Looking for what to do with that $5/$10 in your pocket? Donate to Hackett

He is in a big push right now to get in before the end of December.

$5, $10, $20....imagine if 1/4 of the registered members of DU just coughed up $5 each...

Think of it as a gift for your self

Here is his website:
http://www.hackettforohio.com/

Here is the act blue site to make a donation:
http://www.actblue.com/list/PaulHackett

BTW - DeWine today sided with the Dems in the Senate to vote against cloture on the Anwar add-on to the Defense and Hurricane Relief Bill - he is down 10% in early poling to Hackett, and this vote in particular smacks of desperation - he is afeared.

Give as much as you can and we can get rid of that weenie DeWine in 2006

from the Hackett campaign, very focused message.

I am pleased with grace and mutual respect we dems are showing each other in the various primaries.

actually one of the best "asking for money calls" I have ever received...even my husband was impressed with how the caller asked for me and explained immediately why he was calling.

...new ads will pay off exponentially, IMO.

I kicked him $30.00

I love his "First Day" video on www.hackettforohio.com

Gotta win that seat Ohio, you owe us! ;-)

$25.00

Though I greatly admire Paul Hackett and feel he has a great future in Dem politics, I'd rather back a more experienced campaigner - Sherrod Brown.

Sherrod's stands on issues is also much more in tune - he's a strong and experienced advocate for a national single payer health care plan providing affordable health care for all.

Government paid medical care would, I think, kill innovation as there wouldn't be a financial incentive to do something new. I also have seen how well the government administers other programs. Nationalized medicine isn't the way. Of course, what we have now could surely use a lot of improvement. There has to be another, better way. Hackett can resonate with the rural voters, he's pro-gun, moderate, likeable, intelligent, and an excellent guy. I've had the fortune of hanging out with him at the shooting range, and am actively supporting him.

Brown advocates for a "single payer" health care system. That doesn't mean nationalized health care. It doesn't mean the government controls health care. I'm surprised a Democrat like yourself would be so uninformed on the issue. You comment sounds more like a Republican talking point.

Most medical research today is funded by the federal government. Hospitals and research institutions already compete with each other to get those federal funds.

As for Hackett, he hasn't come up with any details for his plans to improve access to health care, so its hard to say whether his plan is better. What is it, exactly?

If not Washington, then whom? I have no idea what Hackett's is. In the few times I've seen him, I've never asked. I know that I personally connect with him.

Honestly, though, and I think Dems should be clearer about this... single-payer is a fancy way of saying "nationalized health care." Now, the concept of nationalized health care is very misunderstood, and is often portrayed by Republicans as a bad thing. It's not.

As I understand it, single-payer essentially means that the government administrates and finances health care, but delivery of health care remains private. That's a fundamental difference between "nationalized health care" and the dreaded "socialized medicine" that Republicans get all freaked out about. It is far cheaper for the government to administrate health care than the private insurance companies, which is our current system. Single-payer is the system used in Canada, which is similar to the health care system proposed by Clinton in the '90s. Here's some good information on how it works:

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html

If you saw the "West Wing" live debate a few weeks ago on television, the character played by Jimmy Smits endorsed such a plan; he essentially called it "Medicare For All." I sincerely feel that Democrats could make more leeway on this issue and idea if we referred to it that way... it's something Americans can understand clearly, since many already know how Medicare works.

For the record, Herstal, I'm supporting Hackett too. While Paul has yet to form a detailed issue paper about health care, he has often advocated expanding access to all Americans. I'm confident Paul will flesh out this idea very soon, as the primary battle begins to heat up.

Welcome to DU!

I'll read up. I too, have confused nationalized with socialized. Happy new year, thanks for the welcome.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Single payer (depending on details) would be like a national version of Medicare. The government acts as the insurance company and helps pay the bills (excluding co-pays, etc) and the hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc. still provide the health care. The health care system remains as is, either privately owned, non-profit corporation, for profit corporate owned or locally owned (city, county or state hospitals).

Nationalized health care is when the government actually owns the health care system, employs the doctors, owns the hospitals and clinics, etc.

Single payer health insurance is the type of program Cong. Brown supports, not national health care or socialized medicine, or any of the right wing "buzz words".

Its sad how the public has allowed R's to make access to health care a controversial issue when there's nothing controversial about it. It causes a lot of unnecessary deaths and suffering.

Access to health care is certainly not a controversial issue to me. It's my #1 issue. I feel strongly that it's The Issue Democrats should run on in '06, and again in '08.

