Dennis Kucinich is far ahead in his bid to win re-nomination to his Congressional seat in Cleveland.
He is currently getting 53% in a five-way race, with his nearest opponent getting 31%. Kucinich will have a Republican opponent, but he has not received less than 60% in the general election in the past decade.
Dennis, my Man! I feel so relieved!
When I start to despair and feel cynical and faint of heart I think of you! Keep on speaking the truth and speaking out and calling us to the struggle and to our higher selves.
Kucinich? Well, good for him! I didn’t agree with most things he stood for but at least he was REAL. Similar to Ron Paul, he seemed to be honest and sincere and willing to stand up for what he believed in.
Kucicich is the only profoundly systematic thinker holding national office in American politics today.
I invite doubters to put knee-jerk ideological reflexes aside and go to his website, reviewing his position papers on a wide range of subjects.
This is no pie in the sky socialist, but a diagnostician and structural analyst of the first order, who among other things targets corporate fascism with a finely honed scalpel.
At the heart of his health care, proposal, for example, is using the given risk pool and getting rid of private insurance altogether.
His impeachment proposal is aimed at accountability.
His demand for electoral reform and a paper trail singularly recognizes the fact that, whoever is stealing elections, lack of a paper trail makes the theft unresolvable.
Paul mouths a kindergarten version of many key Libertarian principles, and I respect his antiwar stance, but his analysis of the present structure and how he would institute reforms from the top is naive.
If anything is to survive, serious Libertarians and Progressives must make a common cause, theoretically and practically. They are both children of the Enlightenment and have the US Constitution in common, for example.
The economic differences look dramatic, but they are mostly incidental with the framework of many new directions.
Moreover there is no real disagreement about ultimate goals.
True, but sadly the MAIN reason why he or someone like him doesn’t stand a chance in hell of ever becoming the President of the former USofA(RIP).
That is the flaw in your thinking–becoming “president”, as the Corporate Fascists know, is to become a figurehead, if a very powerful figurehead when they are inclined to approve the Federal King’s unrestricted exercise of executive power.
Looking for a solution in a Federal Kingship, which will reform or restructure from the top, is also part of the problem, just as the second Roosevelt was part of the problem.
Unlike Paul, Kucinich, and most of his supporters, never seem to have thought he had a chance.
What he did think was that running would get his ideas and analysis exposure.
As it turns out, the Fascists would not allow even that in the now increasingly controlled conventional media.
That is a sign that they think even public dissemination of this way of thinking is dangerous.
And they are right.
And that is actually a positive sign.
Kucinich is now more important than he ever would have been continuing a losing candidacy.
I would say similar things in regard to Paul, some of whose Libertarian ideas are centrally important, but he strikes me as naive on that very point.
The new politics to be successful must be from the ground up.
The Neo-Cons and the Born Again Fascists and the Corporate Fascists and warmongers are controlling the whole foreign policy of the United States, and the actual implementation of civil rights and the Constitution, with about fifteen percent of the population behind them, the various segments benighted and actually at odds with one another, but highly organized and easily manipulated under the banners of “patriotism”, and “anti-Abortion”, and “Family Values”, and so forth.
I agree with you on most of your points. However, I think you are missing one key factor. The main reason Ron Paul attracted so many devoted followers was due to the fact that they believed he could win. Without that belief I feel most would never have tried to actually campaign and bring in new members thus spreading his message.
Dennis Kucinich was by far the best Dem. But, his followers knowing he didn’t stand a chance (correctly so) didn’t campaing nearly as hard and thus his message didn’t reach that many new people.
Obviously it was naive for people to think Ron Paul had a chance (Ron Paul didn’t think so either). The MSM alone would make sure that didn’t happen. If you honestly look at the outcome of both campaigns I think you will realize that Ron Paul’s campaign has been more effective at spreading the message and bringing in new members. Where it goes from here I have no idea. But I hope he continues to wake people up as to the facts of our current mess.
Peace!
Dr. Paul is not niaveve. He is a brave and honest man who moves many of us to action. I agree with the rest of what you said.
Mike Gravel is cool too.
I so agree with Eugene Costa, about Dennis Kucinich.
That’s great news for folks in Ohio but sad news for RI. I wanted to trade my two Congressmen for Dennis, and I was willing to throw in the other 433 members of Congress to get Kucinich to RI as he is worth more than the entire bunch.
One thing that really irked me in the mainstream press article about the Kucinich primary were complaints that the guy wasn’t brining home enough pork to his district because of spending too much time on national issues (including running for president).
