Democracy Trying to Work
(Douglas Rushkoff is a guest blogger. )
Fascinating video from C-Span of the Senate Hearings on healthcare reform. Senator Max Baucus tries to quell a stream of protesters. As Personal Democracy Forum's Micah Sifry, who alerted me to this video explains, "At about 1:45 Baucus is laughing, calling for the police, as a half-dozen peaceful and very articulate citizens speak out, one by one, demanding a seat at the table (where 15 witnesses wait to testify, not one representing the single-payer option)."
the latest
latest episodes
god forbid the great unwashed influence decision making, eh?
Even Jefferson was against it.
I would like to share this with friends, but I can't link to anything. Please give me link. YouTube? GoogleVideo? I finally managed to do it, only by taking the source HTML and getting a URL from that. GRRRR!
That guy standing behind Max is actually twiddling his thumbs.
Troubling, to say the least. Taking the blurb at face value, it would appear that while the Senate pays lip service to the notion of "respecting all viewpoints," the deck has been clearly stacked against voicing those viewpoints.
@Zander: hehe - indeed. However, just like in the olden days, the unwashed masses didn't have the time to attend the first congresses, and that's still true. I doubt these protesters are so unwashed.
I agree with you #2, but let's just say less, er, clean than the usual process insiders...
That guy's a Democrat? Awesome. :|
There's a good reason why even Jefferson was against it... while these half-dozen people may have been peaceful and articulate, they are in no way representatives of the American people.
Believe me, I'm all for grassroots efforts and demonstration... but when we start allowing every random group of 6 people who show up at a congressional hearing to hijack the agenda, it's not a democratic republic anymore - it's mob rule.
@ #5
"it's mob rule"...
good point! I agree, I only like grassroots movements when they are impotent as well. God forbid we try to change anything in this wonderfully efficient system!
@ Heruraha #5:
If you took a random sampling of 15 Americans I can all but guarantee you that at least one of them would support some kind of single-payer health plan.
Senator Baucus: "We need more police."
Yup, that's the usual knee jerk response.
There is a means of changing the system. It is a wonderous process known as an 'election'. If walking into comitees was the order of the day, well, most federal funds would be spent in D.C.
Drama for consciousness raising is all good, but top down authoritarian solutions are often problematic. Unfortunately, that's what would happen if the senate did allow the single payer option in this way as well. An isolated group of folks would have hijacked the debate from another group of isolated folks who've hijacked the debate.
But as a tool to get people to start talking about single payer again, sure, now this is a useful thing. Almost all protest actions are a form of advertising for ideas, and would be more effective if they pursued them as such. Very few protests these days are actually designed to topple anything or get something accomplished.
If there's a good debate going on though, then it starts to become a place where there's a marketplace of ideas that translates to other markets (power, prestige, and money).
Wow, love how funny those assholes think it is... Hahaha... what a laugh riot..... you're murdering us here... just too funny...
@#2 & #5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKP05AyfRsI
After the embedded video starts playing you can click on the bottom-right YouTube logo and it will take you to the originating YouTube page where the URL link to share is readily available or better yet you can send people the Boing Boing permalink:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/06/democracy-trying-to.html
---------
Thank you so much for posting this video, Douglas R. -- Maybe down the road with this kind of exposure for Single Payer (that the elite would rather laughingly sweep under the rug), less people will die.
Supposedly, hope was voted in recently... we'll see if the hope can be pried open by keeping some pressure on these corrupt bastards (obama included).
If what is being asserted about the makeup of the group in the hearing is correct, that's disturbing, and should be corrected. It's interesting that I haven't heard it from any of the political groups I'm involved with who are pushing single payer, though.
Having said that, when a bunch of people come into a senate hearing and start yammering their opinions, I have to ask: is this always a good thing? Are you okay with it when the people yammering are yammering about equal time for creationism? When they are yammering about the definition of marriage? Which kinds of out-of-order yammering in hearings are good, and which are bad? Who decides?
I can see all kinds of problems with the process as it stands. I'm not in love with how Baucus responded. But the fix is not to replace it with a process in which the person who yells loudest or is willing to be rudest carries the day. This is a false choice, and one we would be wise to avoid being tricked into making.
Douglas, I'm curious what you think about the International Order of Odd Fellows, and how they addressed this same problem.
So if the U.S. Senate isn't willing to entertain single payer health care, who will discuss the plan that dare not speak its name?
