A couple of things here. those against reform, as they say arent against "reform" they are against what obama is putting out as reform. his is not reform it creating a new system. A single payer system, which he is on record as saying he wants. So what he said in his campaign was a lie. He said he would give us what they have in congress. Well what they have is what we have but they arent limited to who they can get it from and other things that apparently work seeing how they refuse to sign on to the plan they want to give us. REFORM yes obama plan no. its a scam too bring us into a single payer plan like canada. Which will not work nor can we afford even if it would work. deception, i think that is a sin. emotionalism seems to work but its generally a deception becuase there are no facts to back it up. But in saying that reform is needed. Just not what this administration is after.

Let's hope it does bring us into a single payer system. Bring it on!!!

no, cuz then you'd be a socialist like we Canajuns who have to get out of bed every morning at 5 a.m. to read another chapter in Das Kapital and pledge allegiance to Lenin's aging carcass.

The bills in Congress DO NOT create a single payer system! This idea is red herring floated to scare people and stir anti-"socialist" sentiments. Maybe single-payer is what Pres. Obama would want in an ideal world, but he is too much of a pragmatist to ask Congress to create a single payer system because he knows it would get nowhere.

The public option is just that - an option that is meant to inject more competition into the private and small-group insurance market, which in many areas of the country is quite concentrated, with one or two companies controlling as much as 90% of the market in some places. People insured by large employers wouldn't be eligible for the public option.

You say, "emotionalism seems to work but its generally a deception becuase there are no facts to back it up." Do you think the video lied when it stated that people lined up and waited to be seen at a free clinic? Do you think people in every community in America have access to free or low-cost health care if they're not insured or eligible for existing goverment programs? Do you think people who can't afford health care should do without until they're so sick they have to go to the emergency room and stick the hospital with the bill? Do you deny the reality of poverty and uninsured millions in this country?

What really puzzles me about this site is why so many people who subscribe to Sojourners and comment on its posts seem to give no credence to anything it stands for.

"What really puzzles me about this site is why so many people who subscribe to Sojourners and comment on its posts seem to give no credence to anything it stands for."

Aye, there's the rub, becky. There's the rub. Some who disagree with much posted here come on the site with honest questions and spark honest discussion and debate (and maybe they even subscribe, who knows). Others just come on to find fault with every article posted as apparently self-appointed "flies in the ointment" (I doubt they subscribe. Someone correct me if I am wrong).

Becky: what Jim “Stands for” or once “stood for”? I still support the later, but not the former.

I subscribed from 1980 until the late 90's and still think Jim was right in many of his criticisms of the Reagan Administration, especially the deceit and injustice surrounding his Nicaragua policy. Now he's just another partisan, left-wing Democrat. Why is Jim scolding us about the “morality” of national health care while remaining silent on the invasion of Afghanistan? Jim says he's against abortion, but helps Obama deceive us that subsidizing premiums doesn't constitute a change in the government's abortion policy. Subsidizing abortion insurance is paying for abortion, period.
As for Republican inaction during their 8 years? I offer no defense—the Bush years weren't the Reagan years. Republicans tended not to see health care as an urgent problem—but they do have a number of solutions. Best would be to allow companies to compete across state lines. What if Michigan said only automobiles assembled in that state may be sold there? What if every state said that? But that's how state insurance commissioners run things. It's absurd to be forbidden to buy a private plan with exactly the coverage you desire, from any company willing to underwrite it. Thinking of an abortion? Buy a plan that covers it. Otherwise, don't buy a plan that covers that, or artificial insemination, or whatever. A truly free market would be far from perfect—but it would also be far different, and arguably far better, than the state by state mess we have now.

"The bills in Congress DO NOT create a single payer system!" but many Dems have stated that this is the future plan, a public option is just the foot in the door.

"You say, "emotionalism seems to work but its generally a deception becuase there are no facts to back it up." Do you think the video lied when it stated that people lined up and waited to be seen at a free clinic?"
This is an emotional argument and emotional arguments are good when used for good purposes, but there needs to be complete context. In the health care debate the emotional arguments have been used to support a complete overhaul or just a public option. Why not just focus on purchasing insurance for the uninsured instead of changing the system or pushing for tort reform? Also, that story several months ago was used to quickly move through congress a bill that would change the lives of every individual in the US not just those without insurance. Plus, the health care industry is 1/6th of our ailing economy, so this is a critical issue that needs to be fully thought and worked through.

Politicians make campaign promises--every single one of them does. Then the rubber hits the road and they find the promises they made are a hard sell to those who actually have to pass the proposals they make (the legislators--usually the ones in the other party). Often times they are not able to keep those promises because deals need to be made and compromises have to happen. That's what is happening in health care. So Obama's initial ideas aren't getting the votes, he is concerned it may not pass at all, and the only recourse if he wants reform is to compromise some of the core values he holds.