(1) While you can make a Prisoner’s Dilemma argument that everyone else tries to get pork, therefore it’s a reps responsibility to get it for his district unless there’s a general agreement not to, not obtaining as much pork is hardly a negative given that the whole pork thing is just stupid.
(2) The guy might be elected by his local voters, but like everyone else in Congress, his votes affect the rest of us.
I wrote this last weekend for the LARGEST MINORTY but it seems relevent here as well. the idea was to spur a debate between Progressives and Libertarians over Health Care. I’m not %100 sure how I would go on the issue.
I truly don’t understand how Socialists/Liberal/Progressive did not get firmly behind Dennis Kucinich. I get it that he isn’t very Presidential looking but who cares. His ideas seem to be the most consistent.
I supported Bill Clinton during his first election based on one issue alone, health care. Living in Northern Michigan which has one of the worst economies in the nation health care was of paramount importance. Mainly I felt it was an economic calamity forcing individuals and businesses to pay the ridiculous premiums. Businesses simply couldn’t afford it and were laying people off left and right. I was layed off from two high paying jobs with health care. One was a hospital that closed and the other a hardboard factory. Both went under due to the cost of health care.
The current proposals by Hillary and Obama are a disaster in the making. Further mandating insurance will only allow the insurance companies to take advantage. This will destroy more and more businesses as well as the wealth of individuals and the state. many people who have enough money for the usual doctor visits and occasional emergencies will be forced to either spend money they don’t have for increasingly high premiums or sign up for state health care further eroding the states ability to finance education and other programs such as WIC and Food Stamps. I do not want any type of aid from the state as I get by fine without it. However, I would be left with little choice.
Although there is no obvious solution it is apparent that either the Government needs to get out of health care all together or take it over and get the insurance companies out. A true Socialized health care system would completely eliminate Insurance. This would have the advantage of saving billions that are wasted on the middle man. However, knowing how poorly the government is at doing anything I don’t think it’s the best way to go (but it would be better than being pinched by both sides).
The Ron Paul solution is to get the Government out leave people with the choice of buying insurance. encourage competition and provide tax credits that would offset the cost of insurance for those who can’t afford it. Again this would be a better solution than the disaster of forced insurance that would bankrupt both the people and the State while lining the coffers of the insurance industry who would then have a mandated monopoly.
Hillary and Obama are completely off track and it would be the worst of both worlds. You will be left being pinched from both sides the government on one side and the Insurance industry on the other. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both offer viable solutions either of which is far superior to simply telling people they must get insurance. Either the insurance companies or the government must go. We can’t afford to have both.
Go Ron and Dennis!
‘The current proposals by Hillary and Obama are a disaster in the making….”
Indeed.
And getting out, over the short run, as the Libertarians and Paulists advise, is also a disaster.
The status quo then? Like Social Security, another disaster.
There are approaches that I have not seen anyone discuss in the context of Kucinich’s analysis, which hinges on the essence of the risk pool and the real meaning of “insurance”, but just reducing them to a slogan, without working them out from the ground up will get nowhere.
Just as a teaser, for example, no one that I have seen has put Veterans’ health care benefits on the table in the larger context. Just from the Iraq War alone that looks to amount to a trillion dollars over the next fifteen or twenty years.
The solution of the Bush administration is now to discourage Veterans to claim benefits.
The ideal Corporate Fascist solution would be, of course, for the Veterans simply to die off as quickly as possible, and to go with private military contractors, who get no such medical or death benefits, except, ironically, from public funds.
Which is an interesting meld of the Corporate Welfare and Warfare state.
Actually even that is a sign of elite incompetence–for using vast numbers of private military contractors pivots on having a publicly financed military train them cheap, and on then being able to hire them away at increased wages, but with non-existent benefits.
Another aspect of Kucinich’s structuralism is his realization that education is also part of the necessary mix.
Some very intersting reading on Dennis Kucinich’s positions on health care can be found at
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Health_Care.htm
There are a ton of problems with his program. The first is the 7.7% tax on employers. How long before it’s 17.7% or even higher. This would again be terrible for an already weak economy. More and more companies will be laying off workers or only hiring part timers. this hurts both workers and employers.
One of the other problems is the cap on what this program will pay to hospitals. One of the reasons that the hospital I worked at tanked was that it was primarilly relying on medicade and medicare payments that did not cover the Hospitals actual cost. We now have no emergency room in our town and must drive over 45 miles to the nearest one. His program would put even more hospitals out of business (along with the workers) .
He also seems to have little understanding of the Constitution he proposed this.
