Marcy Winograd Single Payer Health Care TV Spot

Winograd Challenges Harman to Sign on to Single-Payer Health Care. Contribute to help run this ad at http://winograd4congress.com/petitions/contributions.php

Economical and efficient single payer health care, like HR 676, is the only proposal that represents real positive change. Winograd's opponent Jane Harman refuses to co-sponsor the single-payer bill -- In fact, Harman votes for a bankruptcy bill that forever punishes people who fall behind due to medical bills.

We want Winograd, not Harman in Congress. To send Winograd to the House and Harman home, we need to pay for commercials like this one, in which Winograd challenges Harman to sign HR676 now. Watch.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• single
• payer
• health
• care
• marcy
• winograd
• jane
• harman
• congress
• election
• hr676
• john
• conyers

[uvcrwjjfdsjew]

I guess you've never been to Canada. Health care is not rationed. I'm telling you this as a Canadian who has experienced plenty of unrationed health care before moving to the US. The health care down here in the States is inferior. I've never personally experienced the UK health system, but all the evidence is quite to the contrary. I wonder, are you determined to ignore the facts from ignorance, ideology or cynical self interest?

[uvcrwjjfdsjew]

You mean like it has in Canada, France, England, Japan, ... except that it hasn't. They ALL have higher standards of care than the USA. Get the facts.

[uvcrwjjfdsjew]

@Ooftyman You're suggesting that a private company could achieve bargaining power on a par with a public option type solution? I suppose that's theoretically possible, but it hasn't happened in the over 40 years that the current system has been in place. The current system provides sub-standard service by any number of metrics, despite being the most expensive in the world. Single-payer and similar approaches have been proven by other countries. Why exactly shouldn't we try this approach?

[uvcrwjjfdsjew]

@Ooftyman You're suggesting that a private company could achieve bargaining power on a par with a public option type solution? I suppose that's theoretically possible, but it hasn't happened in the over 40 years that the current system has been in place. The current system provides sub-standard service by any number of metrics, despite being the most expensive in the world. Single-payer and similar approaches have been proven by other countries. Why exactly shouldn't we try this approach?

[Ooftyman]

@uvcrwjjfdsjew I'd suggest an overview of the research on JSTOR on this... Start with the Milbank Quarterly...

There is no barrier to entry there. That assertion is utterly false.

[uvcrwjjfdsjew]

@Ooftyman Like I said before, Canadians pay for the vast majority of their health care through insurance. The difference is that there is a public option and that public option has enormous bargaining power, which is beneficial to those who subscribe; effectively every Canadian. The problem you have here is that for an insurance company to offer competitive rates it needs to be big enough to have bargaining power, so there is an entry barrier. You do not and can not have a free market.

[uvcrwjjfdsjew]

@Ooftyman Socialized medicine of one flavor or another is in place and by any number of metrics generally works quite well in all the other modern western nations. The VA is an example of socialized medicine in the US that works extremely well, to the point that it has won awards for good governance. Presuming you have grasped the basics of rational though, the fact that your understanding of the _theory_ of economics runs contrary to observations should suggest something to you.

[Ooftyman]

The massive ignorance on this issue abounds. The issue is not "socialism or not". The issue is institutional framework. A single-payer system as suggested is not the slightest bit economically feasible.

I suggest a few basic courses in the economics of health care are in order...

[Ooftyman]

@uvcrwjjfdsjew Honestly, our system is entirely different than any of theirs. They actually enjoy less bureaucracy than we do in the States. The institutional framework is entirely different. The reason our system is so difficult is that we pay for so much of our routine medical care through insurance rather than out of pocket. Defeats the purpose of insurance, doesn't it?

[Ooftyman]

@uvcrwjjfdsjew You seem to think the laws of supply and demand somehow do not apply to health care. Artificially inflating demand while creating price barriers results in massive failure. Look at the mess that rent controls have historically created. There's a reason they were abandoned. Somehow, people seem to think that health care is somehow immune to traditional economic forces...

[uvcrwjjfdsjew]

No, the Canadian system is not socialized medicine. That would imply you don't have to pay the doctor, and in Canada you absolutely do pay for your health care. However the vast majority of Canadians are members of the public option health plan (I have coverage under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, or OHIP for short). There are some very few competing plans. Most of these cover stuff outside of the provincial plan. It is even possible to opt out of OHIP, but almost nobody does.

[johnnorvaisas]

Wow you are really misinformed the Canadian system is a form of socialst healthcare please get your facts right.

Again we the majority don't want your socialist GARBAGE rationed healthcare in America!