The problem is, Democrats have allowed Republicans to define health care access. We've never been good at explaining the subtle differences between single-payer/nationalized/socialized. I still feel that single-payer and nationalized are essentially the same thing. Canada has a single-payer system, and they often refer to it as a "nationalized" system. Here's the thing... call it what you want, hell, call it a damned ham sandwich. It doesn't matter if we can't explain what it means, how it works, and why it's good for everyone.

To be frank, I don't think a lot of people understand what "single payer" means, and we only have ourselves to blame.

Let's all work together, and put the pressure on our party leaders, to get the message straight and get us on the same page. We're all on the same side of this issue.

are two very different things.

I think we should all start using the same language, and what you have written is concise and easy to understand. Maybe we should start a "Talking Points" post to help start honing a unified message; the ODP website currently only has an Akron Beacon Journal article about stem cell research de-funding under "Issues, Health Care."

http://spanohio.org/

This will answer more of your questions about the single payer system. There are huge amounts of money lost in the health care service every year by over lapping insurance payouts. Insurance companies will fight tooth and nail against the single payer system, but it is the best option for improving health care for all of us.

... insofar as the cost of insurance? I mean, if the government were in charge of administrating health care, I don't think they're going to run around buying corporate jets or week-long "seminars" at luxury resorts for their executives.

I think we can really score points on single-payer by reminding voters of the abuses likely in the current "health care system," if you can even call it that.

So, no, I don't think there would be savings. However, maybe some of its ideas could be combined with our current system.

that his office handles. They know to the penny how much each procedure should cost. They aren't in it for profit. Span Ohio has done their homework. Study their website, send for their analysis. We do not have to stand for insurance companies gouging us. Medicare isn't the problem. The currents system is. Why one earth would you want to keep it?

The federal government is able to manage Medicare and Medicaid at about 1/3 the cost of private insurance companies. The government doesn't have to factor in a profit margin.

Herstal you need to stop listening to Rush and Fox News.

Wasn't it Al Gore who brought those to light? Was it on Letterman? As a former local government employee, I saw ungodly amounts of waste.

is that being perpetrated by the doctors. They have set reimbursement fees for procedures. The only way to "game" the system is when doctors bill for services not provided to patients.

Because states pay for a portion of Medicaid and Medicare, it means both federal government (CMS) and state Attorney General's offices watch for fraud.

Does it happen? Probably so, but fraud happens in the system of private insurance also, at a much higher cost.

We've been nice and patient and answered all your questions with good documentation. My sense is, you're only here to disrupt discussion of the issues. Too bad you don't have something better to do with your time.

Your persistence in pushing a discredited right wing point of view on behalf of Paul Hackett certainly doesn't reflect well on his candidacy. Perhaps you should keep voting Republican, as you have in the past.

A guys ask questions and comes to get informed and gets jumped on. Nice group of folks. I suppose that every new guy who comes over must be from the three billy goats gruff.

In fact, and I've said this before, I really wish we could lay off just a little bit.

I realize that disruptors abound; I was a mod on this site for quite awhile. But this is a crucial election year, and I think that many who are otherwise not as involved in politics as we are have questions, and come in here looking for answers, and connections. We're a rough crowd, and it takes awhile to learn the ropes sometimes. I just wish we could be a little gentler to anyone coming in here as a Bush refugee. They're going to be tentative. We should expect that, and accept that, and be more open.

It's too early in the election season to whip out the venom. Believe me, we'll have plenty of time to do that. I think we should instead consider opening our tent doors, and instead work to correct the misconceptions about single-payer health care. Hell, even I got corrected in this thread, and I thank you guys for that.

My New Year's Wish? A little more reaching out... a little less skepticism.

Again, welcome to DU, Herstal.

Sometimes, people have to realize that we come from varied backgrounds. I come from a family of "Reagan Democrats" and Republicans. Of course, my entire life, I've heard about how government is wasteful, I then worked in government during college and saw how it was wasteful. So, it will take a lot of convincing to show me how a government issued health plan will be better than what I have now. Although I consider myself to be a moderate, most where I live consider me to be liberal. I'm sure that many here will consider me to be a conservative. I've gone and read the SPAN Ohio website, well, actually I've just started wading through it. One concern I have is this, will I have to pay more than I'm paying now for my family. My family grosses close to $110,000 a year. After taxes, it is close to $60,000 year. (I'm self-employed, so I take a double whammy on the Social Security taxes) So, right now, we pay approximately $2100 year for our health insurance for our family of four. Add in co-pays and whatnot, and I think it comes close to $3000. What will happen to us?

The for-profits like it that way.

Health care can be found here: http://www.hackettforohio.com/about_issues/27/about_issues_healthcare

It is just a little summary, talking about expanding health care. Some senate candidate are talking about doing the universal health care for all children first, as a way to test the waters. Perhaps this is the direction Paul is thinking.