RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Galindez writes: "It would be best to just increase taxes and give everyone public healthcare. That will not happen with Trump and Republicans in control of our government. They will instead throw millions of people off their healthcare, causing many to die unnecessarily."

Obamacare supporters. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)
Obamacare supporters. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)


Repealing Obamacare Will Be Negligent Homicide

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

06 January 17

 

Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice.

here is no doubt that Obamacare is flawed. Something has to be done to control costs. There was a very effective cost-cutting provision in the original legislation. It was called the public option. Republicans and blue dog Democrats killed the public option, resulting in no incentive for the insurance industry to control costs.

Opponents of the public option declared that insurance companies would not have been able to compete with a government plan. They called it a backdoor to single payer. They were right, but that was a good thing. Insurance companies are not necessary. They are only a payee and make huge profits while providing nothing.

This is a personal issue for me. Obamacare saved my life, according to my doctor. She was talking to a medical student who was observing my initial appointment. My doctor described the medical conditions that I had that had progressed over years of not being treated. She said I wouldn’t have lasted much longer.

I had gone at least a decade without seeing a doctor. I had an employer who was willing to help me pay for health care and provided health care when I lived in California. I moved to Northern Virginia to set up a DC Bureau. I was then on my own as far as finding a plan. I applied for several plans and received the same answer: Declined. The reason? Body type. I was 5’4” and weighed 210 lbs. Insurance companies wanted nothing to do with me. When I had insurance in California, I was borderline diabetic. When Obamacare finally went into effect, I was diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic. I don’t know how many years that went untreated, but the next two conditions I had indicate that it was likely a long time. I also had congestive heart failure caused by kidney failure.

My doctor believes that if I hadn’t lost healthcare when I moved, diabetes would have been detected earlier and I would not have developed the kidney failure, therefore not developing the congestive heart failure. If I hadn’t gotten treated when I did, I might have died.

Obamacare saved my life and has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who were sick but for financial reasons not going to a doctor. The Republican Party is preparing to throw millions of people off their healthcare. Many people will die of conditions that could have been prevented if they were covered. That is why I believe they would be guilty of negligent homicide.

Instead of repealing Obamacare, we should take the next step toward universal healthcare and allow the federal exchange to negotiate a public option with healthcare providers. That public option would not have costs inflated by profit margins for insurance companies. The public option wouldn’t have costs built in for advertising, either.

I hear people all the time asking why healthy people have to buy in. The answer is simple: someone has to pay for the money insurance companies are losing on people like me. When today’s young healthy people get old and sick, the young people of that era will make up for the high cost of their health care.

In the end, it would be best to just increase taxes and give everyone public healthcare. That will not happen with Trump and Republicans in control of our government. They will instead throw millions of people off their healthcare, causing many to die unnecessarily. They know it, and that is why it is negligent homicide.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott moved to Des Moines in 2015 to cover the Iowa Caucus.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+44 # Dust 2017-01-06 13:12
And when this was all under discussion, all FOX news staff were instructed to preface the term "public option" by the words "so-called", in order to undermine its legitimacy and make it seem like fraud.
 
 
+20 # Radscal 2017-01-06 23:51
True. And the rest of the corporate TV media showed us video of the bussed in Koch Brothers' "protesters" shouting about "socialized medicine" every night, while generally refusing to state that polls showed that 2/3 of USians wanted Universal Single Payer Healthcare, despite all the propaganda.
 
 
-18 # John Puma 2017-01-07 05:51
And Obumma, who later validating FOX (and BillO) directly, must have used only FOX as his conduit to the American will, as he chose to demean the "professional left" rather than heed the desires of 2/3 of USiana.
 
 
+42 # DongiC 2017-01-06 14:18
The real fraud is FOX news, newspaper for the rich and well born.
Glad you got your health problems solved, Scott. We need you in this battle against Republican privilege.
 
 
+4 # Cassandra2012 2017-01-07 01:32
Quoting DongiC:
The real fraud is FOX news, newspaper for the rich and well born.
Glad you got your health problems solved, Scott. We need you in this battle against Republican privilege.

Faux Noise!
 
