course, the uber wealthy will say, “Why should I pay for this for other people to use?!”. They act like these ‘taxes’ are breaking the bank for them or something. It’s disgusting.

Does everyone in fact contribute to SS? My recollection is that some state and government workers don’t and thus have substantially reduced benefits with the idea that the government pension will substitute. I have not researched this and am going by distant memory.

Single payer is the only plan with a real shot at working (and no chance of getting passed) because the insurance companies impose a huge overhead for the privilege of denying your claim when you need them the most. Unless the insurance companies are out, no system will really provide good care.

Good Morning Scarecrow, you’re right

It’s time for both of them to start describing their proposals in these terms and get beyond the silly debate they’ve been having.

Yes, there are some exemptions for those who had other state-sponsored plans. I don’t thing that detracts from the underlying principle that achieves universal retirement benefits.

Sadly, it is the banking and credit industries that are crumbling because of their own avarice. If it were the health “insurance” part of that industry that was imploding it would give us an opportunity to rebuild the system into a single payer system.

Oh well.

I have such dread of what is to come economically in this country. I have trouble even picturing what it will look like.

Good morning Elliot — thanks much for the heads up last night on the New York Philharmonic in Korea on PBS. Terrific concert.

buenos good morning firedogs!

In Tuesday’s Democratic debate and yesterday at a rally in Ohio, Senator Clinton made the argument that we should begin to think about universal health care the way we think about Social Security. Does she really mean it? From MSNBC:

I LOVE the idea, health care should be more like social security then social security is!

I want to get into the discussion the fact that the health of the labor force is an expense of the employers, just like keeping their equipment maintained, they benefit from the health of their labor force and when they don’t pay for health care they are “externalizing” their expenses

I also like a co pay system because while it is the employer’s obligation to keep his labor force healthy, we can’t expect them to pay the entire cost of a family

we also couldn’t expect employers to pay the cost of people who employ themselves

therefore, some kind of co-pay is equitable

BUT

the discussion MUST point out it is an employers expense keeping his labor force healthy, once we get THAT in the discussion and say it like it’s a FACT, the rest will fall into place nicely

it’s taking a method from the republican play book, say it, say it loud, say it as often as possible and it becomes part of the entire debate

Good morning Scarecrow. A bone to pick if I may.

Everyone already agrees with this principle when it’s applied to Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Congressional/Executive Office health plans and so on.

The overuse of “Everyone” drives me nuts. Many people, a number of people, the majority of people, a significant number of people….. all perfectly acceptable to indicate a lot of people.

Sorry to be picky but it is just not correct to state “everybody” ‘cuase it ain’t true.

G’morning, Scarecrow and crowlets.

Those who don’t pay into Social Security receive no benefits. What happens in a mandatory-pay healthcare system to those who have no income? Who, for one reason or another, may never have income?

Make no mistake — I am strongly in favor of healthcare reform, especially if it takes healthcare decisions out of the hands of insurance companies and puts it back in the hands of physicians.

I just can’t get my head around how either the Obama or Clinton plans work on day one, i.e., that early point at which there isn’t a pot o’money that we’ve been paying into. In a country buried in debt. Jeebus, I sound like a Republican. (((smacks self upside the head)))

I have such dread of what is to come economically in this country. I have trouble even picturing what it will look like.

Appalachia

which might work as long as there is full employment in the country. What about those who are unemployed?

I do totally agree that it is in the employer’s best interest though. And the big corpos ought to get behind it because the current system is a huge financial drag on them.

The California Nurses have been running radio ads in Ohio promoting single payer and criticizing mandates to purchase insurance. You can hear the ads via MP3 here.

From their press release:

The role of government, the nurses’ ad says, should be to “protect us from insurance companies, not force us to buy insurance products.”

Nurses know the problem with insurance-based care, the ad notes. They regularly “witness lives lost, care denied, families ruined by big insurance corporations. Nurses know there is only one real cure for our broken health care system. We ask the candidates to commit to the highest standard of quality care through Medicare for all Americans. That’s the real reform that puts decision-making power where it belongs – with you, your nurses, and your doctors.”

A challenge to the candidates to support real reform

“Nurses see America’s healthcare crisis up close everyday,” said Michelle Mahon, a Cleveland area RN. “Our ability to provide safe, effective, therapeutic care is undermined and our professional responsibility as patient advocates is compromised by insurance companies. Ohio nurses believe that the answer to our healthcare crisis is a Medicare for all, single payer plan, that will guarantee quality care to everyone.”

