Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Will Hillary Cave on Health Care?

By Jeff Cohen, AlterNet. Posted February 3, 2007.


It's conventional wisdom that Iraq is the issue that will hurt Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency, but if she offers vague rhetoric and half-way measures on health care, it could destroy her campaign.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jeff Cohen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It's conventional wisdom that if Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign falters with Democratic activists in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, it will be over the issue of the Iraq war. And her vacillations on the war.

Yet the dividing-line issue in the upcoming primaries may turn out to be not Iraq, but health care. And just like on Iraq, the Democratic base is in no mood for timidity and half-way measures and vague rhetoric. Most rank-and-file Democrats support government-provided national health insurance: enhanced Medicare for All.

And that's no secret to the candidates. This is how the Washington Post described Hillary Clinton's recent, maiden voyage into Iowa as a candidate:

In keeping with her expressed desire to hold a "conversation with Iowans," Clinton asked at one point for a show of hands from the audience, asking them to declare whether they preferred an employer-based system of insurance, a system that mandates all individuals to purchase insurance, with help from the government if necessary, or one modeled on the Medicare system. Overwhelmingly the audience favored moving toward a Medicare-like system for all Americans.

A show of hands in almost any roomful of Democratic activists will produce the same result: they want a single-payer "Medicare-like system for all Americans." According to the Post, Clinton told the Iowa group: "I'm not ready to be specific until I hear from people."

Pressure from the base on Clinton and other Democratic contenders to get specific will intensify in the early states -- mobilized by groups such as Progressive Democrats of America, Healthcare Now, National Nurses Organizing Committee and Physicians for a National Healthcare Program. So far, none of the sitting senators seeking the nomination are supporting Medicare for All, though former Sen. John Edwards may be coming close. Rep. Dennis Kucinich for years has been a leading supporter in the House.

That single-payer is the rational, cost-effective way to reform healthcare is an easy case to make -- and was eloquently argued last month by respected Democratic party activist and lawyer Guy T. Saperstein. Despite spending twice as much money on healthcare as other industrialized nations, our system fails to cover 47 million people and generally performs poorly. Experts point to the main cause of the failure -- a private insurance bureaucracy that soaks up nearly one-third of all healthcare dollars in waste, profits, paperwork, commissions and advertising.

Insurance companies don't treat or heal patients; they just suck the healthcare system dry of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Adding pressure on Democratic presidential candidates was last month's reintroduction of "The U.S. National Health Insurance Act," HR 676, authored by Rep. John Conyers and soon expected to have 80 congressional cosponsors. This Expanded & Improved Medicare for All Bill would fully cover every American, thanks to cost-savings. In its first year, single-payer would save over $150 billion on paperwork alone, and $50 billion though rational bulk order purchasing of medications. Care will be privately delivered by healers and hospitals, but publicly financed -- with no bills, co-pays, deductibles, denials or medically induced bankruptcies.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health care, hillary clinton

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Gosh. For all our sakes...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 3, 2007 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I hope she caves in to common sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gosh. For all our sakes... Posted by: willymack
» For all our sakes... Posted by: staringatthesun
Single-Payer Is the Only Way Out of This Mess
Posted by: hagwind on Feb 3, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in Massachusetts the cracks in the supposedly landmark "universal health coverage" law enacted last year are getting more and more obvious. If you're a single person making less than $29.412 a year, you may qualify for subsidized coverage at up to $106/month -- but if you make more than that the insurance industry want you to fork over as much as $380/month. People whose current "barebones" coverage doesn't meet the law's standard may have to buy more insurance. And the members of the body charged with overseeing the boondoggle have a median income of $111,000 a year -- presumably with benefits. Universal access to affordable health care is an important goal, and there's no way we're going to get there by increasing our tithes to the insurance industry.