Is this lying? Is it lying to say "I'll be home at 5" and instead end up home at 7 because traffic was a nightmare? Congress is the traffic to Obama's promises. If that's lying, then he is a liar. But so is every politician who is unable to get his or her ideas through the law making process (was Bush a liar because abortion is still legal?). That's just how politics works. That's the reality. But to call someone a liar for not being able to navigate those waters is far over the top and completely unfair. If you are to be honest, then I would hope you are calling ALL politicians liars (albeit some would argue that is true) because that is the challenge ALL politicians have to face.

"emotionalism seems to work but its generally a deception becuase there are no facts to back it up"

Do you say the same of those who say the proposals include "death panels"?

I would say that it is lying to promise one thing and then push something completly different say one thing and then say you didnt say it. Nothing being pushed is anything like what he spoke about in his campaign. agree or disagree. is what is being pushed anything like what congress has. true or false. the deathh panel issue was over hyped or mistermed, or misunderstood. the death panels I believe were more of what would eventually happen, because we probably will run out of money. and it was a "term' used to discribe a panel that would discide if what your needing is worth "considering" we are kindof out of money now. Yea maybe it was a bit strong but nothing more then we see on the other side with what bush ever said or did. he was satan remember. It was a "concern" that this system would eventually create a sort of "death panel' to deal with its lack of money. sounds a bit reasonable, how else would they deal with it. you can only tax so much right.

Money isn't the problem! Thw US literally spends twice as much and leaves 44-50 million of its citizens without access to the health care system.
The problem is we spend that money with for-profit Insurance companies who tak 25-30% off the top for overhead and profit.

Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for most of this past decade and did nothing on health insurance reform but give big payouts to the drug and insurance companies. They have not put forward any real alternatives except to say we need to wait. They had a chance for reform and were offered an opportunity to participate in this process. Someone very smart once said that when in doubt, we'll know folks by their fruit. Everyone knows that if the "Obama plan"--interesting choice since he's taken virtually no leadership in pushing it--fails, there will be no reform. The GOP won't come forward with their way of insuring all Americans and lowering costs. Their past actions have made that quite clear. those opposing the plan are opposing reform.

"Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for most of this past decade and did nothing on health insurance "

I would agree with that , I think most people would . But because republicans were pretty much dead weight the previous 8 years , what does that have to do with the plan , or lack of one now? Does that mean everything a republican states is not to be listened to , kept out of the committee, or everything a democrat says is to be taken as the Gospel . You rrally want Barny Frank behind closed doors making these kinds of decisions that are included in 1000 pages of legal documenatation that requires a knowledge of other legal documents and bills passed before.

Opposing this plan is opposing reform ? No it means that we have a plan that no one has really explained , or has Congress even settle upon and your defending it . Do you realize how bizzare that really is . What would happen if they came out with a plan I agreed upon about 75 percent , but was concerned that it lessen the quality of service or make the deficit so bad our dollar would become victim of massive inflation . Which always hurts the poorest of us .
Your answer iswell republicans have had their chance ? The republicans did nothing , what does that have to do with the current plan .

Why do you think the currectnt plan will keep costs down and not hinder the quality of service . Sell that and I think you have a supporter of me in health care reform . I have no way of knowing that will happen . I would think if the reformers did , they would speaking to that instead of how horrible everyone else is .

"its a scam too bring us into a single payer plan like canada. Which will not work nor can we afford even if it would work."

Canada spends less per capita than we do for healthcare so why could we not afford it?
And just for the record, a friend of mine recently visited Canada and asked 44 random people on the street if they liked their system. 42 said yes! The two that said no blamed what they thought were long waits, but they also indicated that they believed care was based on need, (triaged as in emergency care here), which they thought was fair. The same two people, when asked if they'd rather have a for-profit system like ours said absolutely not!

I thought the president said he did not want a system that looked like Canada's ? Hard to follow this debate because of all the contradictions within the same camps . , some think Canada system is great , but the majority at least in sound bites who are leading reform say they don't want to follow Canada's system . Which is it ? If Canada has a good system , why can we not not follow it ? Why are the reformers here saying no , don't copy Canada's .

There's a group of us that would love a Canadian style system yet there is always someone (on the right) that says how Obama really is trying to make that type of system and then goes on to explain how "terrible" it is. The reformers here that say no to copying Canada's system don't want any kind of democratic reform. They're fine with their system and to heck with everyone else. (now watch them come out of the woodwork).

I'll sell you my free coverage!

"I'll sell you my free coverage"


Worth every penny too.

and you would know, how again?

Because regardless of party affiliation they are afraid to cross the insurance conglomerates.

"The politicians bear false witness,
special interests reap the profits of fear, protesters silence debate."

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally.

Does this standard only apply to commenters? How does this video add to the debate? It only demonizes the opposition.