“We hope to remind Ohio voters of the suffering that nurses witness. We see patients who have been abandoned or abused by the very insurance companies that some think are the solution to our national healthcare crisis. And we hope that voters will ask the candidates of both parties, why are you proposing more insurance, rather than more care?” said Deborah Burger, RN, member of the NNOC/CNA Council of Presidents.

Good morning Scarecrow. This is a very important topic. It is a short step from this to what I believe our candidates should really be focusing on with regard to the healthcare question. I said it in the threads the other night during the debate.

Why don’t they just say it. It’s really simple. It’s only two little words:

Single Payer. Universal Medicare for all, paid for through a progressive tax structure.

It’s so easy a caveman can do it.

I do totally agree that it is in the employer’s best interest though. And the big corpos ought to get behind it because the current system is a huge financial drag on them.

Even more extraordinary as a number of insurance companies are invested in the failing and debt ridden automobile industry

just about any Native American reservation.

Start with Pine Ridge.

Point taken. Everyone agrees with you.

you are most welcome, it was a wonderful concert to be sure. I was even excited to hear the Star Spangled Banner for a change. I smiled a lot but confess the last thing I remember was Gershwin. I thought the choice of music was exactly right for the occasion.

And it was wonderful to crack open the door like that. All of North Korea listened. :)

now back to healthcare…

Well done

good one — LOL

which might work as long as there is full employment in the country. What about those who are unemployed?

part of our social system, we would have to provide for everyone and the bulk of that expense would have to fall on business

and when people bring up “why should we pay for undocumented people” we answer;

“they are working somewhere, this is why employers need to pay the bulk of the cost, they are hiring undocumented laborers to save money and we shouldh’t be forced into paying their bills”

I changed it to most people, although I considered “all liberal fascists,” etc.

If we just mandated free health care for kids from birth, many problems would be adverted. Even if that was all we did for now. Healthy eating would make a huge difference too.

agreed.

I’m glad that schools are starting to apply this knowledge to the menu.

If we just mandated free health care for kids from birth, many problems would be adverted.

And if we mandated free health care for EVERYONE from birth, even more would be.

I understood Hillary’s concept to be that taxes would pay for health coverage for those who could actually not afford to purchase. The “mandate” issue involved requiring that people who could afford it would have to pay for it. This would require the participation of those who can afford it but believe they are never going to need it and would end up getting treatment in emergency clinics as now. It seems similar to the required proof of auto insurance in many states.

One of the ways money can be raised for the universal/Medicare plan for all in keeping wth snowbird42 above, would be to enact something like a VAT tax, but call is a Value Subtracted Tax - VCT - on processed foods. Every step in the production and marketing should be taxed. These kinds of so-called food need to be made more expensive than unprocessed fruits, vegetables, etc.

This is perhaps the problem here. We have a deeply flawed and entrenched system. There are hundreds of thousands who work in the health care industry which include HMOs and insurance companies.

Even telling the investors the party’s over is a huge burden on the workers and managers who would be out of work.

Therefore the change has to evolve from what we have to what want. Not cold turkey.

I would think that the first step would be a set of guideline which establishes universal rates that are charged for coverage, set by the gov not the “insurers”. The same needs to be applied to the services provided. No million dollar fees for kidney transplants. People are getting too rich on that. The the shareholder need to bought out and the insurers and HMOs turned into accountants who process claims - same workers and managers, just remove the corporate owners, shareholder profits and so forth. Revert these profit engines to data processing operations. Who pays? Our tax dollars do. There are no insurance premiums per se. The government simply controls the costs of the total health care and pays for it from the people’s taxes. Simple. And take away the pork from the military in the process.

Don’t forget–Social Security is more than just a retirement program. You don’t have to retire to receive benefits. You can become disabled, or be the survivor or a dependant of someone who dies, or be a dependant of someone who becomes disabled.

DaVeep

pete you are absolutely correct - that is the case for massachusetts state employees, which includes employees in the state university system.

and imo, it’s a very bad thing.

I note that the sky did not fall after clinton2 made her remarks about social security which makes me wonder why the 2 candidates do not promote, and say “single payer”. Surely the majority of voters that prefer universal health care is greater than the number of voters supporting the insurance industry so who the heck are the candidate afraid of?

Edwards said that single payer was inevitable he just did not want to go after the insurance industry. WTF, why not.

good for clinton2 for saying what she did, at least it is a start.