Hmm. You suppose we could make a case that forcing us all to tithe to the insurance companies violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment? ;-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Single-payer misnomer. Posted by: ABetterFuture
The Sooner the better
Posted by: marxalot on Feb 3, 2007 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let her campaign derail. She doesn't represent progressive thought in any meaningful way and (2) if nominated the GOP will celebrate the event because they know they can beat her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If she wants my vote..
Posted by: bookie on Feb 3, 2007 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
get us out of Iraq, get us a national health care system, and get moving on the environmental issues

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Key to a truly good health care plan
Posted by: edith on Feb 3, 2007 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does it hurt the income of "specialists", especially radiologists and surgeon?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My letter from Hillary on my Health Care Plan-1995
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 3, 2007 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks AlterNet for doing more recently on Health Care. I agree Hillary is in trouble on this issue but in 1995 I received a very supportive letter from her on my plan emphasizing prevention at both the individual and institutional levels (posted below).

H.R.676(John Conyers bill with many progressive co-sponsors) is the leading single payer bill (which unelectable but brave and highly intelligent Dennis Kucinich backs) is single payer but so far I haven't seen enough prevention emphasis in it?

Here's my plan- (lightly revised after Katrina)

GROW UP AMERICA-A HEALTH CARE PLAN FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS- proposed by Richard. A Lippin MD*

-Stop prolonging death. It’s both expensive and dehumanizing at best, greedy and cruel at worst.

-Empower US citizens to assume increased individual responsibility for health and convince medical consumers that it is in their best interests not to assume the role of helpless, dependent victims/patients.

-Yet also recognize that we have medicalized America’s social problems. So we must provide healthy and safe jobs for all able citizens thereby reducing poverty and all its subsequent health impacts (possibly 1/3rd of Health Care Costs)

-Provide healthy environments including healthy air, water, soil and food.

-Rebuild America’s public health infrastructure to ensure we provide appropriate macro and individual interventions to especially low income citizens such as childhood and adult immunizations and response to man-made and natural catastrophes.

-Face the reality that a very large percentage of illnesses, injuries and hospitalizations are entirely preventable. Subsequently, the elimination of tobacco, alcohol, drug, medication and dietary abuse alone could immediately reduce medical costs by a factor of at least fifty percent.

-Incent and train physicians to maintain the health of patients and populations. Radical changes in provider re-imbursement and medical education strategies are necessary

-Recognize that early childhood preventive medical education can profoundly affect lifelong health behaviors.

*proposed in June of 1995
Revised January 2006/2007

I'm tracking all of this as much as I can

Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As an RN married to an MD
Posted by: wawa on Feb 3, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We both know that the major problems with the system today:

inadequate access by the public
too many uninsured citizens
lack of Physician choice
WASTE due to beauracracy and government intrusion

THE USA has the MOST expensive health care in the world of all developed countries

but we do NOT receive the best quality of health care.

Health care is only one hurdle for Hillary,

Another is that


On November 15, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton stood on the Jerusalem side of The Wall and was quoted in Ha’aretz, expressing support for The Wall because it “is against terrorists” and “not against the Palestinian people.”
Senator Clinton did NOT visit the Little Town of Bethlehem, which is Occupied Territory, to see what The Wall has done to the Bethlehem economy.


But I have.

Four times since June 2005.

"Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory" to be released mid Feb 2007

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Follow the money!
Posted by: jlohman on Feb 3, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never ceases to amaze me as I watch all of the special interests who stand to lose if we clean up health care and make it more efficient. They care, of course, about losing all of the waste that is currently going into their own pockets.

We must eliminate the expenses that are consumed but not spent on health care, like insurance company marketing, broker commissions, high executive salaries and profits. The ONLY system that makes sense is a Canadian-style system, without the wait times. And for the same $2 trillion we are spending to cover 85% of the people we could pay for a Medicare-for-all system that would cover 100% of the people.

The current for-profit leaches are simply going to have to leach elsewhere. They'll always be around, but they don't have to be in the hospital room or doctor's office.