If boingboing posters wanted to talk about this, I'd wonder aloud what our fire and police coverage would look like if they were organized the way our health care is.
If our day to day health care needs can't be addressed by nonprofit means, what have our leaders in mind for a flu pandemic?
"more police" is always the cheapest, shortest term solution, and it's the quickest answer to so many social problems...
@#8 - You totally misconstrued my point. Working at a grassroots level to change things is all fine and good, but showing up at a congressional hearing and demanding to be given a seat at the table based on nothing but a feeling that your opinion is being ignored is simply foolish and counterproductive.
@#10 - I don't doubt there's a decent amount of support for single payer, though 1 in 15 is a little sad.
But in case I wasn't crystal clear the first time: Showing up and protesting at a congressional hearing in order to try to get a minority viewpoint on the agenda is NOT democracy.
I'm not making any judgments about their agenda or even their methods - simply pointing out that there's a reason why our system is set up to ignore folks like this.
Memorize your congressional representative's phone numbers and use them often. Send letters weekly. Vote. That's democracy.
#14 POSTED BY MATT KATZ:
Maybe bottom up authoritarian questions, then?
You act as if other ways weren't already tried (to exasperation). Please educate yourself on this matter before offering us your wag of your finger.
I feel for Baucus, really. I know a lot of public servants. The ones I know are all liberals, but the second they put on a suit and sit at one of those big tables, they're The Man. Their job is to keep the mob from taking over the meeting...which ain't easy. Even a lowly city council meeting in most places is often a 6 hour affair, and that's with a 3 minute limit on how long citizens can speak. There just isn't time to hear everyone's opinion.
If 1 in 1,000 Americans got 5 minutes with the president, and he listened to them non-stop for 8 hours a day, he'd exhaust two his terms in office before getting to everyone.
#17 POSTED BY MELLON, MAY 6, 2009 12:22 PM
Yes, yes... it's amazing that we even hear a damn thing at all about creationism considering all the money being pumped up the Senate's ass by the darwinist lobby.
[cow rolls eyes]
#19 POSTED BY HERURAHA:
You call the process of being ignored by corrupt "representatives" that have hush money being pumped up their asses by the insurance industry... democracy?
How quaint.
#21 POSTED BY PATRICK AUSTIN:
Are you guys really so daft as to think that the protesters thought this meeting was going to stop and that they honestly thought these corrupt officials were suddenly going to turn their back on the mountains of insurance lobby money and give them a seat?
The whole point was to get YOUR attention. Face it, it worked. Hell, some of you might even quit whining and actually look into how these pricks are literally killing Americans with their corrupt policies.
If you don't think other methods of trying to bring this before them wasn't tried already, then you guys REALLY need to educate yourselves on this issue. Otherwise, you are just more fodder for the insurance lobby.
No way, really? If we have single-payer healthcare, I won't die? Bitchin', sign me up, I want to live forever.
The protesters accomplished what they set out to - making their grievance hard to ignore.
Because the single payer system represents "socialism," and the private insurance companies' profits need to be protected at the expense of the sick.
Long story short, I'm pretty confident that Max Baucus knows his way around the concept of a single-payer health system.
It is, however, politically impossible to achieve, and a serious economic challenge, without intermediate steps. One such step, probably being discussed at this meeting, is having a non-profit government health plan in the market. It's big, it's relatively efficient (yeah, shocking), and it's an excellent intermediate step, both politically and practically, between our current semi-market and single-payer.
I'm so glad that people still protest articulately and make a stand for something they believe in. Remember, the deal with the state is if you don't play by their rules, you go to jail.
Those folks weren't just risking some ridicule. They probably risked some jail-time. That's the deal a protester knows when they decide to broaden the discussion.
And they have. See! You watched the video. And now you're thinking - man, I wish I had a single payer option like helleman has up in the great white north.
(A pack of cigarettes is $10 bucks but a heart transplant is free. Seems fair to me.)
I also am bothered by the fact that most people are assuming that single-payer is being ignored. It's been discussed ad nauseum, starting back That wasn't what people were voting for, and quite frankly, most polling has shown that the public in general is not comfortable with it. They'd rather keep the insurance they have. Other people without insurance, yes, it is thought that they should have options, but not at the expense of existing health systems.
Single payer health insurance would have to be imposed, based on the will of a minority, unless you're willing to wait another ten years to work people up to it.