 
0 # James38 2017-01-10 19:47
Faux Snooz
 
 
0 # James38 2017-01-10 19:50
Review THIS: FAUX SNOOZ.

While you are at it, change the vote counting from running total, which is the lowest information system possible other than no vote.

Just give us total up and total down votes. Easy. Informative.
 
 
+5 # opinionaire 2017-01-07 09:01
I have to assume the term "well-born" refers to the birthing by rich folks, and does not imply that there is any other thing about their behavior or attitudes that infers "well" inherently.
 
 
+41 # CDMR 2017-01-06 14:59
In a wierd way all of the anti-healthcare extremists like Paul Ryan and the house republicans have had their bluff called. They have been chanting "repeal Obamacare" for four years and have introduced one repeal resolution after another. Now they have the senate and president to do just that -- and they will be faced with a national disaster if 20 million people are suddenly thrown off the health insurance rosters.

Pence says a replace plan will be released very soon. I don't think it will repeal Obamacare, except in name. What it will do is probably throw enough money at the healthcare insurers in order to choke them into silence for a while.

This is a moment when the teaparty conservative republicans will be exposed for what they really are -- anti-people.
 
 
+40 # CDMR 2017-01-06 15:09
"In the end, it would be best to just increase taxes and give everyone public healthcare."

While this is the right way to go, it is really not necessary. If you simply took the profit and multi-million dollar salaries of healthcare CEOs out of the healthcare business, there would be plenty of money at present levels to cover everyone in the US (including non-citizen residents).

For-profit healthcare corporations mis-direct more than 30% of money spent on "healthcare" into things like investor dividends, advertising, lavish office buildings, corporate jets, political campaign contributions, lobbying, luxury vacations conferences for doctors, and on and on. All of these non-healthcare expenditures need to be cut out.

Medicare-for-al l is the way to go. There's plenty of money in the system. We need to stop spending so much of it on non-healthcare. The system now spends $10,345 for every woman, man, and child in the US. That's $51,725 for a family of five people. I don't think I've spent more than $2000 in my entire life, so that makes money available for those who need it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-peak-us-health-care-spending-10345-per-person/

The total spent on healthcare in the US is roughly $3.4 trillion dollars a year. There's well more than enough money in the system, if only there were some reasonable people to run it. Corporate CEOs are not reasonable people. We've allowe thieves to run healthcare. Trump won't fix this.
 
 
+23 # Scott Galindez 2017-01-06 15:17
Medicare for all is too simplistic. With Kidney failure, I have the option to go to Medicare early. Medicare, however, is more expensive for me than Obamacare. There are some flaws in medicare that would need to be addressed. It is not truly single payer yet. I decided to wait to go on medicare.
 
 
+27 # lfeuille 2017-01-06 20:38
"Medicare for All" is a marketing slogan. You have to look at the details of any proposal to see exactly what it covers. HRC 676 and Berniecare have both been described as "Medicare for All" but neither have any deductibles or copays. They are completely funded by taxes based on income so it is unlikely that either one would cost you more than Obamacare, but since neither exist in law your best bet is still Obamacare for the immediate future.
 
 
+10 # anachronis 2017-01-06 23:05
Scott Galindez 2017-01-06 15:17

And your perception is too simplistic, and gratuitously comedic.

"Medicare for all" does not necessarily mean exactly the Medicare now in place. It is a way of pressing for a single-payer system that would build on Medicare.

In another thread, Kropotkinesque recalled:

"When Congress had enough pro-single-paye r votes to pass a single payer health care law, Obama muscled Harry Reid to lie to the Senate to get Obamacare passed. Reid said more single-payer-pl an fine-tuning was needed & assured the Senate that he would submit a single-payer bill in about 6 months. That was 7 years ago. Obama had met with Health Insurance firms & Big Pharma & made a private deal with them. Obamacare gave those leaches what they wanted — a huge & growing profits-hike."
 
 
+10 # anachronis 2017-01-07 13:53
RE:
anachronis 2017-01-06 23:05
RE:
Scott Galindez 2017-01-06 15:17

I erred with this: "'Medicare for all' does not necessarily mean exactly the Medicare now in place. It is a way of pressing for a single-payer system that would build on Medicare."