The health care industry is spending $100 million per year in campaign contributions to keep the system broken. Those politicians taking the money and blocking reform must be replaced in 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you better pray that something destroys her campaign...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Feb 3, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
put quite simply ..king george is hilary lite...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Woman under a microscope
Posted by: michelestm on Feb 3, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so tired of the almost gleeful attacks on Hillary Rodham Clinton by the left. I expect it of the right and mainstream media -- but I'm really appalled at what I see as holding the sole female presidential candidate to a higher standard than the myriad males, most of whom are, frankly, just the usual suspects.

I am not saying that Rodham Clinton should not be criticized. I am asking for the playing field to be leveled. I am pointing out that (mostly male) journalists are scrutinizing her in a way they don't even come close to doing with male candidates. The scrutiny is unfair and the tone of it is unprofessional. Barack Obama is referred to, respectfully, as "Obama." Joseph Biden is usually "Biden." Hell, even George W. Bush is usually "Bush." But Rodham Clinton is "Hillary." That in itself shows a lack of respect. It makes me wonder, frankly, if lefty male journalists have more in common with their right-wing brothers than with the women who share their "progressive" views.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Woman under a microscope Posted by: zipper696
» Rodham in the Crosshairs Posted by: edith
» Please Don't.... Posted by: CatDad
defeat while 1st lady
Posted by: larry278 on Feb 3, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A cynic could get the impression that Sen Clinton lost her drive for govt funded health care for all after her campaign for it failed when she was 1st lady. The loss of drive on the issue of health care could prevent her from being nominated for president. It's a cinch that some other person seeking the Democrat's nomination will berate her for a lack of drive on the issue of health care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pushing Hillary's bogus health care "reform" at state level
Posted by: sausage on Feb 3, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Out in Iowa, State Senator Jack Hatch is pushing much the same half-assed health care "reform" as did Hillary in 1993.

Wrote the politician-real estate developer on The Des Moines Register's blog Fri 1.12.200711:13 PM
Universal health care

What some of you bloggers have to know is that universal health care in our legislation is not the single payer system some federal congresspersons want to propose. Our proposal will focus on reforming the private insurance market(
emphasis added by me) to target new insurance products to small businesses who can’t afford to fully cover their employees and to continue to plug the holes in the public sector health care system, Medicaid, etc. This will be funded by a $1.00 tax on tobacco which will generate about $134 million per year. Remember, smoking related illnesses cost public taxpayers in Iowa over $300 million. A tax this high will, by everyone’s analysis, reduce smoking and thus, reduce the amount taxpayers, insurance companies and hospitals will have to spend in treating the uninsured Iowan who becomes ill by smoking.

Hatch is influencial in state Democratic circles. And he is a card-carrying member of the DLC and sychophantic supporter of DLC fellow-travelers Tom Vilsack and the Clintons. If Vilsack falters, Hatch will naturally stick his nose up Hillary's rectum.

But, if before the general election in '08, DLC state leaders get this kind of nanny state corporate welfare legislation in place and should Hillary win the presidency, then true single-payer universal health care will be off the table.

For me, this is enough to disqualify Hillary Clinton as a legitimate presidential candidate. Should she gain the Democratic nomination, I shall not vote for her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

combination health care
Posted by: kathat on Feb 3, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see anything wrong with people having private health insurance through their jobs and having medicare cover everybody that doesn't.
The real problems with our healthcare system are not addressed in having universal healthcare.
There should be laws about drug companies price gouging, and when doctors charge 120.00 a visit it should mean at least 1/2 hour, not 10 minutes. There should be a 'check off list' of tests that every single person should get according to their age to prevent and check for disease.
I am familiar with medicare because my son is quadreplegic, and believe me, they don't want to pay for anything.
Any item or medication that might make his life easier is not okayed by medicare and there is no 'appeal process' in medicare.