KUCINICH: I’ve introduced a bill which states that health care is a right, not a privilege, and it’s to get the profit out of health care, and here’s a copy of it. It’s H.R. 676. Congress right now has in front of it a plan that would cover all medically necessary health services, all individuals.
There is simply no way around the fact that his proposal is Socialised health care, which would be forced on me whether I like it or not.
As for your other comments, How would Ron Paul’s proposal be a disaster?
I am a vet also and I don’t choose to take money from the people for something I can pay for myself. Not because Bush or anyone else has encouraged me not to. However, I do agree that that is part of the Fascist adgenda.
I don’t want more nanny state control but many people do. I think that is the biggest part of the whole debate. Right now we have the worst possible case. Nanny state and Corporate fascism. Something needs to change, but what and how?
In fact, most Americans, even in the business, don’t understand how the private insurance companies mask their profits, which are enormous, but which often appear every year as accounting losses.
In fact, all other things being equal, and without the interference of the Federal Government, as well as with the right crafting, it might actually be possible for a state or a municipality to implement Kucinich’s risk pool idea.
That would require an interesting mix of Libertarian and Socialist or Progressive initiatives even to get started.
By the way, neither Libertarian or Socialist, nor even Anarchist or Communist, as terms have for me the political charge they have for the followers of the Fascists of the duopoly, who are Theo-Fascists and Neo-Fascists respectively.
And I agree with you that right now we have the worst of both worlds, which I sometimes describe as National Socialism without the Socialism.
Another problem with the Paulists is that implementing one or two Libertarian ideas, as in Health Care, without institutiong the whole pattern, will very likely do nothing but exacerbate the present Corporate Fascism.
I have deep Libertarian beliefs in free enterprise, etc., but I am also a volunteer paramedic on the county rescue squad in my very rural West Virginia. Here is how the system works – there are few doctors anywhere who take Medicaid patients and fewer still who will let anyone past the front office if they have no insurance of any kindor if they have stiffed the doctor before (or many times). These people go to hospital emergency rooms for everything – from heart attacks to ankle sprains. When they wear out their welcome at the local hospitals it is hard for them to get treatment even at the ER, so then they call 9-1-1 and hype up their complaint and so we transport them to the ER. Because we take them right into the ER, it bypasses all of the “hassle” of the Admitting procedure and any questions about old, unpaid bills. The key words someone needs to say to 9-1-1 are things like “patient is presently unresponsive or has an altered level of consciouness” or patient has “sub-sternal chest pain”, or patient is in great pain. With these phrases, we will rush you to the hospital and you will receive immediate attention. It all adds up to an unpaid $2,000 bill. Wouldn’t it make more sense for the system to pay the doctor $50?
Richard Vajs, I don’t know about your area in West Virginia, but here in New York City ( and other large cities) many hospital emergency rooms are overcrowded with illegal immigrants. Our tax dollars have to go to treat these people and to hire translators so the doctors know what is wrong with them.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think anyone who is seriously ill, regardless of immigration status, should recieve prompt medical care–that is the humane and decent thing to do. However, in order to put a stop to this we need to fully secure our borders once and for all and deport many of the illegal aliens, especially the ones that have committed crimes while here. Many say that America can’t be the world’s policeman. Well, we certainly can’t be the world’s emergency room either!
Mr. Costa,
You use the terms “corporate fascist” and “born again (ie Christian) fascist.” But I wonder, are you just as willing to use the term, Islamo Fascist?
You are not worth responding to, but for others, the answer is no. The essence of Fascism is the state’s relation to corporations, and Islam has nothing to do with that definition, but Christianity, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, does. In any case, my term is “Theo-fascism”, which also includes Franco.
“Islamo-Fascism” makes about as much sense as “Hebreo-Fascism”, which is no sense at all.
Like the rest of the Zionists and Neo-cons you use “Fascist” in a non-economic and statist sense to try to connect the Muslims to Hitler.
Bush is the Corporate Fascist as are most of the Democrats.
“Christo-Fascism” is old hat.
Eugene,
Tim R obessission is Islam!No matter what the subject is about.