My error was that my language permits an inference that our current Medicare is markedly flawed. It is not.

Though it suffers some weaknesses, like not covering certain alternative medicines and permitting physicians to opt out and requiring that the poor strain their budgets to pay the required premiums, still it has much virtue.

One huge virtue is that government can use massive bargaining power to command very substantial reductions of "health care provider" prices, which are obscenely high.

And the premiums are far, far less than those Obamacare leaves to the Middle class and poor.

Obamacare premiums and co-pays are rising dramatically.

And for the poor, Obamacare is financial disaster. Everyone must buy in or suffer a "tax" penalty (and for THAT Chief Justice Roberts, his big lie, deserves monumental condemnation).

The poor are told they will receive a subsidy. But the subsidy is a tax deduction, which is a dark joke played against the poor, who do not have income enough to have tax liability enough to give the "deduction" any effect. You cannot deduct any dollar amount from a zero tax due.
 
 
0 # James38 2017-01-10 20:37
"The poor are told they will receive a subsidy. But the subsidy is a tax deduction, which is a dark joke played against the poor, who do not have income enough to have tax liability enough to give the "deduction" any effect. You cannot deduct any dollar amount from a zero tax due."

Excellent point.
 
 
0 # James38 2017-01-10 20:46
Ok, that comment was held up for "review" also.

If this is site policy now, it seriously interferes with the flow of the discussion.

If I am being targeted, I would like to know why.
 
 
+21 # dbrize 2017-01-06 15:24
SG:

I join others in celebrating the news that you have received the healthcare necessary.

Of course this good news does not negate that there also exist any number of anecdotal situations less complementary of Obamacare.

There is significant public unhappiness with Obamacare. And a lean toward single payer.

If politics is the art of the possible we may as well acknowledge that the GOP is in the drivers seat. So as I see it, this proposal may present a viable though by no means easy approach from where we presently stand.

The current system favors insurance companies who can raise premiums or withdraw from markets. Bad.

Though I favor single payer, there are several versions that work quite well elsewhere with variation.

Canada, U.K., France, Taiwan, Spain, Singapore are a few single payer systems that contain differing features within a national health plan. Some have a place for private insurers that actually reduce healthcare costs.

I doubt the GOP is wise enough to do it, but they would be smart to propose a bipartisan committee study all of these plans with the idea of creating a "best of the best" US single payer plan. If they did, they would own the issue and reap many benefits in public perception.

If they don't, there is nothing stopping the Dems from suggesting it. It could be offered in return for their support in rescinding Obamacare so long as NO one loses healthcare for pre-existing conditions.

Can anybody here play this game?
 
 
+2 # anachronis 2017-01-06 23:09
Trump has insisted that Obamacare's pre-existing condition provision remain if Obamacare's bulk is scrapped.
 
 
+3 # anachronis 2017-01-07 00:52
"Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Mr Trump said that he may well keep at least two of the main provisions of the healthcare bill. He said that he is favouring retaining a key part of Obamacare that stops insurers from refusing to cover people because they have existing conditions, and another that lets parents add coverage for their children to their own policies."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-obamacare-repeals-latest-policies-quote-replacement-president-elect-a7412621.html
 
 
+7 # Cassandra2012 2017-01-07 01:34
Quoting anachronis:
Trump has insisted that Obamacare's pre-existing condition provision remain if Obamacare's bulk is scrapped.


And judging by his continual lying, can anyone truly believe anything Trumpolini says?
 
 
+3 # anachronis 2017-01-07 14:13
Cassandra2012 2017-01-07 01:34

Your argument is repetition of the myth that Trump is a "continual" liar. Apparently you cannot distinguish stating something false from telling a lie.

But your comment's greater flaw is that it is irrelevant. The issue is whether Obamacare deserves to be repealed — wholly or partly. It is NOT whether Trump will honor his promise to press Congress to retain Obamacare's prohibition of insurers' refusing to cover people because they have pre-existing conditions and to retain its guaranty that parents may add their children's coverage to their own policies.