#7, #15 and #19 have it right. Yes, we should be debating all aspects of health care reform, but what's going on in this video is not helpful. This is not Viet Nam, dude. There are rules.
In all seriousness, this does nothing to help the debate or their cause. As your mom would tell you: there's a right way and a wrong way to do things. This is the wrong way. If I don't like the way the firefighters structure their shifts, I don't go down to the station and just start shouting demands at them. It's counterproductive and makes me a d-bag.
This is the type of behavior that turned so many people off to Code Pink. Even if you agreed in principle with what they were saying, they went about it in a way that made a lot of people see them as obnoxious.
Further, I wish there was a little bit of empathy for the people who actually do have to go about the business of government. Just dealing with the various factions even within one's own party is incredibly difficult. And don't even talk about bipartisanship: there's some folks who genuinely want to have some, but the current environment doesn't leave a lot of room for it, especially in the Senate where one guy/gal can really gum up the whole works. The reality of public service, especially on the federal level, is pragmatism and a willingness to take baby-steps when you can get them, because there're a lot of folks who have their heels dug in to even prevent that.
I feel sorry for #20 (by the way, *here's a present*. You probably already have one though...) To go through life believing there's that level of collusion going on... it must be exhausting.
On preview: additional props to CHRS
"You act as if other ways weren't already tried (to exasperation). Please educate yourself on this matter before offering us your wag of your finger."
Well, this means democracy has done its job. Just because some people like something doesn't mean that should be foisted on everyone, that's the point of democracy.
The problem with single payer healthcare is it tends to make things worse for people who are already covered. Either even more expensive, rationing, whatever. It's just not as big a problem as the proponents want to make it out to be. Most uninsured are already eligible for government subsidies, but have never made use of them. Even if you're covered by Medicare, for example, if you haven't made a claim you're not in the program and are only technically uninsured.
You can fix the holes in the safety net without drastically altering a massive part of the economy through idealism that never quite pans out so well.
Pouting because your views aren't mainstream and aren't getting put into place in a democracy is pretty laughable. If you haven't convinced enough people through decades of badgering them you're on the losing side of democracy.
Regardless of how you feel about the issue itself it is really creepy and disheartening to watch them laugh at the public with such a holier than thou attitude.
From the Senate Finance Committee site:
Democratic members:
MAX BAUCUS, MT
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV
KENT CONRAD, ND
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
BILL NELSON, FL
ROBERT MENENDEZ, NJ
THOMAS CARPER, DE
Republican members:
CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX
For those that think socialized medicine is a bad thing (because it is, gasp, socialist, or, gasp, communist) or in some way incompatible with a free market: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html
@"...every random group of 6 people..."
@"...they are in no way representatives of the American people."
You're right, they don't represent ALL of the american people, just the 49% who think the government should take care of all health problems.
Oh, and the 59% of physicians that that support "national health insurance" (whatever that means).
Anyway, even if you're against single payer, why is it so dangerous to even consider it as an option? Representing half of the american populace, why don't single payer advocates even get a "seat at the table?"
@ kc0bbq #29 posted by , May 6, 2009 1:49 PM
Evidence, please.
Dear Mr. Rushkoff,
What would you do if you were in Baucus' position? Remember, even if you agree with the protesters, there's no way their plan would ever pass. So why condemn Baucus, who's far from the worst Senator on health care? Why not focus on measures that might actually pass (and thus improve health care)?
Sniping from the sidelines means nothing unless you've got a better idea on how to do things. And "everyone should agree with me" does not count as a better idea.
#@28: Very well said.
"It's not politically feasible"
Why not?
"Because no politician will support it"
Why won't they support it?
"BECAUSE IT'S NOT POLITICALLY FEASIBLE, NOW STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS!!!"
between the lines->$$$$$$$$$$$$$
@28 "This is not Viet Nam, dude. "
Yeah, during the vietnam war we were only losing ~3,800 americans per year (on average, including MIA).
Lack of health insurance is killing ~18,000 americans per year (back in 2002).
So you're right, this is not Viet Nam, dude.
p.s. I know many more vietnamese died in that war, but factoring them in threw my numbers WAY off lol. plus, to be fair, we're talking about american health in this discussion.
It can be done, and has been.
From www.dufourlaw.com/ndp/tommy.htm
That's what was done in two years, without federal backing, in a province of only middling wealth - the first one to implement medicare in North America.