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) is a pervasive characterological disturbance involving one’s generalized style and beliefs in the way one relates to themselves and the world. Persons with OCPD are typically deeply entrenched in their dysfunctional beliefs and genuinely see their way of functioning as the “correct” way. Their overall style of relating to the world around them is processed through their own strict standards. While generally their daily experience is such that “all is not well,” they tend to be deeply committed to their own beliefs and patterns. The depth of ones belief that “my way is the correct way” makes them resistant to accepting the premise that it is in their best interest to let go of “truth owning.” Yet letting go of truth is paramount in their recovery. For the purposes of this article “truth” is defined as a person’s rigidly held belief which s/he feels is universally applicable. Most often, blame for ones internal strife, is placed on external circumstances or the environment
http://www.ocdonline.com/articlephillipson6.php
Thank you Dr. Salem S for that erudite explication of my obsessive compulsive disorder concerning Islam. Tell me Doctor, when I worry about the destruction that fossil fuels and global warming are doing to planet earth is that a disorder too? When I worry about and am angered that some people are locked up for years at a time on petty drug charges, is that a disorder too? When I worry about the plight of people in Darfur, is that too an obsessive disorder? Or is it only a “disorder” when my thoughts happen to focus on the link between Islam and violence or something you happen to disagree with?
There is one failsafe litmus test for the integrity of any politician in America, a way to know if the said politician is principled or an ethical slut. See if the politician will dare disobey the Zionist lobby or will this politician compete to increase the size of the welfare check to Israel (already one quarter of US foreign aid to .01% of the world’s population). Will the politician declare allegiance to Israel, launch the campaign there, get AIPAC’s approval and so on. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul form the complete list of Congressmen who are willing to disobey AIPAC. Whatever else they stand for, they are the only two (to the best of my knowlege) with integrity in the US Congress. Are there any others?
That is indeed the complete list, and I’m very proud that I gave very generously to Kucinich — and did not give a dime to anybody else.
The key to Kucinich’s idea is risk pool–simply declaring every citizen a member of the health “insurance” risk pool.
Moreover there are several ways that this might be worked out in a Libertarian fashion.
Approached in that fashion it might even make money. But you have to understand how insurance works in detail, as opposed to the way private insurance works, which is only the idea of insurance marketed as a private product.
No one will ban private insurance companies from providing health care but it will be otiose.
I don’t want to go into more detail than that.
When you have universal health insurance of the best quality there is no need for Veterans’ health care. Vets have special needs but as part of the pool that will not prejudice the pool.
In any pool, collective or privately defined, you are not buying health care, you are purchasing protection against the risk of needing it.
In a universal citizen pool, the charges would be miniscule for exactly that reason–at any one time and for the vast majority of people in the pool the risk is not translated into a need for treatment.
At any rate the privately owned pools right now throw people at high risk out, for that very reason.
The private insurance companies are hysterical over Kucinich’s basic idea, which is at the heart of the insurance concept.
I agree that government mandated private health insurance is both unconsitutional and a disaster. Obama’s and Clinton;s proposals are bad, Edwards’ was even worse.
Part of Veteran’s health care is still private insurance by the way.
This is just another aspect of corporate welfare.
Libertarian programs might work over a long time, but it would take at least a generation, and in the meantime the chaos would be catastrophic and across the board as long as the pattern of private insurance holds. Ideally, what would be most economically sound privately, the moment consumers understand “insurance”, would approach what Kucinish is coming at from another direction.
The other part that Paul in his naivety does not understand is that the Libertarian approach will not work without across the board state decertification of physicians, hospitals, everything.
As long as you have state certification, the medical establishments are monopolistic guilds, with, as now, more and more informal but in effect legal privileges and immunities, and with the “care” and “treatment” limited by conventional theory and profit (thus the prescription drug fiasco).
The trouble with this is few people know the history of western medicine in detail enough to follow what I am talking about, and I don’t have the time or inclination to go into it here.
The original idea of insurance in modern times was Italian and involved no premiums or privately owned pool was but simply shared risk mechanically distributed.
In fact, it is government regulation, as the insurance companies know only too well, that keeps private insurance viable by making competition by new groups with different concepts impossible.
The same things holds with State Insurance and “Self-insuring” in casualty and property insurance, such as automobile, as well.
But all this is just srcatching the surface.
Your correct in that Insurance is simple risk sharing. Some of the other modern insurance was also formed in the London coffee houses around the warfs. Loyds of London for one. It started as the pooling of money to protect investment but quickly turned into speculation. What we have now is speculation for profit, and who even knows how much profit? (no one because there is no oversite)
One of the key examples is malpratice. People are constantly screaming for caps on lawsuits. but if they had any idea how little of the premiums actually go into the payoffs they would be outraged. I have read that it’s actually less than 5%. The rest is profit, lawyers, overhead, etc.
I’m sure that Ron Paul does know that regulations keeps insuranse companies in business. One good book (if dated) for people that are interested is THE INVISIBLE BANKERS by Andrew Tobias.