Whether Trump will honor his promise is a matter of mere speculation. The Obamacare repeal question is a real, current issue. Address THAT.

Mr. Galindez has intruded the irrelevant matter of whether Medicare is flawed. Mr. Galindez seems unable to comprehend relevance. But HE intruded that issue; so, he deserves your rebutting his points, if you incline to do so. Still, Trump's credibility is irrelevant to THAT issue also.
 
 
+26 # Radscal 2017-01-06 16:21
“Republicans and blue dog Democrats killed the public option….”

No, Scott. Not a single Republican voted for ACA. The Public Option, and more importantly, the Universal Single Payer program that 2/3 of USians wanted at the time, were killed BY DEMOCRATS.

The fact that Democrats prevented passage of something that 88% of Democratic voters wanted goes a long way to explaining why they saw such huge drop offs in votes in later elections. Even half of Republican voters wanted USP, so passing it could well have won over some of them to the Democratic Party.

Instead, we got what we got, leading to the current President-elect.

I’m thrilled for you that your situation was covered by one of the bandaids ACA created. Had the Democrats passed USP back in 2009 (let alone 1993, when HRC prevented it), then chances are your condition would have been diagnosed much earlier, and your life - as well as those of millions more - would have been more secure and happier.

At this point, with the Randians in control of Congress, we should focus on working with Trump supporters to keep him to his campaign promises to retain some of the best features of ACA: coverage of pre-existing conditions, preventing the new insurance customers from losing their coverage and imposing controls on the ever-increasing costs of medical care and medicine.
 
 
+2 # anachronis 2017-01-06 23:10
Actually Obama & Harry Reid killed it when it would have passed. See above, anachronis 2017-01-06 23:05
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2017-01-07 00:02
Yep. They're Democrats. Others in the Senate and House prevented even offering a public option.
 
 
+36 # ligonlaw 2017-01-06 18:16
There is enough malice in the Republican party and enough premeditation to call it murder.
 
 
+13 # economagic 2017-01-06 21:31
Thank you. I've been saying that under my breath and to a couple of other wild-eyed radicals ever since our erstwhile Governor McCroney (NC) refused Medicaid expansion under ACA four years ago. Just a couple of days ago I put it in writing for an online petition opposing one of T-Rump's deplorable appointees.
 
 
+4 # Robbee 2017-01-06 21:49
Quoting ligonlaw:
There is enough malice in the Republican party and enough premeditation to call it murder.

- death panels are real - they are repug governors and legislatures who refuse to expand medicaid to people in their states - resulting in tens of thousands of deaths every year

some ethical journalist should interview and report on who these "dead folks walking" are voting for - and how little they contribute to state campaigns - all their dirty little secrets! - especially wanting to live!

hats off! scott! on this excellent piece and d-'s insights - "Though I favor single payer, there are several versions that work quite well elsewhere with variation.

"Canada, U.K., France, Taiwan, Spain, Singapore are a few single payer systems that contain differing features within a national health plan. Some have a place for private insurers that actually reduce healthcare costs.

"I doubt the GOP is wise enough to do it, but they would be smart to propose a bipartisan committee study all of these plans with the idea of creating a "best of the best" US single payer plan. If they did, they would own the issue and reap many benefits in public perception.

"If they don't, there is nothing stopping the Dems from suggesting it. It could be offered in return for their support in rescinding Obamacare so long as NO one loses healthcare for pre-existing conditions.

"Can anybody here play this game?"

if he wants to be adored and piss off repugs? rump can!
 
 
0 # James38 2017-01-10 02:03
Robbee: Could you explain where and how this works?

"Some have a place for private insurers that actually reduce healthcare costs."

That is a real head-scratcher for me.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2017-01-10 17:19
Quoting James38:
Robbee: Could you explain where and how this works?

"Some have a place for private insurers that actually reduce healthcare costs."

That is a real head-scratcher for me.

- me too - but in someplace where - for example - anti-competitiv e factors like religion or closed markets prevent choice - i don't know enough to say competition can't cut costs
 
 
0 # Robbee 2017-01-10 17:23
Quoting James38:
Robbee: Could you explain where and how this works?