@34 - It's common sense and basic economics....
Even pro-singlepayer groups admit to this in their study comparisons. For example:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx
"Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost, but if insured, patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services. In other countries, like the U.K and Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience long wait times for such specialized services. "
But the studies are skewed due to lumping all people in together, insured and uninsured. The US is a fantastic place for healthcare if you're insured or wealthy. That's why so many people come from outside for major surgeries. You can't spend a day in Rochester, MN without seeing a motorcade with some nations flag on the main limo heading to the Mayo.
Universal health care is very simple, here in Australia it just means a 1% tax levy.
You can go to any doctor you choose, you need to pay for specialist services but you can claim a rebate.
The problem you have in the USA is similar to that faced by the Meiji Restoration in Japan.
The Health Insurance industry/lobby is a company of thugs like the Samurai class and you have to liquidate them.
#28 POSTED BY INDIEBASS:
> I feel sorry for #20 (by the way, *here's a present*.
> You probably already have one though...) To go
> through life believing there's that level of collusion
> going on... it must be exhausting.
Yeah, we're all sad, little, lonely conspiracy freaks... take a look at this tin-foil hat wearing freak:
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/12/health-insurance-lobby-no-competition-thanks.html
Here's a quote from another nutjob has to say about the millions upon millions these lobbies shuttle to politicians through UFO rayguns:
"Of course they have influence and I'm very worried about that," said state Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunnellon, who did not face re-election last year but has received insurance money in the past. "They don't give millions to campaigns to be kicked to the curb."
Crazy, huh?
@ #39 POSTED BY DRAGONFROG
That can't be real. My gawd, did UFOs help them pull that off?
An equally un-documented counter-assertion: Single payer healthcare makes everyone healthier, including the wealthy. If there is in fact any decrease in the health care provided to the wealthy, it is far more than offset by the fact that they get sick less often to begin with, and their quality of life is improved in myriad ways. This is due, among other causes, to:
- not living in the same city as people without health care coverage, who spread curable diseases they cannot afford to have treated;
- living in a state made more prosperous since fewer people suffer debilitating financial disaster that compounds their health problems;
- hospitals having more resources available to treat everyone, because they spend less time and effort on intensive, emergency treatment of people they turned away for inability to pay six months ago, back when the problem could have been easily treated.
@43 - Lots of mitigating circumstances, a tiny population, and 65 years less of medical specialization and drug development.
@Cowicide
Tommy Douglas is a sort of folk hero in Canada, and especially Saskatchewan. He led the first socialist government in North America, from 1944 to 1961 (facing honest elections every four years). So yes, probably UFOs.
@ kc0bbq #40:
Sorry, I still have a hard time seeing the light since my wife and I (both insured) continue to experience long waits and tremendous personal costs while seeking fertility treatments, which aren't covered by most U.S. insurers.
Know what takes the most time? Filling out the mountains of financial paperwork. In fact nearly half of the money we spend on health care in this country goes toward the clerical work of just trying to figure out who is supposed to pay for what.
The only ones that get to avoid all that paperwork are the uninsured who show up at the E.R. for treatment and then skip out on the bill.
Everybody was better off after we socialized fire departments because insured or not, you don't want your neighbor's house to catch on fire
Sorry for the double-post, but a thought occurred to me as I hit 'submit'.
I wonder to what extent that was made possible by the very fact that it was the first time anyone had done it. Nobody had seen all the challenges of doing it, so all the arguments about how it wasn't possible weren't fully developed.
#20 POSTED BY COWICIDE, MAY 6, 2009 12:40 PM
Okay, so then your criterion for who can yammer in hearings is that people who think they have been excluded by powerful lobbies can yammer, and people who don't think that can't?
Do you honestly believe that the creationists *don't* think that there's a lobby trying to suppress their views?
I pay $425 per month for insurance and I have a two week wait to see my doctor. Last time that I went to the ER with supra-ventricular tachycardia, I couldn't get hooked up to a monitor until they dicked around for twenty minutes running my Amex card to make sure that they got that $100 co-pay.
If anyone is interested in learning about different health care options, PBS did a really good documentary about health care systems (both public and private) in several countries around the world. Its online in its entirety.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Antinous, that's incredible - at an emergency room, they spend time futzing around with your credit card, before they even begin monitoring your heart rate?
That's seriously messed up. Is this normal for the US?