You stated “The other part that Paul in his naivety does not understand is that the Libertarian approach will not work without across the board state decertification of physicians, hospitals, everything” As a Doctor I don’t believe Ron Paul is naive on this issue either. Again getting Government out is the answer. The Government’s need to appear as the savior is part of the reason for the huge increases in health care we have seen in the last 50 years.
I was amazed how much knowledge was held by the RN’s that I worked with. However, all the government BS stops them from practicing any type of medicine. A good RN spends more time with a patient and has as much as or more knowledge than the non specialized doctor.
I know I won’t get this even close but I’ll try. In WAR AND PEACE Tolstoy states something like this. Doctors prescribe drugs of which they know little, for ailements of which they know less to patients of which they know nothing. Unfortunately things haven’t changed all that much.
We still blindly assume that doctors know what they are doing. Mainly because they have a peice of paper that they payed big bucks for.
We are on the same page.
I would add good mid-wives to what you say about RN’s.
In fact, obstetrics for the last century in the US was mostly a fraud, and in many instances a dangerous and fatal one.
And look where the US stands in infant mortality rates.
Paul is a gynecologist, which is not promising. The last surgical clitoridectomy in the United States , in order to curb what was called “excessive female masturbation” was, believe or not, 1958.
Nor surely does either one of us want even to begin on the psychiatrists.
Forced Federally-regulated Health Insurance and Health Care, in the hands of private insurers, with the situation as it is now, is even worse a disaster in the making than the status quo, which is also a disaster.
Response to Brad Smith who wrote:”There is simply no way around the fact that his proposal is Socialised health care, which would be forced on me whether I like it or not!”
This is not Socialized Health Care but Socialized Health Insurance like there is a socialized Police Forec and/or Fire fighters etc.,
Socialized Medecine care is a system of health care in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the US Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. And the Veterans and US military hospitals are also supported this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain.
A National Health care (Single-payer) has nothing to do with Socialized Medecine a term that is misunderstood and/or mischaracterized by most people here as a result of constant brainwashing by the for profit private insurance Companies which of course oppose the single-payer not for profit insurance system .
With a single-Payer you go to any doctor/hospital of your choice. In France for exemple you pay directly your Doctor and the National Health Insurance reimburse you according to the provision of that insurance with sometimes some restrictions like my PPO for example here pays only 12 visits per year for Acunpuncture and/or for chiropractic treatments etc and/or any other restrictions that may apply… The quest for profits plus the enormous paperwork bureaucracy with the thousand of differents insurance is what drive the cost here.
Those who cannot understand the difference have their brain stuck in first gear! Sorry! Do not mean to be rude!
Brad if you do not want to be forced to buy into that system! Fine! But if you are sick do not ask us (the taxpayers) to pay your hospital bills when you won’t be able to afford it! And I bet you anything you will! That’s called being a Republican!
You are completely on point.
There are also several ways in which such a citizen “Health Care” risk pool might be implemented without the direct intervention or supervision of the Federal government.
Another idea I have been toying with is whether such a system might be disconnected not only from Federal oversight and appropriations (who wants another Ponzi scheme like Social Security?) but from the monetary system, in whole or in part.
Eugene Costa. I agree that it could work but not with government involvment. In fact I was thinking about posting something very similar. If we could get a risk pool or co-op that was run on a not for profit basis with the participants (not government) regulating and ensuring transparency it might just work. Think of millions of people pooling their resources to offset risk without a middle man or the government skimming off money. It would be true insurance of the people by the people and for the people. I would have no idea how to get it started but man wouldn’t that be great!
Anyone with ideas?
Peace!
What would be necessary here is for both the Federal Government and the States to get out of defining and regulating “insurance”, any kind of insurance, so that concepts other than private insurance as a product can be implemented.
“State Insurance Boards”, just as so many Federal Regulatory bodies, were long ago recognized by the private insurers as a means to enforce their monopolies, and are the essence of Corporate Welfare and Fascism.
Mandatory state automobile insurance is one of the best examples.
I have some expertise in this going back to the ’60s, when I worked for a time in insurance. This was later expanded by a detailed historical approach reaching back to the ancient world.
There is no doubt in my mind that many of the calls for “reform” of such items as “uninsured drivers”, played up in the media, if not originated by the auto insurance companies themselves, were certainly encouraged by them.
Many of these calls for reform resulted in different items of state-mandated insurance by private insurers.
I also worked for short times with various entities that were “self-insured”. The state requirements for self-insurance, as one would expect, were far beyond what any but the largest and most profitable firms or individuals could ever hope to afford.