What if we go to universal healthcare, and it gets worse?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: combination health care Posted by: kathat
» Unlimited health care? Posted by: edith
» RE: Unlimited health care? Posted by: sausage
» RE: Unlimited health care? Posted by: kathat
We need to stop thinking 'domestic and foreign' in policy matters
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 3, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most pundits would say health care is a domestic issue - but in fact, it's a global issue - and the problem with the Clintons is that they give lip service to a liberal and populist domestic agenda while at the same time serving the very same international corporate interests that the Republicans do.

For example, pharmaceutical firms are busy conducting drug trials in Africa and India - for the simple reason that people in those countries are far less likely to sue or complain about being used as guinea pigs (see the movie, The Constant Gardener, for an example).

Similarly, the Clintons support for NAFTA, GATT ( and particularly important to health care) TRIPS - the intellectual property agreements that keep drug prices artificially high - guts foreign health care. You can bet that any drugs developed by doing trials in Africa won't be available to most Africans because the prices will be far too high, and the same could be true in Mexico.

Here in the US we have convoys of senior citizens in buses heading to Canada to buy their needed drugs for various ailments for similar reasons. The hospital chains have been closing the doors of emergency centers for years now - and the reduced access to health care leads to higher Medicare costs because people often wait until their disease has progressed before going to see a doctor.

The really bizarre issue is health care and the GNP - every time someone comes down with cancer, heart disease, liver disease, lung disease - the Gross National Product goes up - because hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are making money. What if no one got sick? The pharmaceutical companies will invent diseases - social anxiety disorder, adult ADHD (meth addicts have this, too) - just to keep drug sales up (most of the psychologically active drugs do more harm then good).

Health care is an issue that relates directly to the democracy or empire debate, in other words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Question
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 3, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say Hillary gets the nomination and wins. Which Hillary shows up?

Is it the former Lawyer for Wal-Mart-- the most viciously anti-union, anti-worker, low wage, crap benefit to come down the pike in generations?

Is the Senator that didn't stand up against the Bankruptcy Bill, one of the most anti-consumer acts of Congress in modern times?

Is it the Senator that has NEVER voted to advance a single payer health care system, and worked against it when she was point person for her husband, when he was in the White House?

Why pretend she is progressive- she is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Big Question Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Big Question- Ugly Answer Posted by: NoPCZone
Hillary is dead in the campaign water already
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 3, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about it: Iran is going to make her look really bad. And then, yes, healthcare. But her position will be shown to be no different than Bush's and thus she will go nowhere. It can't avoid the issue that the Dems are a mess, the recent election did not fix them and they are back to not knowing what they should do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Pharma vs Insurance Companies vs Trial Lawyers
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 3, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
these are the issues that Hillary, and all politicans, must balance when deciding on any bills having to do with health care. The people, the actual health concerns, or security concerns have NOTHING to do with the debate. All the aforementioned groups make too much money and are the only people that Congress (in either party) will listen to. So the important thing for a Congressman is a way in which their biggest donar is helped, if possible, devise a way in which all the parties can make the big bucks.
Example, Texas Gov.Perry mandated by 'executive order' that all girls in Texas need to take a HPV vaccination. No vote. No opt-out for religion, medical reasons, etc. Merck gave big to his campaign. They refuse to say how much they gave to the "Women In Government" PAC that is supporting the vaccine program across the nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Health care for insured
Posted by: Maryanne on Feb 3, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We NEED a one payer, universal medical coverage.

All attention is being given to those who are uninsured. No one pays attention to those who have health inusrance through the workplace but are drowning with their share of the cost.

We pay 1/2 of our medical coverage. Ten years ago it was $95. per month. Not a bad deal. Especially since it does cover prescription drugs with a deductible.This week we received a notice that it has gone up another huge amount per month. As of this month our SHARE is $860 per month.