So how much money are the taxpayers spending for the guy behind Max to twiddle his thumbs?
I can't wait for the Single Payer Health Plan. Dealing with HMOs sucks, but just think how smoothly things would go if they were run and operated by government employees. Oh boy, it would be awesome.
HMOs and the DMV: Together at Last!
I never wait more than ten minutes at the DMV. That's roughly 1/2000th of how long I have to wait for my expensive insurance plan doctor to see me.
#49 POSTED BY MELLON:
Mellon, do you read much? Seriously, do you read?
It isn't "imagination" at play here. The insurance industry has LITERALLY lobbied our "representatives" to get them to NOT bring the single payer option to the table.
Google is your friend.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/1938/78457777eg4.jpg
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/
Single Payer Action: Everybody In. Nobody Out.
What We Do
* We do direct action.
* Face to face with the health insurance industry.
* In front of the home office of your member of Congress.
* In front of your member of Congress, wherever he or she may be.
* Until we get single payer.
Why We Do What We Do
* We are sick that 22,000 Americans die every
year from lack of health insurance.
* We are sick of health insurance companies jacking up premiums while their health insurance company CEOs make out like bandits.
* We are sick of high deductibles, co-pays, and
the in-network, out-of-network Rube Goldberg
system we live under.
#54 POSTED BY DRRODAN, MAY 6, 2009 5:19 PM
Yeah, dude... like how bad Medicare is... which is operated by whom? Oh yeah, government employees.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/11/dr-mario-agitates-fo.html#comment-438114
(links at bottom of post)
While you jackasses are at it...
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/11/dr-mario-agitates-fo.html#comment-436614
God forbid, we listen to doctors and nurses on the subject though...
This reminds me, we not only need to focus on health care in the country... we REALLY need to focus on education and critical thinking skills.
Gawdamnit, READ...
Actually, I have to admire Max Baucus for his response to a crisis going sideways on him. He handled it like a pro. I agree with the protest, and I sympathize with the protestors. Single payer is the way to go if they can figure out a way to compensate the doctors fairly.
In every system, in every country, they just squeeze the guy with 10+ years of top of the class educational performance. How is this sustainable?
If they can cut the insurance soaks out of the equation, that would be a start.
From Doc Quentin Young (pnhp.org) the great civil rights activist fighting for single payer for over 20 yrs...
"Only a true single-payer system (“Everybody in, nobody out”) can yield the administrative savings — estimated at $400 billion annually — needed to provide comprehensive, affordable care to everyone.
Placebos that preserve the role of the private health insurance industry, such as the reform measures proposed by the Obama administration and key lawmakers like Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), with or without a public option, can’t even come close to these results.
Adoption of a publicly financed health care system has become an economic and moral imperative."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22079.html
The only way to fight for single payer is to fight for single payer.
Two points:
First, we have a representative system for a reason. If 300 million people try and speak at once, no one gets heard. Anyone who has ever been to a local city council meeting where the public can speak knows the horror of trying to sift through mostly pointless stuff that affects a few thousand people. Now try the same thing with "big" stuff that influences ~5% of the worlds population. Yeah... lets not. If any special interest group was allowed to say their piece you could easily grind any meeting to a halt. There are better ways to influence your government. Going through your representative (this IS a Republic after all) is a good start.
Second, there is a really good and practical reason why the single payer option is not on the table. Whether you think that single payer is an open door to Stalinist America where anyone who listens to country gets sent to be "reeducated" by flower wielding jackbooted liberals with 24/7 marathons on force Michael Moore movie viewings, or if you think single payer will cure world hunger, end aging, and eliminate the need for takes, the US is a long ways off from consider the idea. The simple practical fact of the matter is that every single Republican and mildly conservative Democrat will vote against it, bar none. If single payer is where you want to be, the path is a gradual one. Even Democrats who are entirely single payer are pragmatic enough to realize this.
The best thing they can do to advance single payer at this point in time is to work at the intermediate steps. Namely, they need to work on setting up a system to covers the uninsured and prove out that it works and can be done in a cost effective way. Do that, and maybe the next step is to start looking at a single payer system. If there was a single payer advocate on that committee it would have just been liberal masturbation. It might make you feel good, but in the end it will just waste time and have gotten you nowhere.
The only thing the protesters did was waste the time of the people who were working towards their stated goal in a practical manner that might actually one day work. Their grandstanding might have made them feel all warm and fuzzy for "taking action", but in truth it is far more likely to have hurt their cause rather than help it.