Thanks for the clarification, I don’t think your rude at all. thats the point of blogs you get to put your point of view out for everyone to see. My whole point in writing is to get people thinking.
My first point was that I don’t want your help. But single pay is still forcing me to pay for you. I am both an employee and an employer. Your solution is forcing me to pay for you. No matter which way you wish to word it. By the way I am NOT a republican.
This is from Dennis Kucinich
Q: What makes your single-payer health care proposal different than other candidates’ universal health insurance?
A: Many of the other candidates say they want to make sure all Americans have health insurance. I am not selling insurance. I want to create a system which makes it possible for all Americans to have health care. This means we must move from a for-profit health care system which is controlled by insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, to a not-for-profit system. This is the essence of my proposal for Universal Health care, Medicare for All. A single payer system, it is embodied in legislation, HR 676. This fundamental change in our health care system will provide all Americans with access to quality health care. Whether you are working or not, you will be covered. The scope of coverage will include all medically necessary procedures, dental health care, mental health care, vision care, long term care and a prescription drug benefit.
Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 4, 2003
Dennis Kucinich himself calls it health care not health insurance. I think at this point we are just talking about words instead of ideas. I agree that a sigle pay system may be best for you as you would benifit from me and my tax dollars. If you could find a way to support this system without stealing from me I would be all for it. Furthermore I would not expect to get anything out of it as I have not payed in.
I would even consider becoming part of the sigle pay system if I was convinced that it was being run in a responsible way that gave me the most bang for by buck. My main problem is that I do not trust government to run ANYTHING I have been around long enough to know they have an amazing ability to screw anything up. What starts as good and noble quickly becomes corrupted and useless. That is one of the things people should think of before they start down a road to socialized whatever.
It’s a very common sales technique called lowballing. You go in to buy a product at one price and before long you are paying twice as much and sitting there wondering how in the hell it happened. This is the problem with all beuorocracy they are quickly corrupted hiring more and more useless people with more and more useless regulations utill they are worse than the people they are saving you from. It’s a self perpetuating system where no unit wants to spend less as they fear they are being cut off. I could go on and on and on and on. But if you don’t get it you don’t get it. Government likes to spend, not save. The more they have the more they want it’s just the way it is.
I don’t know how old you are or how much experience you have had in life. But I have been around the block a time or two. I am a two time combat vet. I have worked for corporations, hospitals and hold degrees in business and psychology. I have been married for 19 years with 3 almost grown children. I first became involved in politics in the 1980’s. All this has led me to one conclusion, beware of wolves is sheep’s clothing. More government is more government no matter how you put it. The only politicians I vote for advocate less government not more.
Thanks for the comments you made some interesting points. Peace!
BRAD: you are already paying members of Congress with you tax dollars like mine with the socialized health Insurance they get from us taxpayers and you and I are not getting it.
You do not trust the governement handling a Single payer. The governement works very well ..it depends for whom.. It works very well for the Defense Contractors, The Drugs industries etc.. etc you know what I mean!The IRS collect your money and refund what’s due to you! Have they ever missed getting you your refund> The Seniors love their Medicare health plan..unfortunately it has been taken over gradullay by the for profit system!
The single payer run by the governement and/or any other agency set up for exemple like a Public Utility company Entity will collect the premium and pay out the medical claims and set the limit of health care benefit!No different that My blue Cross PPO except it will be not for profit That’s all!
Someone has to pay for it..either thru our tax dollars (meaning you will be paying with higher tax for it regardless if you want it or not…or thru a payroll tax system (like Fica Emplyoyee+employer Share)… and you will still be paying for it! What’s the difference! Thru income tax or Payroll tax!
You do not want to pay! Again fine! Then you have to accept that a hospital should have the right NOT to treat you if you do not have the money and/or you do not want to pay a payroll tax for that insurance.
I am against a free health care system(Paid thru income taxes) because you have to make people contribute directly thru premium (or Payroll Tax) with a co=pay to make people more responsible ..otherwiise it is like at a wedding. If the drink are free you consume more than if you had to pay for them.
You are not a Republican but you sure talk like one.. where they have no problem with socializing the costs (or risks) with taxpayers money but they want the profits to be privatized.
You have to force everybody to pay into it , because we know the free loaders are going to want to be treated and not pay for it, if we let them decide if they want or not participate with the costs. You knw what the answer wiil be!
Gearges Fair I really don’t know what you are trying to say. but it must be mutual because you don’t seem to have understood a thing I was saying either. I will make my point as simple as possible.
