AMERICAblog: New ad targets Senator Mary Landrieu, who has had taxpayer financed health insurance for most of her adult life, on the public option
Bridget
· 4 months ago
I live in Louisiana and just wrote Senator Landrieu a letter. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Butch1
· 4 months ago
The hypocrisy of Ms. Landrieu and people like her is astounding. Are they so blinded by the insurance money that they will ignore their own constituents to win favor with the insurance companies? Perhaps, ALL of our representatives and senators need to have their health insurance "gift" taken away from them. We are in a recession and we all need to do our part. Let's bring them into the recession with us because they need to be sacrificing as well. It's time to burst that bubble that Washington DC has been in and let them see the real world beyond the perks they get representing us. They need to know they work for us and are responsible for what ever "watered-down" law they try to pass off as good legislation. We really need to clean house if this is all we are going to get from these freeloaders.
NAVDOC3rdMAR
· 4 months ago
It is morally repugnant to profit off the misery or ill health of Americans. It's criminal that medical bills to private for-profit insurance/medical conglomerates make up 62% of all bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year. The overhead at private for-profit insurance/medical conglomerates is upwards of 35% of the healthcare dollar spent each year in the U.S. This allows the private for-profit insurance/medical corporations to pay for their lavish lifestyles and huge salaries plus perks and bonuses. All the while milking the hard-working men/women of this great nation of their hard earned money. On the other hand Medicare has an overhead of 2%, Canada's terrible system is 1.5%, Europe's 2.5% on average. The money that could be saved by eliminating the private for-profit insurance/medical giants is estimated at $500 Billion a year. Enough money to help pay for putting all Americans on MEDICARE/SINGLE PAYER. We have to fight back and call, write e-mails, letters-to-editors and to Congress to let them know how America feels about for-profit health care in America. Here are 11 Democratic Senators who are wrong on Health Care reform. Give them a call and demand, "MEDICARE/SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL NOW!"
Mary Landrieu D-LA, Max Baucus D-MT, Kent Conrad D-ND, Ben Nelson D-NE, Maria Cantwell D-WA, Thomas Carper D-DE, Kay Hagan D-NC, Blanche Lincoln D-AR, Ron Wyden D-OR, Evan Bayh D-IN, Diane Feinstein D-CA and feel free to add your own...
Here are the toll-free numbers for the Capitol Hill Switchboard: (House and Senate) 1-800-828-0498 1-866-338-1015 1-866-220-0044.
Also give the President a call or write an e-mail:
White House Comments Line: 1-202-456-1414 M-F 09:00 - 05:00 est. (NOT A TOLL-FREE #)
Nothing rattles the Congress more than voters ringing the phones off the hook. Call the House, Senate and the White House and demand MEDICARE/SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL NOW!
blbarden
· 4 months ago
I hope you were being facetious about the reference to the "terrible" Canadian health care system. It may have its problems but remains very popular here and in comparison with what you folks have its is not only NOT terrible but is absolutely wonderful.
davidasposted
· 4 months ago
I agree. As an American expat living in Canada for nearly four years now, I can say with some confidence that the Canadian healthcare system works just fine, thank you very much, especially compared with what we have in the U.S.
NAVDOC3rdMAR
· 4 months ago
I was being facetious. I guess I should add a snark or something. Have a good one.
TheOriginalLiz
· 4 months ago
The biggest obstacle to progress in this country is congress. They have too much vested in the status quo and they are too wholly owned by corporate interests (including the health insurance industry - the biggest scam of all time) to allow any significant changes in the way the country is being run. The politicians have us by the short and curlies and we can't do anything about it. Vote out one flavor of scoundrel and another flavor takes his/her place.
judybrowni
· 4 months ago
Thank god. Hope Landrieu responds correctly.
Too bad the same kind of ad wouldn't work for Diane Feinstein, who has already made known that she won't run again.
Butch1
· 4 months ago
Feinstein can not stand her constituents and you can tell by her arrogance that she doesn't care. She is rude when approached about her republican like stand and her Blue-Dog voting. The sooner she leaves office, the better.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 4 months ago
Feinstein exists for one reason: to shovel our $ to her husband and his cronies to arm Israel and kill Arabs.
There. I said it.
Butch1
· 4 months ago
And I concur.
sonofloud
· 4 months ago
lol
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
Same reason Obama exists. Hell, what's the difference? His AIPAC speech was pathetic. He never mentioned Gaza one time in his Cairo speech.
sonofloud
· 4 months ago
I just saw an ad here in SF the other night.....encouraging us to encourage Feinstein to support Obama. I hadn't heard that she isn't running again, finally some good news.