Sorry Pete, I had originally intended to respond to your question at 4 and forgotten to remove it. So, federal civil service workers under the Civil Service Retirement System paid into medicare, but not social security. That system was superseded by the Federal Employees Retirement System in, I believe, the early 1980’s and social security is a part of that system.

We need to get past the notion of health insurance premiums.

Health costs are aggregated and then paid by the government. You don’t pay a thing directly, no wasteful bureaucracy to process premiums and so forth.

But the costs need to be controlled and the services need to monitored.

But, but, that’s, that’s……shhhh….

exactly. and that is one of the reasons i object so strongly to massachusetts removing state employees from these safety nets.

And if we mandated free health care for EVERYONE from birth, even more would be.

I don’t like the word “free”

it’s not free, it’s going to be paid by someone

that someone needs to be the employers of our society

also, this is not as expensive to them as it looks

when a company provides health care or health care is provided in general, the laborer is willing to get paid less since his expenses are less

it’s really not an expensive proposition for employers to pay for health care and in the long run costs them less not more’

but they can’t see that

socialism.

The problem is we need to “exit” the insurance companies from the health care industry without too much pain for them. BUT they have made out very well, so their party is coming to an end. Some sort of buy out is in the offing.

We need to nationalize other industries as well such as rail and air transport and energy and reign in corporate monopolism in the media

Let the market be free in terms of products. Lots of room on that playing field for capitalists.

So what? Not every aspect of socialism is evil, not even communism, nor even capitalism.

We need to have a sensible, equitable and just economic system. Perhaps it’s a hybrid. Let’s not get trapped in ideology or names.

No, of course it’s not free, and your point is correct, it should not be characterized that way.

But is is free in the sense that the individual doesn’t have to pay anything out of pocket for medical care.

a little elaboration on my position;

just a few years ago, ceo’s made between 20 and 40 times the mean salary of their workers

now that figure is in the hundreds, I believe around 400

you see, when expenses go down for a business they do NOT lower prices, prices for the most part are based on what you will pay not what they cost to produce

so the extra profit is given to the select few in the business

this is what they’ve done, they’ve externalized their expenses and use what’s left to pad their bank account

so forcing them to “pay their own bills” doesn’t raise the price of most items, it lowers the platinum parachute they’ve been able to aquire through their externalization of their bills

The problem is we need to “exit” the insurance companies from the health care industry without too much pain for them. BUT they have made out very well, so their party is coming to an end. Some sort of buy out is in the offing.

I agree but only for the worker bees and they can be employed by the new gummint single payer system. As for the money grabbing, greedy, evil ceo and investors… well ef them, they have scammed enough money from the sick and infirm already.

But is is free in the sense that the individual doesn’t have to pay anything out of pocket for medical care.

but we fall into their play book when we use the word, I want to use;

“force business to pay their own bills”

works much better then “free”

socialism.

it’s not really socialism, it would only be socialism if a person weren’t permitted to use services outside of teh government system

I agree completely.

My point was not that socialism was bad, or that even the socialist aspects of what you are proposing is bad. I am an old red diaper doper baby after all. My point was that socialism is a hard concept to sell in the Goodle USA.

You are correct. But that won’t stop the cons from calling it socialism.

But is is free in the sense that the individual doesn’t have to pay anything out of pocket for medical care.

In england, when I lived there we had a tax taken out every week for health and if we needed to go to a hosp or doc we just went. no worries, no thoughts of not having food on the table no stress to make us sicker. We were obligated to pay a minimal fee depending on the income for extensive medical work if we could not afford the “extra” (minimal) fee we did not get charged.

Maybe we should begin an effort to inoculate the term, “Socialize Medicine”.

The workers are nationalized as account managers for managing disbursements.

Socialized. (where’s the editor!?)

a word about “socialism”

to live in a society, there has to be socialism

you can’t have one without the other

the very concept of money is a socialism defined, along with it’s impimentation, it is project administered by the government, we are all forced into the systemm of “money”, we have to use the service whether we want to or not, it’s taxed even before you get any of it, this is tax is called the “prinm” and for every dolar that’s printed the government charges a principle on top of it, this is not called a tax but it’s a tax never the less

there is no program that demonstrates socialism more then money, it is not the antithesis of socialism, it is socialism defined

so is the police force, the fire department and clean air

so are the laws that allow business to keep property, the courts are socialism and the laws they follow are socialism, you pay for the service whether you like it or not, you are forced into the service by the government, you cannot opt out of the service

and I don’t mean “socialism” in some obscure sense, money, police, fire dept…all are absolutely socialism

there is no competition without socialism, big business buys small business or puts forces them to close so they can corner the market.

