wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I'm sorry I missed this interview while it was live. Congresswoman Lowey has still not held an open forum face-to-face town hall meeting on health care for her constituents, and appears to be avoiding it. She has held tele-town-halls which require one to go through hoops to get on the list and then questions are pre-selected. What is she afraid of? As our Representative she has the obligation to meet with the residents in her district and answer any questions they have about this issue.

I AM A RETIRED PHYSICIAN,
I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN THE SINGLE PAYER OPTION.
EVEN BRITAIN'S NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE SHOULD BE STUDIED IN PLANNING FOR HEALTH CARE IN THE U.S.A.
WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE ANOTHER.
I A TIRED IN THE HYSTERIA OF THE RIGHT WING!

I AM A RETIRED PHYSICIAN,
I FIRMLY BELIEVE IN THE SINGLE PAYER OPTION.
EVEN BRITAIN'S NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE SHOULD BE STUDIED IN PLANNING FOR HEALTH CARE IN THE U.S.A.
WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE ANOTHER.
I A TIRED IN THE HYSTERIA OF THE RIGHT WING!

Thank you for your guest Congresswoman Nita Lowey. She is very clear about the needs our country and work that would improve our efforts abroad. The issue about Africa is true because dollars sent there are not used properly for prevention of diseases. HIV is changing the lives of people globally and women are suffering more. I hope listeners will support issues Congresswoman Lowey brought to our attention.

gaetano @ 19 -- Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard and PNHP.org says it all the time to whomever will listen. But he's not allowed on many programs--the president took single payer off the table and he is one who must be obeyed (when the corporate masters wish to, which is when he reinforces what they want).

Single payer would save ***$400 Billion per year; $4 Trillion over 10 years.*** Baucus and Obama are trying to spend below $1 Trillion over 10 years....

The logical solution to all the problems Obama delineates is single payer, but Obama makes the Leap of Illogic to sayng it must be through the FOR-PROFIT Big Insurance Parasites.

Whassup with that?

[16] jawbone: It's called shmoozing. that happens a lot on this show even Brian is guilty often of shmoozing with the "guests" who really ought to be interviewed more critically, good or bad, rather than just leisurely chatting with an old chum. Is that what supporters of the station are paying for?!!

As Nadler said yesterday, the public option is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise.

Right now, they're talking about a plan that as I understand it would let the states run health plans -- but they would have to pay for themselves, and people would have to pay up to 13% of their income.

There was a good interview a few days ago with Henry Waxman which explained this, on DemocracyNow.com where they asked the kind of tough questions we wish they would ask on this program.

jawbone 13
no worries. we can figure it out.

For real information about the current health debate, go to Democracy Now and Bill Moyers' Journal. Both have guests not often found on other programs and really get into the merits and problems of the various solutions.

This was a disappointing segment, to me at least.