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
She wants to run for CA gov, that is why she is giving up her Senate seat.
sonofloud
· 4 months ago
ah ic.....I don't think she has much of a chance for governor
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
Arnold may try for the Senate, though.
Where are the socialists?!?! Jesus, these fucking political retreads who wreak damage everywhere they govern are getting tiring.
sonofloud
· 4 months ago
California has that schizophrenic habit of electing Republican governors.
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
Agree that she doesn't have a chance at governor. The woman is pushing 80 years old. I really don't think she could connect with many voters. Newsom isn't any more "progressive" than Feinstein (he's centrist pro-business and is backed by Getty money), but his positions on LGBT issues will give him huge political capital in CA.
Stewart Alexander is the Socialist party candidate for CA gov in 2010. He has a great platform.
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
That's excellent. :)
But does anybody even know what the "public option " entails? Is it Medicare for everybody? Or are we going to have copays, premiums, and everything else that goes along with a butchered and unfair private plan?
Some folks are saying that "public option" is code for "single payer" and the Dems don't want to use the term "single payer" because it would make Republican/conservative Dem heads explode. It doesn't seem to matter at this point. They don't want equality in health care service in this country no matter what you call it.
I was under the impression, though, that the "public option" is not even close to single payer.
Single payer health care: What the rest of the Western world takes for granted and Washington wants to deny to Americans. Truly sad.
Mike_in_the_Tundra
· 4 months ago
I certainly agree with the idea of single payer being the way to go, but you have some misconceptions about Medicare. Medicare has copays although they are not due at time of service. There is also a premium. It's not a bad premium, but it's a monthly premium that is automatically taken out of Social Security. However, the premium only covers doctor visits and outpatient care. There is no premium for hospital care. There is a separate premium for prescription coverage. I'm certain about this. I was badly bashed in '99, and I'm now on disability.
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
Just once I want a reporter to ask one of these assholes if they would be willing to give up their taxpayer-paid health plan since they are so against the rest of us having it. Does anybody in journalism have the balls to ask that!
Zorba
· 4 months ago
No. Maybe Michael Moore, but the MSM doesn't consider him a journalist.
jimstoic
· 4 months ago
Imagine there is no such thing as insurance. All medical care is paid for by individuals. Obviously, healthcare options would be limited for most people.
Now imagine that there are two competing plans for providing funding for healthcare.
Under one plan, you give money to private, for-profit companies, and they pay for your healthcare. Their primary purpose, is to make money, so they want high revenue and low expenses. They also want you to be scared that something bad will happen and you won’t be able to pay for it; that’s how they get you to buy their product.
Under the other plan, you give money to the government, which pays for your healthcare. Their primary purpose is to ensure a healthy populace. They have the ability to legislate changes that improve health: tobacco taxes, DWI penalties, drug treatment centers, pregnancy care, etc.
It seems to me that the only people who would pick the first option is people who pay extra to fly First Class. They want the best care, damn the cost. These people are clearly the minority. They should not be deciding how healthcare is provided for everyone.
There is just no logic to having part of every healthcare dollar go to private, for-profit companies. That said, I wouldn’t want such companies to go away entirely. I think we benefit by having the government compete with private providers.
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
Why should the government have to "compete?" That is not the function of government. LIke you said, their function is to insure a healthy populace and equality of access. Would you get rid of the National Park Service because it turns out they "can't compete" with private companies? Should we privatize our metro systems because the local governments "can't compete" with private companies? I would argue that private anything isn't necessarily going to be cheaper OR better quality. With government programs, at least you are spreading the cost among the entire populace.
Of course, it would help if the rich and the corporations paid their fair share of taxes!
If we want our government to provide services that actually increase the well-being, health, and stability of our population, we would levy taxes and stop this "tax cut" bullshit that has been going on for 30 years. "Tax cuts" are the drug that REpublicans use to get voters to the polls. We have to get off that train and start taxing corporations and the rich.
But nobody in Congress will touch that one. I think Obramalama kept the tax cuts in the stim bill. (He said he would roll them back.)
jimstoic
· 4 months ago
I think the government will perform better in this arena if we are able to compare its performance to private companies. "Compete" doesn't mean "do it least expensively," it means "do it best." If private companies can do it best, I want private companies to do it. But when something is really for EVERYONE, the government can probably do it best.
She had no problem asking for 200 Billion Dollars after Katrina. This is just another asshole without courage to stand up to the people of the south. And , just think, the south will be the greatest benefactor of a public health plan. They are just dumb. I guess they are happy with Medicaid. Maybe they don't know that it is supplied by the goverment. I'm sure they don't know that.
emjayay
· 4 months ago
No, most of the Western world does NOT have single payer health care. There are many differing models from true socialized medicine in England (though in practice it does not mean patients are facing a huge bureacracy in a drab central location like the image those words might create. The patient experience is actually much more like any other system than you might think and being national, maybe better in health promotion than some others.) To single payer to competing government and private schemes and so on. What other countries have in common is that everyone is in it, the costs are more income based than flat rate like here, and in many cases everything, or much more of it, is government or if private, non- rather than for-profit. Medicare is not really single payer. There are lots of other payers, and for many resultant factors it falls short of what a real single payer system can do.
isabelita
· 4 months ago
All members of Congress, the SCOTUS, Obama and his cabinet, as well as the many other Federal employees, should pay for their own health care, like the rest of us have to do. At most, they should get partial coverage for themselves, have to co-pay, and pay for their families. They are completely corrupted on this issue.
All Comments
On the other hand Medicare has an overhead of 2%, Canada's terrible system is 1.5%, Europe's 2.5% on average. The money that could be saved by eliminating the private for-profit insurance/medical giants is estimated at $500 Billion a year. Enough money to help pay for
putting all Americans on MEDICARE/SINGLE PAYER.
We have to fight back and call, write e-mails, letters-to-editors and to Congress to let them know how America feels about for-profit health care in America.
Here are 11 Democratic Senators who are wrong on Health Care reform. Give them a call and demand,
"MEDICARE/SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL NOW!"
Mary Landrieu D-LA, Max Baucus D-MT, Kent Conrad D-ND,
Ben Nelson D-NE, Maria Cantwell D-WA, Thomas Carper D-DE,
Kay Hagan D-NC, Blanche Lincoln D-AR, Ron Wyden D-OR,
Evan Bayh D-IN, Diane Feinstein D-CA and feel free to add your own...
Here are the toll-free numbers for the Capitol Hill Switchboard:
(House and Senate)
1-800-828-0498
1-866-338-1015
1-866-220-0044.
Also give the President a call or write an e-mail:
White House Comments Line:
1-202-456-1414 M-F 09:00 - 05:00 est. (NOT A TOLL-FREE #)
President Obama's e-mail: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Nothing rattles the Congress more than voters ringing the phones off the hook. Call the House, Senate and the White House and demand
MEDICARE/SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL NOW!
Too bad the same kind of ad wouldn't work for Diane Feinstein, who has already made known that she won't run again.
There. I said it.
I hadn't heard that she isn't running again, finally some good news.
Where are the socialists?!?! Jesus, these fucking political retreads who wreak damage everywhere they govern are getting tiring.
Stewart Alexander is the Socialist party candidate for CA gov in 2010. He has a great platform.
But does anybody even know what the "public option " entails? Is it Medicare for everybody? Or are we going to have copays, premiums, and everything else that goes along with a butchered and unfair private plan?
Some folks are saying that "public option" is code for "single payer" and the Dems don't want to use the term "single payer" because it would make Republican/conservative Dem heads explode. It doesn't seem to matter at this point. They don't want equality in health care service in this country no matter what you call it.
I was under the impression, though, that the "public option" is not even close to single payer.
Single payer health care: What the rest of the Western world takes for granted and Washington wants to deny to Americans. Truly sad.
Now imagine that there are two competing plans for providing funding for healthcare.
Under one plan, you give money to private, for-profit companies, and they pay for your healthcare. Their primary purpose, is to make money, so they want high revenue and low expenses. They also want you to be scared that something bad will happen and you won’t be able to pay for it; that’s how they get you to buy their product.
Under the other plan, you give money to the government, which pays for your healthcare. Their primary purpose is to ensure a healthy populace. They have the ability to legislate changes that improve health: tobacco taxes, DWI penalties, drug treatment centers, pregnancy care, etc.
It seems to me that the only people who would pick the first option is people who pay extra to fly First Class. They want the best care, damn the cost. These people are clearly the minority. They should not be deciding how healthcare is provided for everyone.
There is just no logic to having part of every healthcare dollar go to private, for-profit companies. That said, I wouldn’t want such companies to go away entirely. I think we benefit by having the government compete with private providers.
Of course, it would help if the rich and the corporations paid their fair share of taxes!
If we want our government to provide services that actually increase the well-being, health, and stability of our population, we would levy taxes and stop this "tax cut" bullshit that has been going on for 30 years. "Tax cuts" are the drug that REpublicans use to get voters to the polls. We have to get off that train and start taxing corporations and the rich.
But nobody in Congress will touch that one. I think Obramalama kept the tax cuts in the stim bill. (He said he would roll them back.)
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/6081