Does it cover everything? No way! Only 80% of COVERED services. No flu or other preventative vacccines. No preventative care. No temporary home care when one is ill or incapacitated. No vitamins or minerals even though ordered by doctor. No coverage for medicine previously prescription that is now over the counter. Although we are relatively healthy, last year we supplemented the amount paid with an additional $4000. to cover what was not included.

Some medical services are provided on a pay upfront basis with aan 80% reimbusement from the insurance company to us. However, you then must wait weeks, sometimes months before this reimbursement comes through.

We would be farther ahead financially if we did not have this coverage and paid our own way; however one never knows when an accident or unexpected illness puts one in the hospital. So insurance is needed. (My parents' total savings were wiped out due to an accident my father had at work- for which they had no insurance and which the company refused to cover.)

There are less expensive policies available to us, but choice of doctors is limited. And having had some bad experiences along this line, we prefer the right to choose.

How long will we be able to afford coverage at the rate of increase of approximately $100 per month each year? And many people we know are in the same sitation.

Universal medical coverage was being discussed over 50 years ago. That bus has long gone. Now it the time to do something that will benefit everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Over the counter meds...... Posted by: gellero
doctors
Posted by: bambino on Feb 3, 2007 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i just read time mag about doctors leaving practices for more lucrative positions. the argument is that they are not reimbursed enough. if this is true then how does the lack of doctors fit into this argument for health coverage for all. will there be a change in the type of health professional we go to? already i was suggested to see nurses first by a group of doctors. they said they sit in the same classes and read the same books etc. but then why dont they get the same diplomas. we all want good health coverage but who will there be to give us the services...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uh huh
Posted by: cmaukonen on Feb 3, 2007 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the Post, Clinton told the Iowa group: "I'm not ready to be specific until I hear from people."

Yah...the people who make the medicines, who represent the insurance companies and the people who run private hospitals.
You know, the people who give to my campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GORE IN 08 Posted by: DCostello2
Not Gonna Happen
Posted by: TagsNOLA on Feb 3, 2007 9:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No Democrat will advance a single-payer system. (Or if they do, they're lying. They'll weasel as soon as they're elected to the Whitehouse.) Nor, of course, would any Republican. The will of the people is irrelevant when it comes to major policy issus. The people made it clear in no uncertain terms that we want our troops out of Iraq now. Is it going to happen. No! Of course not! Instead, we're getting a "surge," asnwered by a limp-wristed "non-binding resolution." How lame is that? The Democrats could've had an even bigger margin of victory than they got in the congressional races. But Felix Rohatyn's fairhaired lackey, Dean, blocked distriubtion of six million in campaign funds from swing campaigns that might've gone for the Democrats but didn't. It's hard to win elections when you've got back stabbing traitors in your own party. Not impossible, but it is a lot tougher.
In the runup to the 2004 election, John Kerry announced that he did not favor "yet another government program to ensure universal health care, because there is no political support for it." This was in the face of a "Wall Street Journal" / NBC News poll that indicated 60% support among voters in favor of a universal health care system, *even if it meant more taxes*. But Kerry was telling the truth. There WAS no political support for it. 60% of voters in favor does not consitute political support for anything if vested financial interests oppose it.
Now, you people have been told "no" on this healthcare issue. And you've been told "no" on getting the troops out of Iraq. So sit the hell down and shut the hell up. Your opinions are irrelevant. The majority does NOT rule in this country anymore. Deal with it.
TagsNOLA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Gonna Happen Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Brilliant Comment... Posted by: CatDad
» - thanks, but Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Amen.... Posted by: CatDad
Health Care Reform: Right Issue, Wrong Person
Posted by: ZPaul on Feb 4, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without a doubt, Healthcare MUST be refomed in the USA -- but Hillary Clinton is NOT the person to do it. We need people with REAL ideas that are not just window dressing. What ideas, and ways to implement them, has she had the courage to put forward?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

forget Clinton
Posted by: karyse on Feb 4, 2007 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Campaign for, and vote for, Dennis Kucinich. Clinton doesn't have the desire, nor guts, to get us out of Iraq and pay reparations, to stop the military machine from screwing with Iran, to put us on track with eliminating fossil fuel dependence, to stop Israel's lust for punishment, to get rid of the Patriot Acts and restore the Constitution, to intervene in hyjacking "terrorists" and sending them to torture camps, and she certainly isn't going to get us universal healthcare.

