Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Moyers wants you to read this (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not, single payer is not necessary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Justanothernyer

    There are other systems that provide universal, affordable care. I feel that if we get stuck on single payer, other opportunities will pass us by. It's silly not to look at all available options in continuing to reform our health care system. Germany's private system is the oldest in the world, and it's still going strong and providing universal, affordable care.

    Pray tell, what's a 42% net increase, repeated over five years, amount to? Obviously exponentially more than 92%, and is 92% over five years not an improvement over what we had before? Not all improvements are panaceas.

    People cannot afford their premiums now, yes. But single payer isn't the only way to lower premiums and provide universal and affordable care. It's rather dishonest to say or imply that it is.  

    What is reading but a silent conversation?

    by CalliopeIrjaPearl on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 04:45:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So, be thankful I'm only losing an arm (8+ / 0-)

      when I could be losing an arm and a leg. Great slogan for 2012!

      Every place else does a version of single payer, or a combo with very strict regulation on regular insurance. Pick nits all you want, the fact is nobody else has anything near as miserable as our system. Which we just cemented in place.

      It's dishonest to pretend that the piece of crap we have at this moment does anything to put us in any situation comparable to all of Western Europe and a few third world countries like Costa Rica.

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 04:55:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We did not cement our current system in place. (0+ / 0-)

        We cemented a government agencies right to regulate the private sector on behalf of the people. Our system is going to change, that's inevitable.

        I do adore how you avoided my question. What does a 42% net increase, repeated over five years, amount to? I guess that number isn't important because it doesn't fit with your narrative. You can't omit data like that, that's lying by omission.

        And who said that this law puts us on par with other developed countries? Don't put words in my mouth. All I mean to mention is that single payer isn't the only solution out there and should not be taken as the only solution out there.

        What is reading but a silent conversation?

        by CalliopeIrjaPearl on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 05:36:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  42% amounts to an arm and a leg. (4+ / 0-)

          14% amounts to an arm. I quite clearly answered your question.

          btw, the current, 2010 average increase has been about 30% nationwide.

          I didn't say you said anything, so what words did I put in your mouth? I said this law does not put us on a par with every other developed nations. You did not address that.

          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 05:57:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Change begets change, and (0+ / 0-)

      at least this change gets poor, sick people out of the crosshairs. They will clearly be much better off in the exchange system. They'll be able to get some kind of coverage at a price that might be painful but not absurd.

      The people who could be screwed would other folks.

      If someone's going to be screwed and have to change things, I'd rather it be healthy people with solid incomes, employers, doctors and hospitals than poor, sick people.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site