[quote]
Cost comparisons by country (not all listed):

~~~Source: Human Development Report, 2007, United Nations. Web: hdr.undp.org.

United States: $6096

(Almost exactly double the French expenditures! And their ER comes to the patient, if necessary!!)

Norway: $4080

Switzerland: $4011

Netherlands: $3092

France: $3040

Canada: $3173

Germany: $3171

Australia: $3123

Sweden: $2828

Denmark: $2780

Ireland: $2618

United Kingdom: $2560

Italy: $2414

Japan: $2293

Costs per country vary due to what is included as health care spending. However, this list provides good comparative figures.
[/quote]

exactly. so, why is it that i have yet to hear a single commentator point out that this implies that single-payor should *lower*, not increase, taxes?

Stop referring to her has "Hillary". And Matt Miller (host of Left Right & Center) has some very interesting things to say about how imperative a public option is for progressives.

Wow, how clueless is this lady, sorry to be rude but after spending my weekends in Philly stepping on crack viles to make sure people were registered and voted. This isn't the change we want, dems are spineless and I will sit out the next cycle, what difference does it make.

The host is just letting this become a nice little chat; questions not asked, and if asked rep allowed to not answer. Sheesh. Disappointing.

If Secretary Clinton were male, I doubt Congresswoman Lowey would be so familiarly referring to him him by his first name.

The Finance Wing of the Dem Party--Demlicans?

Symbol: Pelican with a billfull of large denomination paper currency?

I must proofread. I must prooread. I must proofread...

ASK, please.

What does the rep see as a GOOD PUBLIC OPTION?

I'm so sick and tired of no one explaining what they mean. What they'll fight for.

The exchange is a fig leaf. 2013? Thanks a lot. 22000 die each year from lack of insurance and underinsurance. Wow.

WHAT does the representative think should be in a "public option"???

no public option! no reform!

if the dems can't stand up for this, what is the point of them?!

jawbone
that's not fair. in france the insurance executives don't need to pay for the up keep of multiple homes!!!

I see Rep. Lowry will not taka stand on real health care reform. And I am disappointed, very, very, very disappointed.

Medicare for All ks the logical solution to what's wrong with out health payment system. The Big Insurance Parasites area 30% drain on our health care dollars. They should be optional and not the prime part of the health care system.

Reform without a public option will cost even more than the system we have now.

Does Rep. Lowry support Rep. Weiner's Medicare for All, and will she vote YES on the move to substitute HR676 for the current contents of HR 3200?

Cost comparisons by country (not all listed):

~~~Source: Human Development Report, 2007, United Nations. Web: hdr.undp.org.

United States: $6096
(Almost exactly double the French expenditures! And their ER comes to the patient, if necessary!!)
Norway: $4080
Switzerland: $4011
Netherlands: $3092
France: $3040
Canada: $3173
Germany: $3171
Australia: $3123
Sweden: $2828
Denmark: $2780
Ireland: $2618
United Kingdom: $2560
Italy: $2414
Japan: $2293

Costs per country vary due to what is included as health care spending. However, this list provides good comparative figures.

I'm sure that Rep. Lowey and Sec. Clinton are close friends. But isn't Mrs. Clinton entitled to just a little respect? While Rep. Lowey may be on a first name basis with Mrs. Clinton (since she's so fond of saying she's her congresswoman), it would show a little class if she referred to her constituent, the U.S. Secretary of State, as either "the Secretary" or "Mrs. Clinton".

NYers pay alot to the federal government. some of that money goes to southern 'welfare states' how can we get more of our tax dollars back

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

With mandates to buy insurance and without sufficient controls on costs, the Big Insurance Parasites will be able to use the force of the government to make us transfer wealth to them.

Sort of a tax without representation.

There will be junk policies sold, which offer little in actual coverage of care, but will save people from being fined. They will instead have the same bankruptcy problems, lack of affordable preventive care, and will self-deny care.

What a mess.

***We have a system, Medicare, which works well for all in it.*** It would be relatively easy to expand Medicare to Medicare for All...an allow a robust private option for those who want to "top off" coverage, etc.

If everyone were in Medicare for All, Medicare as we know it, just for those 65 and older, would not be facing the funding problems it now faces. With everyone in, everyone covered, the pool is enlarged and the young and usually healthy are in the pool along with those older who are not, in general as robustly healthy.

The British after WWII, during a time of great hardship for all its people, had the courage to begin their form of universal health care. Why are we Americans --especially our leaders?-- so cowardly in working for genuine universal health care?

reform advocates (fwiw, i favor "Medicare for everyone") keep pointing out that France, Germany, Japan, et al, have better outcomes with 30% or so lower costs. so, why aren't the "geniuses" at NPR and WNYC asking why this doesn't imply tax *cuts* under a single-payor system, rather than tax increases?

Health care question for Nita Lowey:

Congressman Nadler said yesterday that if President Obama's health care bill didn't include a public option, he wouldn't vote for it. Without a public option, it's just forcing people to become customers of the insurance industry.

If President Obama's health care bill doesn't include a public option, will you vote for it?