We need someone completely different from Bu$hCo, not a slightly more paletable cousin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Forget Kucinich too Posted by: DCostello2
» RE: Forget Kucinich tooOUCH Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: Forget Kucinich tooOUCH Posted by: DCostello2
» RE: Forget Kucinich tooOUCH Posted by: drricklippin
The '93' year old LIE
Posted by: mite on Feb 4, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As we begin this "Con-game" again of the politicians against the voters, let us stop and think for a change and ask ourselves a important question. Where does the 'Money' come from? Is the money real? Does the 'Dollar' have any real value? Or is it (the dollar) made from 'Air'?

Taxation is a promise given by our government to the Federal Reserve and International Bankers to be enforced upon us by the IRS. I direct you to the following video's on:
www.video.google.com

(1) freedomtofascism
(2) theft-by-deception
(3) money masters Part 1 & 2
(4) terrorstorm

After reviewing these video's and getting the Truth from them, never addressed by our politicians, Press-Media during the election and campaign process. Ask your elected officials, those politicians running for office- what about the 'Income Tax' is it true that there is 'No Law' requiring me to file a 1040 form or pay taxes on my labor?

Listen for their reply.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The '93' year old LIE Posted by: allthingslucid
health care in the US
Posted by: bluebird on Feb 4, 2007 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to agree with the doctor who posted above. But I want to add something further.

Healthcare in this country is a commodity, bought and sold, and it is NOT in the interest of the medical community, the laboratories that do tests, or the drug companies that people stay healthy. After all, no one in any of these communities gets paid if we are healthy and don't require their services.

Half a lifetime ago (30 years ago) I abandoned the medical profession. I STOPPED GOING TO DOCTORS, started paying attention to food and nutrition - learning everything I could and putting it into practice, started using food supplements, and generally doing everything I could to make myself well. After half a lifetime of taking care of myself in this way, I am healthier than I have ever been.

The problems with the medical profession today is that they have made every normal thing into a MEDICAL PROBLEM that HAS to be handled with drugs. Pregnancy, menopause, normal children with alot of energy (hyperactive?), and many many others are now regarded as serious problems that ONLY doctors and drugs can handle.

Got menopause? I didn't use hormone replacement therapy. I went to my health food store and bought some natural progesterone cream and rubbed it in according to the protocol. Within a few weeks the hot flashes ceased. Period.

Osteoporsis? I discovered that I had a serious Vitamin D deficiency and have been taking that supplement ever since. Along with diet and exercise the problem should be resolved.

Hyperactivity? What are you eating? Take a look at the diet. See all those chemicals that you can't pronounce? Why are you eating that crap? See all that sugar? Why don't you get it out of your diet? And don't tell me you can't do that. I was the world's worst sugar junkie. If I can do it, you can do it.

And on and on it goes. If I have discovered one thing, it is that for almost every problem there is a solution.

My one problem with the discussion of singlepayer health care is that NO WHERE have I seen ANYONE pay attention to alternative care and payment for it.

Why the hell should doctors be covered but there is no coverage for supplements, acupuncture, or any other of the wide range of alternatives?

Alternatives WORK. I know from my experience that they work. The problem is that every alternative doesn't work for every person. You have to find what works for you. The emphasis here is on taking responsibility for your own body. Period. And if singlepayer health care is to truly work, it MUST also cover alternatives.

