INTERESTING TIMES

Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia.
Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.
--unknown

These docs are speaking for the single payer option. They make a good case. They're on a road trip across the US right now, talking about single payer in major cities as they go. I find myself sympathetic to their cause: it would work a helluva lot better than the fascist system we have currently. I guess I am a socialist libertarian. The other end of the spectrum would also work: to eliminate government interference in healthcare provision and payment, allow physicians to advertise competitive rates, remove the insurance middleman, and let the customers decide what they want and how much they are willing to pay for it. That really sounds best to me. But from where we are today, ANY substantial change would be a benefit. Even (gasp) socialism. Because what we need to do is the very most difficult thing: remove the giant financial suckhole of multinational corporate involvement from our healthcare system. Single payer would remove most of the corporate suckers. The few corporations that got the government contracts would be sitting pretty, and the rest would have to go elsewhere. None of them like that game, until it is already won. That is why they are putting so much sneaky money into preventing it.

I wish that all the fringe people of the united states could get past their differences just long enough to unseat the powers that be. It is time for the patriots of the US to rise again and say that we will not be subjected to overweening government nor forced to pay unfair taxes. The taxes that we pay are being sucked into a great corporate hole. Nobody but us will stop it. But the revolution will have to wait until the socialists and the libertarians can agree on a course of action. We are stuck in a position that will take considerable citizen effort to change. As long as we let corporations and government rule us, we hardly deserve the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and reputation that we claim as Americans.

I've been listening to opposite sides on this issue. Ron Paul predictably says that the government is headed down the slippery slope toward socialized medicine, and that we shouldn't do it. He doesn't offer an active alternative; his alternative is no regulation and no government involvement whatsoever. From where we are today, I don't know if the sudden removal of government subsidies from health industry corporations would do the trick. What I do know is that it isn't going to happen. Too far off the beaten course. People can't comprehend it and don't trust in it enough. Most Libertarians are more militant and less diplomatic than Dr. Paul, and so are not gaining a wider audience. That approach is at a standstill.
( thoughts )

Here are the main points from the brochure:
-make all medical expenses tax deductible
-eliminate federal regs that discourage small business from providing insurance coverage
-not restrict our ability to use supplements (opposes FDA's recent move for greater control)
-opposes the directives of the UN's World Food Code (CODEX: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp)
-give docs the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance co's to bring down costs
-allow patients to buy cheaper prescription drugs from other companies (will also bring down costs)
-eliminate forced vaccinations and mental health screenings of US citizens
-authored HR 2117, Health Freedom Protection Act, to ensure we have access to uncensored info on supplements
-supports HR 2717, Access to Medical Treatment Act, "expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments" (how? must look this one up)
( a little more on socialized medicine and the libertarians )

http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday360.php
We like to give Canada as an example of a large nation with socialized healthcare that works, but it doesn't look so good from the perspective of this article.
( River story behind cut )