"Some have a place for private insurers that actually reduce healthcare costs."

That is a real head-scratcher for me.

- me too - but where anti-competitiv e forces - like religion and politics - prevent choice - competition can cut costs
 
 
+16 # Ralph 2017-01-06 18:19
The health insurance companies are sopping up billions in profits each year via ACA. The Republicans are between a rock and a hard place. They can shut off the spigot of corporate welfare that is ACA or they kowtow to their 1% taskmasters. I suspect they will do nothing on ACA unless they come up with a scheme to funnel billions of tax dollars to the insurance companies. Plenty of backpedaling going on here as the insurance execs are pressing their influence.
 
 
+11 # Kiwikid 2017-01-06 22:34
I agree - the Republicans have put themselves between a rock and a hard place. My deep concern is that they will dismantle the ACA in such a way as to suggest that the resultant extra costs and the loss of coverage are a result of Obama having built the whole unsustainable mess in the first place (I'm almost certain this is the line they will take). Make no mistake - they will find a way of blaming the Dems.
I live in a country with Universal public health care (there is also a private option), and it staggers me that the American people, told it is socialism and will result in the loss of their 'freedoms', cannot see that it works, is fair, and affordable. In NZ we pay half what Americans do for health care, and everybody is covered.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2017-01-07 00:07
Most USians do want Universal Single Payer.

The last poll on it I saw was by HMO Kaiser Permanente. They had support at the lowest I'd ever seen: 58%. Most polls over the past few decades have had support at 65% to 80%.
 
 
+4 # Ralph 2017-01-07 09:13
The only people against it are the insurance and big pharma people along with a hand full of illiterate, toothless goof balls who scream about government death panels. "Keep the gubermints hands off my medicare!"

ACA was the straw that broke the camel's back for me and the Democratic party. After voting for them all my life, I finally stopped after the ACA debacle. There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for the Dems/Repubs: endless war, mass environmental destruction, predatory economic systems. ACA was especially egregious and I'm not looking back.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2017-01-07 19:20
I disapprove of your negative stereotyping of people who've bought into the "conservative" propaganda. They are a substantial minority in all of those polls, and represent a wide swath of people.

But otherwise, yes.
 
 
+32 # reiverpacific 2017-01-06 18:50
Until big insurance and pharma's monopoly control over healthcare delivery is chucked out of the equation, you don't have a popsicle in Hell's chance of achieving even a tithe of universal care, as provided by civilized countries around the world, including some so-called "emerging" nations.
 
 
+23 # rural oregon progressive 2017-01-06 19:54
Reiverpacific - You nailed it. And until, and unless the money-fountain of cash from insurance to Congress is turned off, Congress will continue to vote for the dollar over the interests of constituents.
 
 
+21 # DongiC 2017-01-06 20:08
Congress is like a national whore serving its customers - the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals . Too bad the Evangelicals can't see real evil where it exists.
 
 
+3 # DongiC 2017-01-06 20:08
Congress is like a national whore serving its customers - the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals . Too bad the Evangelicals can't see real evil where it exists.
 
 
+4 # DongiC 2017-01-06 20:08
Congress is like a national whore serving its customers - the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals . Too bad the Evangelicals can't see real evil where it exists.
 
 
+9 # Bic Parker 2017-01-06 18:53
"# Scott Galindez 2017-01-06 15:17
Medicare for all is too simplistic. With Kidney failure, I have the option to go to Medicare early. Medicare, however, is more expensive for me than Obamacare. There are some flaws in medicare that would need to be addressed. It is not truly single payer yet. I decided to wait to go on medicare."

Medicare only covers 80% of costs with reliance on the health care corporate industry for the additional 20%, collecting additional premiums-And requiring underwriting, which means they can exclude you or overprice their product!

We need MedicAID for all! Truly Universal Healthcare!

Educate yourself!
 
 
+11 # Bic Parker 2017-01-06 19:02
PS~ There are lives in the balance!
 
 
+16 # Charles3000 2017-01-06 19:42
Joe Biden nailed the difference in thinking between many Rs and Ds. Ds believe healthcare is a basic right; Rs think it is a privilege. Those Rs would be happy to repeal the ACA and put things back where they were before, letting the "market" sort it out.
 