I don’t want to pay taxes for ANYONE! Not congress not you not the poor not the rich not the smart or the stupid or the lame or the purple pink green or grey.
When the government forces me to pay for someone else it is theft. Or more correctly extortion. If I don’t pay they will use force or the threat of force to make me.
I agree that a not for profit single pay system could work but it should not be forced on anyone at the point of a gun, and that is what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes.
Of course hospitals should be allowed to accept only the patients that can pay. Otherwise they go bankrupt like the one I worked for. They were mainly taking medicaid and medicare which was underpaying. they should have been allowed to kick them out too.
Yes the insurance companies are a scam. However, they are a scam made possible by the goverment through a host of regulations.
Less Government = More Liberty.
Peace!
Brad I understood very well what you were saying …but that’s not how the real world work! I do not mind paying taxes when it goes to a worthy project or cause. I am paying property taxes for public school even though I do not have children….like I would not mind paying your health care (through taxes or payroll taxex) if you really are in need! It can work both way! I would not mind paying more than you through a payroll tax for health care if I make more money than you…that’s called solidatity or better “Patriotism”….
The reality is that hospitals will have to take care of you even if you cannot pay if you get an infectious disease for example than can spread all over if not treated etc and in a matter of life and death…someone has to pay!..
“A: Many of the other candidates say they want to make sure all Americans have health insurance. I am not selling insurance. I want to create a system which makes it possible for all Americans to have health care. This means we must move from a for-profit health care system which is controlled by insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, to a not-for-profit system. This is the essence of my proposal for Universal Health care, Medicare for All. A single payer system, it is embodied in legislation, HR 676.”
I think this is where the problem is, Brad Smith, you are not getting the concept, perhaps because you don’t wish to–Kucinich is talking about insurance, not health care.
And risk pool is the heart of the concept.
Also it would not be “taxes”–anyone’s taxes, and I think it might be done without Federal supervision or intervention, beyond seeding the effort perhaps.
A system like this would make both Veterans’ Health Benefits and Corporate and Employer Benefits unnecessary.
How to go about it constitutionally is an issue, and it has to be voluntary. I am not wed to Kucinich’s specific plan, rather than to his concept, but his basic concept is qualitatively different from any other approach, whether of Republicans or Democrats.
Incidentally both Bismarck and the West Germans after World War II had some concept of how to justify and implement such a system.
I am a little bit leery of that system, which some call “intervention capitalism”, because the Germans, like the Italians, both of whom were fragmented as state nationalities for so long, have a much different apprehension of the “state” and its bureaucracies from that of, say, Americans or Mexicans or Canadians.
Part of it may also be cultural and religious. I had a long discussion with an American academic, born a German citizen, and still closely connected with Germany, whose family have received various German payments, in the way of pensions and such, some of them reaching back to Bismarck in origin.
One of the the things that we agreed upon was the complete difference in attitude of both the German bureaucrats and the populace toward such payments and their recipients. Here they would be considered “entitlements” or “welfare” and administered to a population that is somehow considered economically or financially incompetent in some way, and thus the recipients of forced charity or generosity.
The Germans on the other hand deliver these payments as (1)something that is inherent in citizenship, (2) owed and paid as a matter of trust and contract, whatever changes in such citizenship, and (2) at root rationally planned to increase the efficiency of the economy.
At any rate, there is no way around the conclusion that private insurance, mandated by the Federal government or the states, and also benefits financed by the Federal government (as with Veterans’ benefits in part now) through private insurers, is corporate welfare, which everyone is forced to pay for now.
It is curious that part of the Libertarian program is, quite rightly, the decriminalization of many now illegal drugs, which would in effect take the profit out of them.
And yet, when Kucinich makes a proposal to take the profit out of Health Insurance, which does nothing but line the pockets of the Corporate Welfare insurers, there is so much complaint about X being forced to pay for Y, itself very doubtfully grounded.
There is an old topos, common in many cultures, about the rich man who only enjoys his food with a starving man at his table.
Could this also be part of the way some look at Health Care, to wit, that part of the real efficacy of being able to afford medical care is the sick and untreated fellow standing at the end of the bed.
corr: “(3) at root…”. Pardon this and any other typos.
I may very well be confused, and I am trying to get it. but I don’t see how the program cannot pay for itself. This is from Dennis Kucinish.
7.7% tax to pay for full coverage
The pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies control our health care system. I’ve introduced legislation that provides for a totally new change; that has health care for people, not for profit. It’s called Medicare For All. It’s a single-payer program. And it’s financed by a 7.7% tax paid by employers. And it covers everything. It covers all medically necessary procedures and a wide range of benefits.
Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003
It does not matter if you pay or your employer pays. It still comes out of your earnings. It would also be forced on me and my employees. It would still be run by the government which is notorious for incompetence. I don’t think 7.7% would ever come close to paying for all forms of health care it would need to be much higher.
Ps. I was commenting on Gearges Fair’s comment. I put my latest comment for you under your comment. Thanks again for the comments and clarifications.
Actually I agree with the underlying point–given my druthers, I would get both employers and employees out of all insurance benefits too, and make them strictly individual and voluntary.
That probably cannot be done consitutionally, however, since employment is voluntary.
I say here only that what the employers offer, required or gratuitious, and also including Labor unions, in the way of “Health Benefits” is mostly another version of the same old corporate frauds, in which the private insurers, and after them the employers and union leadership, are the main beneficiaries, not the insured.
I have a rather drawn out set of reasons why, Libertarian in thrust, but it is in concept that much different from what Kucinich is getting at, which seems closer to the present German system.
corr: “not that much different”
It seems we have similar ideas with differing points on implemantation. I think we both get that we live under an increasingly fascist system. In that coporations have highjacked the government for the benifit of corporations. It is no longer of the people by the people for the people but of the corporation by the corporation for the corporation. Dennis Kucinich is very strong on anti-corporatism which is great. Ron Paul is strong on anti-government which is great. The problem is that without getting rid of both how will it get any better?
I know it’s a differnt topic but I just couldn’t help myself.
Of course there a about a million definitions of Fascism. but for me it’s easy enough to understand (if not define) the current fascism we live under.
Corporations use undue influence to influence our government who uses nationalism and religion to wage wars both internal and external for the benifit of the cororations without regard for the people.
In other words, wave the flag bring up God and the sheep will follow. The corporations get rich the people die and who cares as long as it’s all done in the name of God and Country?
Indeed, we seem to be on the same page. Much of my thinking, partly by training perhaps, is conditional and contingent, and that may apply to what you see as differences in regard to “implementation”.
One last rant.
What is wrong with the US? The Dems had a chance to actually vote in a great man and they blew it, same for the Republicans. What is wrong with us, are we stupid or just that easily led?
The easier question is: what is not wrong with the United States, which will take a lot less time to delineate.
Systematic incompetence is part of the problem. But it cannot be grasped in a few sentences.
As a young academic I spent many long years in the Late Roman Empire, among other places, and I remember during those years one of the questions that kept recurring–how could a whole society somehow miss a simple and obvious solution to this or that problem, and opt for the worst choice in every gambit?
I am no longer that young, and by choice no longer an academic, and I will not say I have a clear answer yet, but I suspect I am considerably closer to it, I think, than I was then.
Part of the answer hinges on accountability, not as punishment or revenge, but simply as a matter of necessary social and economic feedback.
Brad the governement of any Country elected or not REFLECTS the people of that country and what thery or we actually are! A SELFISH PEOPLE IT"S ALWAYS ABOUT WHAT"S GOOD FOR THE " ME" INSTEAD OF THE "WE"! WE ONLY CARE ABOUT OURSELVES WITH THE NARROW MINDED VIEW LIKE " I HAVE MY HEALTH INSURANCE" WHO CARE ABOUT THE OTHERS UNTIL CATASTROPHY STRIKE WHERE WE LOSE OUR COVERAGE OR GO BANKRUPT UNDER PILES OF MEDICAL BILLS>>>> THEN WE WONDER HOW COME NOBODY DID ANYTHING ABOUT HEALTH INSURANCE!
STUPID: YES. LIKE THIS COMMENT FROM A LADY FROM OHIO>> SHE WAS NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR KUCINICH BECAUSE SHE WAS GETTING TIRED OF THE "JOKES ABOUT HIM ON THE LATE NIGHT SHOW!
THAT WAS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO HER THAN THE ISSUES SHE PROBABLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND OR GRAB.
THE RISE OF OBAMA HAS MORE TO DO BECAUSE HE IS CHARISMATIC THAN ANYTHING ELSE>>CERTAINLY THIS NOT ABOT CHANGE>>WHAT CHANGES???> HE SPEAKS VERY WELL BUT IN CIRCLE OFFERING NO SUBSTANCE ABOUT WHAT CHANGES HE IS GOING TO BRING>>> THAT"S WHAT ATTRACT PEOPLE!
WE DESEVE THE GOVERNEMENT WE GET! IT"S A REFLECTION OF US!