Like the discussion over the Minimum Wage, the over-paid pundits are feeding people a line of shit about health care.

I recently made this post on my FaceBook page and it stimulated a lot of discussion:

It has been suggested that I "stop bitching" about Obamacare with the question following: What did we get from the Republicans? The suggestion being that Obamacare is better than the Republican "plan."

Here is my response:

Obamacare is based on RomneyCare which is based on a scheme devised by right-wing think tanks. So, to answer your question: What did we get from the Republicans? We got Obamacare.

These are my responses to questions and comments:

 I was accused of being against single-payer.

 My response:

 I never said that single-payer universal health care was "bad." In fact, as an elected delegate and as an elected member of the State Central Committee I led the six year fight to get the best resolution in the United States passed by a 72% majority by the State Convention of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party. (the resolution was later altered to conform to Obamacare but that is another story of how the Democratic Party is manipulated and controlled by big-business interests.)

But, in leading this struggle to get this resolution passed, I always made the point that single-payer universal health care like they have in Canada should be considered as a first step towards a national public health care system.

Had I not presented single payer in this way, we never would have recruited the huge number of delegates we needed to pass this resolution--- some 600 delegates; there were about 1,800 delegates at the state convention.

As Canadians are finding out, and as Tommy Douglas himself warned, single-payer is only a short-term fix for a problem which requires nothing less than socialized health care and from his death bed he repeated this message.

We need a health care system based on the same universal system as public education. If anyone suggested that we have education "privately delivered" in our public schools we would look at them as some kind of freaks and kooks.

Public education is is:

1. Publicly financed.

2. Publicly administered.

3. Publicly delivered.

Why wouldn't we have the exact same approach to health care?

In Canada, Tommy Douglas "settled" for single-payer as an important reform to health care but NEVER viewed single-payer as THE solution.

If the Democrats and Republicans want to agree to single-payer, fine; but, they don't. They are not as far-sighted as Canada's ruling elites were when they made Tommy Douglas the deal.

Francis Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor, insisted that a National Public Health Care System be part of the New Deal and she was allied with Communist labor leader Harry Bridges, Minnesota's socialist Farmer-Labor Party and liberals, progressives and leftists across the country on this point. She wanted a National Public Health Care System to be financed from a payroll tax placed on workers and employers just like Social Security (in fact, this is the way Canada finances its single-payer system.)

In fact, Linda, single-payer is not THE cheapest way to cover most people--- a National Public Health Care System is... with the added bonus that it creates more than four times the number of jobs!

If, in fact, you believe single-payer with private delivery of health care is the cheapest way out then you must believe that when it comes to public education private delivery of education is the cheapest way to provide public education and I seriously doubt you are prepared to make this argument... and we both know why you wouldn't try to do this.

And; the fact is, it is cheaper to provide people with health care than it is to provide them with education. This is FACT.

this is an important fact because I am always asked: But how much will such a National Public Health Care System cost?

My answer is: I don't know; but if we compare the amount spent on public education to the amount spent on militarism and these dirty wars, spending on public education comes in far behind that which is spent on militarism and wars so the cost of providing the American people with free health care shouldn't even be an issue--- just stop this military insanity and these dirty imperialist wars that no one but Wall Street wants just like Wall Street backs Obamacare because, like with wars, there are profits to be made.

And if Wall Street were forced to take its greedy hands out of public education we could provide public education much cheaper. One text book cost the public school systems as much as a visit to the doctor. Of course, the real comparison is how many visits to the doctor could be had for the cost of a drone. 

And the discussion continued...

It was pointed out to me, correctly, that this ACA scheme goes back to Nixon.

My answer is this:

I don't know how far back we can trace the ACA's history; but, one thing for certain: it is a thoroughly reactionary scheme. Every single reactionary scheme has to have some elements that make it appear to be good because otherwise these reactionary schemes couldn't be packaged and sold to the people.

Obama himself is an example of a reactionary being prettied up with progressive sounding rhetoric.

Can anyone imagine Obama getting elected pitching the kind of legislation he has brought forward? No. Obama is all lies. But lies fabricated in a way to make them sound appealing. Same thing with the ACA.

That we need to hire an attorney to find out just what we are entitled to with Obamacare should tell us everything we need to know.

An entire new and very lucrative industry has popped up teaching employers how to get out from under their health care obligations to employees under Obamacare.

Again; Obamacare is the "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010." And doctors profit very handsomely from this legislation, too. 

 

I asked a question:

Have you ever sat for a day in a bankruptcy court? I have. About 80% of the cases I heard involved huge health care costs and every single one of the people had "health insurance." 

 

My response to a New York Time's article:

The ACA classifications of health insurance: Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. What kind of shit do you call this? The rich get Platinum; the poor get shit called "Bronze."

My further comment:

Every reactionary scheme like ACA needs a few good things to suck people in. 

And this response from me:

Did you read the article from the New York Times that you posted, David, saying about 7 million poor would receive government subsidies?

"The bulk of these plans are so-called bronze policies, the least expensive available. They require people to pay the most in out-of-pocket costs, for doctor visits and other benefits like hospital stays."

Does this make sense? The poorest people will pay the most in out of pocket expenses.