 
+6 # Cassandra2012 2017-01-07 01:38
Quoting Charles3000:
Joe Biden nailed the difference in thinking between many Rs and Ds. Ds believe healthcare is a basic right; Rs think it is a privilege. Those Rs would be happy to repeal the ACA and put things back where they were before, letting the "market" sort it out.

I have one solution -- make every single congressperson, R or D get only the same healthcare options the rest of the American people can get instead of their "Cadillac" health care and watch the improvements pass!
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 15:01
The only way to deliver health care "as a basic right" is single payer. The ACA does not do it and Democrats who claim the ACA is good enough do not support health care as a basic right. There are still something like 20 million without insurance and some that have it can't afford to use it. It is better than the pre ACA days and should be kept until we can actually get single-payer, but not good enough.
 
 
+19 # Saberoff 2017-01-06 19:47
Me and Bernie want single payer.
 
 
+6 # Bic Parker 2017-01-06 19:48
Correct! But the corporate health care system is 1/6, 1/5 % of the US economy. They will not go quietly!
 
 
+4 # CDMR 2017-01-07 18:26
Bic -- yes, right. They are 1/5 of the US economy. They are more powerful than the weapons producers who have driven the US into permanent wars. It really does seem impossible to overturn corporate healthcare. The single payer for all system would mean shutting down completely these mega-corporatio ns. It is pretty certain that both democrats and republicans in congress will defend these corporations to their last breaths.

Pretty depressing. If we don't get free from this corporate tyranny over healthcare, we will continue to degenerate as a nation. We can't afford to give everyone medicine at current rates.
 
 
+24 # djnova50 2017-01-06 20:03
I am disabled. I have Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid covers my premiums and copays for any hospital, clinic, or other medical care I get. According to the FAQs that I have read on the Physicians for a National Health Plan web site, a Single Payer system would actually save our country money and still cover all people from birth to death.

The combination of Medicare and Medicaid is how I think a single payer system would work. No out of pocket expenses.

When the ACA was signed into law, I knew it was not what the majority of people in our country wanted. Even a growing number of physicians would have welcomed single payer.

The primary beneficiaries of the ACA are the insurance companies. As we have seen, if the insurance company is not making enough money, it can back out of ACA.

Our country values corporations too much.
 
 
+16 # m... 2017-01-06 20:15
WAKE UP..!!
Trump and the Republicans, no matter how they did it--- They did it..! THEY WON..!
The winners make the rules and the losers live by their rules.
Want to change the rules, then stop being the losers and get off your butts, take the time, put forth the efforts and do the actual grind to change things at the grass roots local level like school boards which wield great influence over the teaching-influe nce our children encounter in school, and at the state level where gerrymandering happens and voting processes are established, and all the way up to national level where most of the power is concentrated.
Want to change things, then we have to WIN the power to make those changes.
The truth is--- Conservatives do the work.
It seems Progressives are mostly good at intellectualizi ng and 'protesting' loudly..., but what does that get us? Some of the smartest people in the world live in boxes under bridges.
You have to act, do, involve yourselves in the processes necessary to achieve the political victories it will take to gain power.
Action is what counts. Organized political action within the established system is the best way to take power so we can change the established system.
In the meanwhile, it will also takes real time and real effort and real action to confront, challenge and blunt the power that has now won control of the rule-making machines.
There is a midterm election in two years. What are you going to do about it besides blog?
 
 
+10 # economagic 2017-01-06 21:01
"The winners make the rules and the losers live by their rules."

That is at best democracy at its worst, and precisely what Tocqueville meant by "tyranny of the majority." Modern functioning democracies do not elect a dictator (although the dictators always stand ready for the call), but have ways of reducing if not eliminating disfranchisemen t of minorities.

Most USians seem to believe that since this country was the first modern democracy it is the best if not the only true democracy. In reality it is the most primitive and the least democratic.
 