Hypocrisy and nonsense.
"...Deeply respect all views..." comes after the haha "more police" quote.
These people are standing up because they are not being represented. There is no justice in proceeding with such a hearing if it only exists to further a pre-approved agenda of politicians merely cosplaying as representatives of the people.
"What We Do
...
* Until we get single payer."
So that's democracy? Just yelling until you get your way? How about recognizing that posing the health insurance question as a binary question of the current system vs. single-payer is a false dichotomy?
Obama and many other Democrats got elected partially on a promise of universal health care. They did *not* get elected promising single-payer health care. Why not let them actually try to develop details of and implement their system --- the one the American people elected them to do --- before prima facie declaring that your way is the only way. Democracy to me is holding elected officials accountable for what they do and say --- not grandstanding for your unpopular idea.
If your idea is unpopular, campaign to make it a popular idea. You can't expect to bypass the whole system and go straight to the top.
What I don't get, is given the opinion that the folks in Congress are corrupt and compromised - which yeah, they probably are - why would you want to put them in charge of your health care?
The GimpWii is also a Canuck. One time my pelvic pain was so explosively bad, I went to hospital in an ambulance. Upon arrival, they immediately evaluated me for appendicitis. Triaged as non-emergent, I was lost in the shuffle until shift change, but as annoying as that was for me at the time, I'll take that over "Go Away if you don't have the monies!" anytime.
I can go to any doctor who is not already overbooked, provided I can find one. (Our rural service is understaffed) Average Americans seem to be forced into an HMO slave-doc, who apparently gets bonuses based on how *low* his specialist-referral rates are.
OK, universal health care is not necessarily single-payer. So the rich pay and the poor don't, right?
Waaaa, say the rich, unfair! Better the bum dies than I have to wait an extra five minutes!
I could buy the whole capitalism=choice argument much easier if there was actually any choice involved for the consumer, but as I understand it, your average worker buys the plan (and the docs and paperwork that comes with) from his employer or does without.
.
This kinda thing just makes my blood BOIL!!!
What the Hell are "CITIZENS" doing in a Congressional hearing???!!!
Those are by invitation only, just for industry experts and their lawyers, who will actually be writing the laws. Citizens have no business there.
Why, back in the day, President Cheney woulda had 'em SHOT!!!
It's nothing but SOCIALISM today, I tell ya!
.
#61 POSTED BY RINDAN:
The "better ways" have been tried. They've shown through this blatant act of lobby-induced censorship that the only way to go through them (at this point) is to hand them millions of dollars in bribes. Quid pro quo. Lacking millions of dollars from bilking the American public like the insurance industry does makes reaching the public through acts of civil disobedience (getting the words "single payer system" out there to the public through C-SPAN) a sad, but necessary act in this current political/corporate-controlled climate.
When most citizens hear of the benefits of a Single Payer System minus the insurance lobby propaganda... they are FOR it. As are doctors, nurses, etc.
Don't believe? Try actually listening to the largest registered nurses union in US history:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/11/newly_formed_150_000_strong_nurses
I pretty much stopped reading your inane drivel at this point, sorry.
@#62 POSTED BY BENHER:
Agreed.
#63 POSTED BY ADAMNVILLANI:
Right, except it didn't happen that way. Don't any of you guys muster a modicum of research before you open yer yappers?
The system wasn't bypassed by Single Payer advocates, all the legitimate routes have been taken... the system was bypassed by these assholes in the Senate who dare not speak of the "Single Payer System" while lying to the American public and saying, "all options are on the table".
The corporate media avoided the topic like the plague as well. The insurance industry did a great job pouring money into silencing a better alternative for the American public. Why are you dildos rooting for them?
Dude, all they/we wanted was someone up there representing the Single Payer System which in case you don't know is (despite its warts) overall very successful in many other westernized countries.
Let's REALLY put all the options on the table and bring awareness to the public and let the public decide. Censoring such a widespread, successful system from a major hearing on healthcare reform is dispicable. Especially when you look at the FACT that the insurance industry lobbied its ass off to have them do JUST THAT.
It's not unpopular because the American people hate the system. It's unpopular because the insurance industry doesn't want the American public to get educated about it and they have spent tens of millions of dollars working to obfuscate it.
It's worked on you, apparently.