One other thing I'd like to say, in agreement with the above doctor, is the insanity in this country of concentrating on trying to ward off death. This country is literally crazy on this subject.

Nothing that is alive stays that way forever. Death is simply a part of life. I accept that and know that one day I will die. I have written a living will and will NOT allow my life to be extended by machines or any other way. That, to me, is insanity. People need to accept that life cannot be prolonged indefinitely and to spend finite resources on this is to waste finite resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: health care in the US Posted by: TagsNOLA
Extend life for more than 100 years? WHAT EVER FOR?
Posted by: bluebird on Feb 4, 2007 10:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is NUTS and EXACTLY what I was referring to above. Why in hell would you WANT to extend life for more than 100 years for everyone, assuming that was even possible?

It seems to me that one of the reasons we die is to make room for new life. If you have a society of people who are mainly over 100, what do you have? A society of old folks who are NOT healthy because they do NOT take care of themselves, expecting science and doctors to keep them alive.

Take this example. How often have you heard of someone who received an organ replacement for, let's say, a diseased liver that is ready to die because of alcohol addiction, a sick heart ready to go because of an atrocious diet, or any other organ that breaks down because of owner abuse but capable of being replaced. Should these people receive new organs when they have ruined the ones they were born with because they didn't take proper care of them? Why the devil should irresponsible people like this have new organs given to them at very great expense, so that they can do it all over again? Personally, I reject this.

Extending life simply because it can be done...extending life before you're afraid to die...this is NONSENSE to the nth degree. It is a waste of the limited resources we have.

And please don't waste my time telling me it's a terrible thing not to replace a diseased organ when we have the ability to do so.

IF resources and money were infinite, sure then go ahead and give new organs to people who won't care for them any more than they did the first time. Who cares.

BUT, since this is not the case, then it seems to me that we have 2 choices here. One is that we learn how to properly care for what we were given at birth, which means proper diet, vitamins, exercise, etc. The second is that we come to terms with death - and frankly, I think this is the more difficult of the choices. I think that most people find this impossible to do.

But, honestly, what other choice is there?

Life is NOT forever - not even for vampires. Life is meant to end for all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cave in?
Posted by: Soco on Feb 5, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't make me laugh.

Hubby is playing golf with Bush Senoir and she's said she won't leave any option off the table concerning Iran after meeting with AIPAC.

You guys are too much, really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary will not have my support until she supports SB 840 in California
Posted by: allthingslucid on Feb 5, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Senator Hillary Clinton must come out in support of California State Senator Kuehl's Health Insurance Reliability Act, SB 840. If she does not, I will never support her candidacy. NEVER!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BUSH'S BUDGET SLAMS HEALTH PROGRAMS
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 5, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AlterNet readers-read this and weep -courtesy of the New York Times.After you are finished weeping -ACT

Bush's Budget

Thanks

Dr. Rick Lippin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who pays
Posted by: gellero on Feb 5, 2007 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I don't want to pay for your voodoo.......quit bitch'n and pay for it yourself

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to Dr Lipkin
Posted by: gellero on Feb 5, 2007 5:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the budget justs asses cost on medicare recipients with income of $80, 000. Isn't that the 'progressive' thing to do......boohooohooo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gary J Minter
Posted by: garyjminter on Feb 8, 2007 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We, the people of the United States of America, should be ashamed that we are the only industrialized nation in the world that fails to have a fair, universal, national health care system which covers all US citizens, not just the elderly, not just welfare recipients, not just drug addicts or alcoholics...or, more correctly, we should be angry at Congress, the President, and state governments, and ashamed of ourselves for not removing politicians and bureaucrats who fail to correct the situation!

We have a Frankenstein patchwork of arbitrary, changeable, overpriced medical care in the USA. Drug prices are obscenely high, and doctors overprescribe drugs, many of which don't work or have very bad side effects. Hospital and nursing home workers commonly make stupid, careless errors which result in disability or death of the patient....

In short, he