 
+7 # m... 2017-01-06 22:55
It is as it is in America until its not.
If we want to change it, look at the pricks who have made the rules to suite themselves and then get involved, exploit their rules, get who you want elected and take back the power it takes to turn it your way. That's the simple bottomline for everything.
We are citizens of America as it is now.
The people who won the election are coming to change America into how they want it all to be and will use all the power and might they can muster to do so no matter how much we 'protest'.
We can give this 'democracy' or this 'system' any intellectual titles we want. But take notice. The current winners are sure as hell not busy 'intellectualiz ing' about anything, nor have they been. They are very busy saying whatever crap suits their agenda in any given moment while always and nonstop-- grabbing and taking as much power and authority as they can without skipping a beat along the way.
They are very busy while the rest of us, the actual majority (which is most certainly NOT tyrannical by any current measure) is spending most of its time complaining, wallowing in despair, acting like losers, fretting like fearful children and living like worriers who seem to consider blogging, intellectualizi ng and even fantasizing as the same as acting to take back power.
How disempowering is that?
There is no one coming to the rescue. We have to save the country and ourselves and either we do it or we don't.
Again, stated as simply as possible.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2017-01-06 23:03
Quoting m...:
The truth is--- Conservatives do the work.
It seems Progressives are mostly good at intellectualizing and 'protesting' loudly..., but what does that get us? Some of the smartest people in the world live in boxes under bridges.
You have to act, do, involve yourselves in the processes necessary to achieve the political victories it will take to gain power.
Action is what counts. Organized political action within the established system is the best way to take power so we can change the established system.
In the meanwhile, it also takes real time and real effort and real action to confront, challenge and blunt the power that has now won control of the rule-making machines.
There is a midterm election in two years. What are you going to do about it besides blog?

- reminds what robbee was saying in lame duck 2000 before bush2cheney broke 300 million americans in order to shift trillions to pockets of billionaires - repugs are the national enema! - at least they get things done!

in 2016 self-described "bernie supporters" said only bernie can fix america - the election of one man - even bernie - fixes nothing but the dem party - and bernie may fix our dems party anyway

if we want to "control rule-making machines" and exert power in the future we need to resist evil when and where it shows - hard, strong and united - marching as one - taking power that is never given!

for your words m..., you go! power to people!
 
 
+6 # Charles3000 2017-01-06 21:10
Single payer makes sense if you understand federal money. Taxes are not needed to pay for it and Mr. Galindez does not understand that. Money is free to the federal government. If the resources are available for healthcare then the government can pay for them for all citizens and visitors too for that matter. Taxes will be needed only if the money spent causes inflation and current estimates are that 1 T$ could be spent into the economy without causing any growth in CPI. That is the message that needs to be understood by people including Mr. Galindez. Federal money is free. It can be printed and spent. It does not have to be borrowed. It has been done before many times. It can be done again.
 
 
+7 # economagic 2017-01-06 21:36
OK, it's not QUITE that simple, but there is no justification for the red thumbs. The principle is sound, and it is gaining respectability in the economic circles in which I circulate (mostly unrespectable, but that itself is changing).
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2017-01-07 00:23
Yes. Besides which, USP would cost less than what we spend now. So it's not a matter of paying more taxes, it's a matter of who pays whom.

Right now, businesses pay most of our health insurance premiums (as a "job benefit"), so most workers don't really know how much it costs them. But that money comes out of their paychecks invisibly.
 
 
-9 # anachronis 2017-01-06 23:01
I did not know that Reader Supported News is a comedy site.
 
 
-4 # Walhalla 2017-01-07 00:24
Sorry, You have to go back to Fox News
 
 
+5 # anachronis 2017-01-07 14:15
Walhalla 2017-01-07 00:24

What magnificent lack of comprehension.
 
 
-3 # Cassandra2012 2017-01-07 16:28
Anachronism: You keep showing your lack of civility and your tendency to enjoy being a pompous ass.
 
 
0 # ReconFire 2017-01-07 23:44
Quoting anachronis:
I did not know that Reader Supported News is a comedy site.


Please explain what you're referring to.
 
 
+10 # wrknight 2017-01-06 23:24
Negligent homicide or premeditated murder?
 