rather then charging competitive fees, they charge as much as possible…without socialism you can say good by to competition or “the fair market”, there is no such thing as “a free market”, there has to be regulation for the market to exist and that regulation is socialism

however people that bandi the word about as if it’s a perjurative only look at the programs they don’t want to pay into as socialism

the programs that they like, well, they must not be socialism to these people because socialism is such a bad word

if the only two people on this planet were you and your wife, the only way the two of you could exist together would be with socialism, you would both gain from each other’s productivity, and from each other’s strength you would obviate each other’s weakness

without socialism all there is is anarchy, there is no law, there are no courts, there is no money

the only property you would have is the property you can take at the point of a gun or the edge of your sword

anarchy

It’s a bad word, that’s for sure! Challenge the doubter though & often they cannot tell you what their main objection to it is, they just know that Faux News roundly damns it…

Well golly gee an actual conversaton about a real issue and not about how “Hopeful” we all should be about doing something about health care in this country. We the company I work for, are coming up on our renewal for choosing our plans for the coming year and it is mind boggeling, I am resonably intelligent and I want to tell you it is a clusterfuck when it come to choosing a plan and you really dont ever totally understand what you are agreeing to. The fine print is just beyond belief. Well it is probably to late unless people wake up from their dream phase of the Obama phenomenon. Voters need to get over their “AMerican Idol” mpment with the OBama thing and start paying attention to what is really being said. Enough with the swooning it ain’t gonna pay the bills.

The workers are nationalized as account managers for managing disbursements.

I can certainly suggest what could happen to the bosses that have turned down insurance claims but am not allowed to on FDL

It’s a bad word, that’s for sure! Challenge the doubter though & often they cannot tell you what their main objection to it is, they just know that Faux News roundly damns it…

see perris@54

The use the word single payer and universal coverage… same as “socialized” medicine.

The insurance industry and profit whores in the medical industry get it. THEY might scream SOCIALISM the sky is falling. But that’s a load of crap.

Absolutely but maybe just getting kids free checkups would be more palatable to those who think only rich kids should have care.

What Perris said.

We all used socialized “roads” every day, rich, poor, and the shrinking middle.

No one refuses to ride the roads because they are socialized.

off to work, see all later

Very good, perris, very, very good.

I am baffled at the fact that people have a hard time getting this.

Not really OT: If this hasn’t been mentioned yet, cinemax is showing the doc “The One Percent”. 27 yr old heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune talks to people across the country about the gap between 1% wealthy control & the rest of us.

without socialism all there is is anarchy, there is no law, there are no courts, there is no money the only property you would have is the property you can take at the point of a gun or the edge of your sword

So I take it we did not bring socialism to Iraq.

I think we’re all preaching to the choir about socialsm. There probably isn’t a single frequenter of FDL who doesn’t understand that we have had forms of socialism since Jamestown. We might differ in terms of the degree, from a mixed economy to an entirely state-owned one, but we all know that it is best way to deal with a lot of societal necessities.

Still, a large part of the electorate reacts to the word socialism the way they to to Obama’s middle name. Intelligence and thoughtfulness are not prerequisite to voting.

I realize this post is about Clinton, however I noticed Barack Hussein Obama is running health care commercials in Michigan stating that he wants to give Americans the exact same health care members of Congress have.

Does anyone have any idea the type of health care plan available to members of Congress? Somehow I am getting the feeling it is not cheap.

I have been reading and re-reading an excellent book that goes to the heart of this and related issues. It’s ‘The Invisible Heart’ by Nancy Folbre. The title is a take on ‘The Invisible Hand.’ I am not going to bore you with the details, but the underlying point is that there are certain kinds of services — care of children, sick people, old people, education — where the personal and emotional element is so strong (and necessary) that they cannot be commoditized the way you can commoditize boxes of breakfast cereal. She’s an excellent economist, for those that can read the deep theory between the lines. She provides a new and in my opinion better vocabulary for thinking about these issues. We have to get away from ’socialism’ versus ‘capitalism’ as the defining categories. They aren’t fruitful. This is just words, buit as we have seen in the current presidential campaign, words matter.

There is immense power in language and framing issues (e.g., socialized medicine). George Lakoff is the reigning champ on the progressive side around this issue.

And one of his consistent points is that if you use the old frame/term in your new argument, it just won’t fly. By and large, everyone (*g*) in this country has a knee-jerk reaction to “socialism.”

Edward Bernays (newphew of Sigmund Freud) recast “propaganda” in this country as “public relations.” And the rest, as they say, is history. Someone needs to dream up a well-thought-out new frame for this.

OMG!!11!! His middle name is Hussein??? He must be one of them terrist like fellers! I’ll never vote fer him now.

What he said.

OMG!!11!! His middle name is Hussein??? He must be one of them terrist like fellers! I’ll never vote fer him now.

I heard that mccain is a muslim

no, I really heard it

I used Clinton’s comments as a pretext for the larger topic and how the way we think about universal health care can benefit from a different frame. As barbara notes, we need a new frame that does not get hung up on forcing everyone to purchase insurance, when what we really want is everyone to get health care.

John Sydney McCain III

perris, thanks for your thoughts above - i emailed them to my son the stubborn.

I want to say why I support Clinton. I am disabled. I have medicare and social security disability. I wish to return to work. I cannot. Why? Because if I returned to work, I would lose the healthcare I receive through medicare that is keeping me alive. Social Security Disability is a trap. If you try to return to work, you lose all benefits. Thats why I desperately need us to get Universal Healthcare. I am freaked by Mr Obama’s plan. I will never forget when Reagan threw alot of people off of disability without concern for their healthcare and many died. That was only to cut money from the program without regard to the damage it did to people’s lives. When Obama talks about cutting funding because of lack of revenue as he did yesterday, who is gonna get thrown under the bus?

perris, thanks for your thoughts above - i emailed them to my son the stubborn.

I hope you corrected some typos

Alternatively, we could start referring to everything where our taxes are pooled to pay for a service/necessity as the “social defense force,” instead of I-35, the Interstate Highways would be Social Route-35, air traffic control could be social air travel safety system, etc.. (mostly kidding)

Makes me wonder why anyone would ever vote for someone like Bush, or any Republic. Of course, when elections become about keeping you safe from gay marriage, it’s less of a suprise. It’s tragic that the Democrats lack a voice to point out that the Republics really are not on the side of 99% of the people.

I agree that there are aspects of socialism in our society, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. The only way that socialism works is if everyone is doing it, that’s why Clinton has set up her health care program the way she has. I order to do that, you have to penalize people for not participating, that’s loss of freedom.

Socialism is a small step away from Communism. Both of those words should scare the hell out of everyone. If we go this route, you will not truly understand what you had, until it is gone, and then you can’t get it back (unless there is a revolt of some type).

The great thing about freedom is you can do anything that you want as long as it doesn’t impede the freedoms of others. Anyone in this country has the freedom to go out and get health care, whatever health care they want. You can choose between Free State sponsored health care, or get the best health care plan available to man. You may need to take steps in order to afford that type of health care, but again that is another freedom.

I think the big change was when Reagan was able to convince a lot of people that the only thing keeping them from wealth and fame was the fact that the government was taking their money and distributing it to the lazy undeserving. Unfortunately, it seems a part of human nature that they readily except a rationale which allows them to blame their failures on some culprit group.

When Obama talks about cutting funding because of lack of revenue as he did yesterday, who is gonna get thrown under the bus?

I have not heard this. Was he referring to Massachusetts? Do you have a link?

Obama needs to hear your concerns, glennmcgahee. Please, please tell him. I am guardian for my brother, who also lives on Medicare and SSI. To maintain benefits, he can only work half-time, earning less than $3/hour doing piece work. I truly believe that Obama has his ear to the ground, that he is listening, that he cares about you and my brother, if not specifically, then in the abstract. I know, I know. Abstract sucks. Send him your photo and tell him. Make it real for him.

Only if the have the “liberty” granted by a sufficient bank balance. I challenge you to go obtain some of that “Free State sponsored health care” in a southern State. You have the “freedom” to die untreated, that’s the freedom one has.

Kurt, I know how you feel. Living in a society is a loss of freedom. Your right to swing your fist now ends where my nose begin. Perfect freedom is found where the only limit is your ability to stay alive when somehting is trying to eat you.

So, agreement to form a nation, a social contract, is the first step toward communism, I guess. I guess the first refusal to use common means for common services is the first step toward anarchy.

The Canadian health care system gets a certain amount of attention when this topic comes up in the US. But we ought not to miss how the Canadian Conservative party seems to follow the US GOP when it comes to . . . well, you read it:

OTTAWA — Federal Liberals are asking the RCMP to launch a criminal probe into allegations that the Conservatives tried to buy the support of an Independent MP in the days leading up to a crucial vote in 2005.