#64 POSTED BY ROB:
Here ya go, almost the same question:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/11/dr-mario-agitates-fo.html#comment-438114
(see the response to the third quote)
You should read up on the success of medicare. There are a couple of links there in that response as well.
Dude, all they/we wanted was someone up there representing the Single Payer System
That might have been what these particular activists wanted, but the "Single Payer Action" site quoted above explicitly says "We will never compromise on single payer" and that it will do "face to face" "direct action" with Congress "until we get single payer," which is different from "until single payer is considered."
which in case you don't know is (despite its warts) overall very successful in many other westernized countries.
As are various other systems of universal health care.
#38: please see "The Big Lebowski" for further reference on that particular topic.
#52: Yes, that is normal for the US ... if you aren't fabulously wealthy. Or have the same healthcare coverage as government workers. (Have a look on Google for "Federal Employees Health Benefits." Congress has the best health insurance in the land.)
The question isn't "single-payer" vs. not. The question is, "Do you want any form of Universal Coverage to shovel bushels of money to insurance companies?"
Because that, right there, is the real problem: for-profit medical care. It doesn't work any more than a for-profit road system would.
@ Rob #64:
The same reason most people are comfortable with the government paying for the soldiers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers and librarians to name a few. All of those were private enterprises at some point in history, but the average American is better off now that they've been socialized.
Politicians doesn't actually sit in the fire trucks and tell the guys with the hoses what to do, so what makes you think they would do that with your doctor?
What I don't get, is given the opinion that the folks in Congress are corrupt and compromised - which yeah, they probably are - why would you want to put them in charge of your health care?
Check out how many politicians are on the boards of health care businesses. Or how much money they have invested in health care businesses. They're already in charge of it. They're just not accountable to anyone but themselves and other investors. Whom do you think is running corporate healthcare now? Santa and his elves?
Yeah, screw those union organizers, suffragettes, civil rights activists, etc. I mean, people are dying from lack of health care; Doesn't that warrant screaming?
Sloan: whatever works. Does screaming work? (Hint: no, it doesn't. The suffragettes didn't win by screaming. The civil rights activists didn't win by screaming. Change doesn't come through yelling at people. When you yell at people, they just stop listening to you.
So, you're saying that if the party brass didn't decide to include a particular option in their campaign promises, then trying to influence your elected representatives into representing you is "undemocratic"?
That's not how representative democracy works, man. Elections are for choosing who will enter office, and spend the next four years reacting to changes, listening to citizens, and enacting measures in response to the citizens' wishes. They are not for choosing exactly what the country will do in advance, then sitting on your couch for four years and hoping it works out.
You elect someone based on the likelihood that once in office they will listen to citizens. If an elected representative wants to get re-elected in four years' time (and avoid armed insurrection in the meanwhile), they (are supposed to) have to listen, actively, openly, daily. Which promise, you may have noticed, also featured fairly prominently in Obama's campaign rhetoric.
You guys are patently wrong. The "yelling" DID work and despite your insinuations about how "useless" civil disobedience/protests are... Single Payer is now reaching a national audience within the mainstream media (finally) on MSNBC's Ed Shultz show.
Naysayers, watch this video and face it, you're wrong:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ed-schultz-insurance-companies-are-ta
Also, it might be helpful for some of you who didn't do any research and made various erroneous claims about the protesters to watch this video. Hey, you obviously have an aversion to reading, so maybe this video will be easier to digest?
#71 POSTED BY ADAMNVILLANI, MAY 7, 2009 6:14 AM
COW: Dude, all they/we wanted was someone up there representing the Single Payer System
YOU: That might have been what these particular activists wanted, but the "Single Payer Action" site quoted above explicitly says "We will never compromise on single payer" and that it will do "face to face" "direct action" with Congress "until we get single payer," which is different from "until single payer is considered."
So what? You really think the protesters (consisting of highly educated doctors, nurses, etc.) are complete morons and thought the protest was going to get them an immediate seat and they'd somehow steamroll the Senate into immediately imposing their views on the spot?
The goal was to bring the Single Payer system to the attention of the American public and it WORKED.
:D
COW: which in case you don't know is (despite its warts) overall very successful in many other westernized countries.
YOU: As are various other systems of universal health care.
As widely successful as the Single Payer system??? Please, don't just spout off a list, also include backup references. Once again, the question is: As widely successful as the Single Payer system??? Which ones?