 
+11 # wrknight 2017-01-06 23:34
Healthy people have to purchase healthcare insurance for the same reason careful drivers have to purchase auto insurance. Because sickness and accidents can happen to anyone at any time, just like auto accidents can happen at any time.

Just because one is healthy today, doesn't mean that one will be healthy tomorrow. Insurance is protects against catastrophic loss and those who refuse to purchase insurance are gambling that someone else will pick up the tab if they get sick or injured which ends up costing everyone else. Those who depend on others to pick up the tab for their costs are called "freeloaders".
 
 
+15 # wrknight 2017-01-06 23:41
Having said that, there is no excuse for the exorbitant costs of health care in the U.S., and the exorbitant profits of the insurance industry is criminal. Single payer insurance would eliminate much if not most of the waste overhead in the insurance industry. It would also have much greater bargaining power over the healthcare providers. A government operated single payer plan (e.g., Medicare) would also eliminate the profits.
 
 
+4 # Ralph 2017-01-07 09:19
Trying to couch people who can't afford exorbitant insurance policies as "freeloaders" is disingenuous. Forcing people to purchase private goods and services is unconstitutiona l. If the government requires personal health insurance, then they must provide it. Payroll taxes would make "freeloading" nearly impossible.
 
 
0 # James38 2017-01-10 21:05
WRK: "Healthy people have to purchase healthcare insurance for the same reason careful drivers have to purchase auto insurance."

"Single payer insurance would eliminate much if not most of the waste overhead in the insurance industry."

It seems you have some issues mixed up. "Single Payer" is not an insurance program. It is a health care provider program in which the Government pays the cost of health care. No insurance company involved. All the costs of the insurance industry are eliminated, since there is no reason to have an industry that provides nothing, doing the bookkeeping and taking money out of the health care fund for profit margin.

The government would also have the responsibility for monitoring quality and cost of health care, and keeping costs as low as is compatible with quality care.

Equating health insurance with auto insurance is also incorrect. Everyone needs health care eventually. Not everyone is going to have an accident. It would be foolish and irresponsible for drivers to avoid paying for insurance. But it is abusive to charge people for a service that is universally necessary, especially when that charge includes profit for the insurance company. That is a needless added cost for health care.
 
 
+7 # Dave Parsons 2017-01-07 10:00
We already pay for an existing health insurance system...all of us. We pay through taxes for: Medicare, Medicaid, the VA hospital system, subsidies to health care organizations for indigent care, medical and pharmaceutical research done by government agencies, grants to institutions for research. Individuals and businesses pay through their insurance costs, some of which go to cover unreimbursed expenses at healthcare institutions. People without insurance pay for others because they pay the full asking price for medical services which are usually double or triple the price insurance companies and government agencies pay. WE ALREADY PAY but don't get the services. We pay twice what most countries pay per capita and our national health rating is crap. Until we see that the system needs to be reconfigured, we are stuck with a dysfunctional system.
 
 
+3 # Cassandra2012 2017-01-07 16:35
And members of congress, both Democratic and Republican get 'Cadillac' healthcare which gives them absolutely no incentive to improve it for the rest of us.
There is no good reason to allow this to continue. Let all of us get the same decent healthcare as is enjoyed in the rest of the civilized world. If Canada, Australia, UK, Germany etc. can manage affordable decent healthcare, surely the US can stop letting the healthcare insurance 'industry' continue to rip off American taxpayers for inferior healthcare!
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2017-01-07 19:26
Of course, there is a reason that Congress doesn't pass USP healthcare.

Corruption. Sanders was 100% correct when he said that "donations" buy influence. When cornered by HRC to defend that observation of truth when she observed that Obama took tons of money from Wall Street and the insurance industry, he should have simply said:

Bailout and ACA.
 
 
+2 # Sam Seaman 2017-01-07 15:05
Universal Health Care would require an additional $562 billion in taxation to cover the government spending, while the Defense budget is around $585 billion.

How come the USA is prepared to spend more on world-wide aggression than it would need to care for all of its own people?
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2017-01-07 19:27
And we already spend more for healthcare than we would with USP.

Sanders' plan would have saved the average family $4,000 per year. Lower income people would have saved even more. Only the top 5% or so would have seen costs increase.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN