j_b

Financing single-payer national health insurance: Myths and facts Myth: Employers fund the majority of health care in the U.S. Fact: Private business funds less than 20 percent of total health spending. (Government employees have taxpayer-funded coverage through the FEHBP program and employer payments for private insurance receive a substantial tax subsidy). Myth: The U.S. has a privately financed health care system. Fact: 60 percent of health spending is financed by taxpayers. (Estimates that are lower exclude two large sources of taxpayer-funded care: health insurance for government employees and tax subsidies to employers to provide coverage.) Myth: Covering the uninsured is unaffordable. Fact: 31 percent of current health spending is squandered on administrative tasks related to our fragmented payment system with hundreds of different health plans rather than invested in patient care. Over $350 billion – about half of the money currently wasted on overhead and bureaucracy – could besaved with simplified single-payer administration, enough to cover all the 46 million uninsured. Covering the uninsured is affordable; keeping the current private insurance system intact is not. Myth: National health insurance would require large new taxes. Fact: No increase in total health spending is needed to finance single payer. The increase in taxes required to finance national health insurance would be fully offset by a reduction in out-of-pocket costs and premiums. Myth: Making people more “cost conscious” is the best way to control health costs. Fact: The U.S. has the highest health care costs even though Americans pay the highest out-of-pocket costs of any nation. Myth: Rising numbers of elderly Americans will bankrupt the single payer. Fact: Europe and Japan already have a larger proportion of elderly people than America faces with the aging of the baby boomers. Germany and Japan have adopted single-payer programs for long-term care coverage precisely because of single payer’s greater potential for efficiency and cost containment. Myth: Rising numbers of obese Americans will bankrupt the single payer. Fact: The proportion of health spending dedicated to caring for the obese is not rising faster than their share of the population. The best way to address the issues of obesity, smoking and other public health epidemics is through public health measures. Myth: U.S. health spending is higher than other nations because we get more and higher quality care. Fact: Americans get less of most kinds of care (doctor, hospital, surgery, etc.) than the citizens of other industrialized nations, and our care is lower quality by several measures. http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/Myths-and-Facts-on-single-payer.pdf

HLC is a propaganda organization funded by the insurance industry and HMOs that keeps repeating the usual lies about "government run healthcare" (another lie). Fairweather says he is against the rationing of healthcare, but he has no problem with having 1 american in 6 without access to care. If that isn't rationing, what is?

Yeah, right. He is a commie for wanting a 2nd 4 year term and I am one for saying it sounds reasonable to put the question to the people. By the same token, your friend Uribe of Colombia is a commie too since he did the same thing in 2004. Moron.

Rhetorical hyperbola isn't a good susbtitute for facts: the Honduran president is accused of seeking a second 4-year term. How is that more of an offense than systematic spying on americans, making up intelligence to create a cause for war that cost the lives of 100,000's iraqis, and on, and on ..

Nope, the people enable the state to regulate the pushers for suicidal behavior. More lies and fear-mongering. Western democracies with single payer formula have better healthcare than we do, private practioners and HMO's that make health related decisions, private addtionial health insurance for those who need it, and no rationing.

He'd first have to show that not providing affordable health coverage to people is cheaper than giving them treatment in the emergency room because of that dangerous "socialist" idea, the hypocratic oath. What the national tab for caring for the uninsured vs cost shifting by Medicare/Medicaid? The system we have is ~twice as expensive as single payer healthcare formula (by the way, more than 60% of healthcare expenditures in the US are currently paid by taxpayer dollars). I presume that adding 1/6 of the total pop that is currently without healthcare would be cheaper than paying twice as much as we ought to plus paying for emergency room services for little Tom's earache. Nobody would be forcing anybody. Additonal private insurance would still be available. Private doctors and HMO's would still make decisions. Enough with the lies.

when was the constitution in its present form voted in? Sometimes in the 80's. I seem to recall the military gave up power in 82 (?) The referendum was called to consider an assembly to review the constitution. One of the goals is presumably to allow a 2nd 4-year presidential term, so by any standard there is no question of entrenchment. One of the goal is indeed for Hondurans to participate more in the electoral process but it's not going to happen as long as the status quo is maintained. ? i think they have a "functioning" democracy, where the people are free to vote on whoever they wish, right? now if you're talking about a "referendum" on constitutional changes, see above. I don't call having 45-47% of potential voters partaking to elections in a country where most are dirt poor a functionning democracy. It's probable that many rural inhabitants don't vote. Even if people are nominally free to vote, without education and equal access to the ballot box and the political process, elections are pretty much a foregone conclusion, which really questions why they needed a military coup d'etat.

Foreign Policy in Focus: A Withdrawal in Name Only

leavng aside any justifications for a military coup for a moment, my understanding of the situation is that their constitution explicitly forbids multi-term presidencies, along with ANY ATTEMPT AT CHANGING THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. so the supreme court and congress both deemed Zelaya's actions to be unconstitutional, seemingly a rational assessment. The constitution was voted in by congress that happens to represent the interest of the oligarchy (2 rightwing parties have dominated politics since the return to civilian rule). It seems a little circuitous that congress declares the people ineligible to vote on their form of government. The majority of Hondurans are extremely poor and less than 50% vote for their elected representatives, which combined with a required 2/3 fraction of congress to amend the constitution means the status quo is almost guaranteed. why not let the people vote on a new assembly instead? what are they afraid of?

What's so wrong with calling a national referendum to vote on the possibility of a 2nd term that it'd justify a military coup d'etat? According to such bloody il-logic the government of Uribe in Colombia (whom FW holds in high regard) would be illegitimate since that is precisely what it did in 2004 to enable a second term that wasn't allowed by Colombia's constitution. We can always trust the jackbooted among us to show their true color no matter how many times a day they claim to embrace and fight for "freedom". Also note that virtually the entire world is denouncing the coup.

When you know that the "too radical" Kennedy proposal on health care would still leave 35 millions without coverage, it gives a fair idea of the "compromise" you are going to get: Business As Usual.

If MSNBC is rabidly liberal why don't they cover the single payer option? If ABC is somewhat liberal why was the single-payer otion mentionned 4 times in 6 month (3 of which by opponents of single payer)? Did any of them oppose attacking Iraq? Did any of them oppose the liberticidal patriot Act?

You tell me: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/va-medical-shambles-veterans-groups-say/ "Amid growing controversy over procedures that exposed 10,000 veterans to the AIDS and hepatitis viruses, the Department of Veterans Affairs is now bracing against news that one of its facilities in Pennsylvania gave botched radiation treatments to nearly 100 cancer patients. Veterans groups and lawmakers say VA hospitals have permitted these violations because federal regulations allow doctors to work with little outside scrutiny. They say the VA health system, with its under-funded hospitals and overworked doctors, is showing signs of an "institutional breakdown," in the words of one congressman." "A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance." http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

after the red baiting, comes the insults. what a surprise.

You mean like they do quite often in inital reports when some republican official is involved in a scandal? It is quite a testimony to what they think of their audience's intellect that they hope to get away with that crap over and over again. On Fox, Mark Sanford "(D)" holds press conference Meanwhile, ABC "News" whores itself out to the Administration vis a vis Obama's health care proposal with what amounts to an unpaid infomercial and nary a peep from j_b and his red brigade. More lies from Fairweather. ABC said they would cover all sides of the issue, and if recent history is any guide, the single-payer option is the one likely to get least coverage despite being suported by a majority of americans according to polls: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3816 In other words, the corporate media does not cover the progressive point of view (duh), yet republicans whine about censorship and the corporate media provides them with the echo-chamber they need to amplify their whining. What a pathetic farce!

OK, I didn't see that.

Kimmo questioned hep b vaccines for infants, which is reasonable doubt given that only infants from infected mothers are really at risk. Hep b is mostly a STD or through intravenous drug use.

You mean like they do quite often in inital reports when some republican official is involved in a scandal? It is quite a testimony to what they think of their audience's intellect that they hope to get away with that crap over and over again. On Fox, Mark Sanford "(D)" holds press conference

He'd first have to show that not providing affordable health coverage to people is cheaper than giving them treatment in the emergency room because of that dangerous "socialist" idea, the hypocratic oath.

Infinitely less than the 47 millions individuals who don't have healthcare in the US.

Are you implying it is better to have agribusiness decide what we should eat according to what is better for their wallet? let's cut subsidy to agribusiness (including the pricing of irrigation water) and we will see how long they think growing corn to add sugar to most everything is essential to our diet.

I wish it were true but putting new spin on the same old policies does make things worse. The energy bill in front of congress this friday is a good example of it: Friends of Earth Score Energy Bill as 'Step Backward'

Nice of you to spout conservative talking points but some spending is necessary to create/preserve jobs, which ought to be priority number 1. Bailing out too-big-to-fail institutions without structural changes (like breaking them up) is a waste of taxpayers money and we could do w/o war spendings too.

Because a D is in the white house, of course. The media will save it's dire global warming talk for whenever (if ever) an R is back in power. Why do you say that? The current administration seems much more likely to accept and act on climate change than the previous. The Clinton/Gore administration didn't do anything toward acting on climate change besides watering down resolutions during negociations then refusing to sign them. American shoppers misled by greenwash, Congress told 98% of supposedly environmentally friendly products in US supermarkets make false or confusing claims, campaigners say Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 June 2009 18.19 BST More than 98% of supposedly natural and environmentally friendly products on US supermarket shelves are making potentially false or misleading claims, Congress has been told. And 22% of products making green claims bear an environmental badge that has no inherent meaning, said Scot Case, of the environmental consulting firm TerraChoice. The study of nearly 4,000 consumer products found "greenwashing" in nearly every product category – from a lack of verifiable information to outright lies. Even the experts are confused. Case, whose firm runs its own Ecologo certification programme, admitted he had bought a refrigerator only to find it failed to meet its claims of energy efficiency. More: Greenwashing

more: Climate Scientist James Hansen Arrested in Mountaintop Removal Protest