In a letter to RCMP Commissioner William Elliott today, Liberals say a police probe is needed to examine “very serious allegations regarding potential criminal activity by representatives of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

According to a new book by Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk, two Conservative officials met with Chuck Cadman, then dying of cancer, and tried to lure him back to the Tory caucus with the promise of a $1 million life insurance policy just two days before the crucial May 19, 2005 vote.

“The Tories actually walked in with a list of offers written down on a piece of paper. Included in their proposal was a $1 million life insurance policy - no small carrot for a man with advanced cancer,” says the new book, titled Like A Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story.

Sounds like your basic K Street solution to me.

Insurance as bribery. Good grief.

We should absolutely think of health care in the same vein as social security. Replace “insurance” in health insurance with “security” and you get health security. Social security is a social insurance program. It protects society.

The primary benefit of social security is that everyone is a stakeholder in the program which helps prevent its destruction. The problem with Medicaid, or means tested programs, is that those not eligible are inclined to want to do away with as they do not benefit from it.

I’m inclined to think we need mandates in the form of a payroll deduction on everyone (like FICA). Obama’s notion that if we make it affordable enough then people will buy it doesn’t pan out. There are always groups (e.g. the young and esp. younger males who think they’re invincible) that will never bother to pay for something they don’t think they’ll ever need. However, for purposes of this election it is irrelevant. The first goal is to get the country to embrace universal coverage so that there is a “mandate”, so to speak, for politicians to proceed. The details will get hashed out in legislative session.

In my country, the UK, we have this system. It’s called the National Health Service. It is essentially “free at the point of use”. Practice that phrase, it is clear and avoids confusion. Of course the NHS isn’t free, we pay for it through a variety of taxes. We managed to set it up at a time when our country was on its knees as the result of a war (WWII).It isn’t perfect, and it can be bureaucratic.But overall it does work and, most of all, if you get ill you can concentrate on getting treated and getting better, not on whether you =can pay the hospital bill.

We do have to ration some of the more costly treatments but they can be got outside the systemm a course which we don’t forbid. We have priivate hospitals and many people have private care plans.Of course that option is only open to the wealthy but, hey, you’re used to that.Indeed most of the money from health care plans goes towards getting treated a bit sooner or having a higher standard of ancillary care, such as choice of food and a room rather than a bay with six people in.

And, sorry, Kurt @79 but yes, it does mean Socialism or rather Social Democracy, can be agood thing. Much of Europe takes that for granted and succeeds quite well thanks. You may have noticed, or more probably have not, that even right wing parties in much of Europe mess with the state healthcare at their peril. Even the Blessed Margaret Thatcher, representative of all that is right wing in Britain, had to back off an attempt to reduce state healthcare and say “The NHS is safe in our hands”.Her current successor, David Cameron, has his health spokesman promise to keep spending on the NHS at the same level as Labour if they get in next time.

Go on, be brave, try a bit of social democracy!

Good Morning Scarecrow and firedogs,

fyi - this is the same California Nurses Association behind California’s Prop 89 - Public Financing of Elections which was narrowly defeated in 06. It’s most vocal opponent ?? The Insurance Industry, yeah I know, I was shocked as well.

and I’m not so sure the oooh scary Socialism ! thingy is going to work much anymore, but then again there is that Gay, Illegal Muslim Immigrant Socialism danger

health security

Let the reframing begin!

/agrees

Go on, be brave, try a bit of social democracy!

How come our dems don’t reframe the “socialism” charge with “social democracy”? Time for pushback?

Okay, here’s today’s annoying computer question: if you are happily typing away on an article draft, and you bump the side of your laptop with your pinky as you are typing…it shocks the crap out of you…and then your screen goes altogether dark and won’t show anything, even with a reboot? Am I screwed entirely and going to have to get yet another laptop?

And if so, arrrrrrrgh… (On Mr. ReddHedd’s laptop at the moment…)

Can someone (everyone!) lead me to a good primer on universal and single payer health care? As so often happens to me here at FDL, I discover I need to dig deeper and make myself smarter. I’d make a lousy Republican.

My high tech advice: it’s group hug for Christy time.

As barbara notes, we need a new frame that does not get hung up on forcing everyone to purchase insurance, when what we really want is everyone to get health care.

Like wanting medical care, not health scam?

(((((Christy)))))

Is it still under warranty?

Physicians for a National Health Plan is a great place to start.