Here's the problem with single payer right now: Going to SP would effectively put private insurers out of business, or at least force them to cut back on a large scale. What is a problem, is millions of employees who work for the insurance companies, and I'm not talking about the execs, I'm talking about the IT people, the phone reps, the janitors, etc, who are not wealthy or evil like the execs are. They would all be unemployed and collecting unemployment when we're already having enough trouble paying unemployment benefits, and there would be no jobs for them to find. Single Payer has to be done when we have low unemployment and a strong job market so these people can easily find a new job. The public option is a good solution to hold us over until we can go with SP.
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/january/first-of-its-kind-study-medicare-for-all-single-payer-reform-would-be-major-stimulus-for-economy-with-2-6-million-new-jobs-317-billion-in-business-revenue-100-billion-in-wages.html Obviously, that's just one study, but the results speak for themselves. It's true that the initial job loss would be greater than the jobs created; however, you have to take the long-term benefits into consideration as well. But, let's imagine that we all came to the consensus that now isn't the right time, economically speaking, to put a single-payer plan into effect. Will people still care when the economy recovers? Opulence doesn't exactly inspire action. The wars in the middle east were a big issue not long ago. Now nobody seems to care. Out of sight, out of mind. If everyone's healthy and employed, will they still care about the uninsured? The saddest part is Obama and the Democrats have a golden opportunity to actually "change" something and they're squandering it. And don't even get me started on that "Group of Six"--who have final say on the senate bill, by the way. The Democratic party have complete control of the Senate and the White House, yet they give equal say on one of the most important bills in ages to the Republicans? The same party that thinks Barrack Obama is a neo-fascist-quasi-socialist-uber-muslim-jihadist-sympathizer who wants to create shadowy "death panels" to kill everyone's grandmother and molest their cats? Gee, I bet they will be really objective about a government run option. It boggles the mind.
I read this article earlier: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-float-like-obama_b_284151.html
The debris will probably start orbiting Earth and form a second smaller moon, eventually, that will be difficult to see. And interesting news about Obama winning the peace prize.
Honestly I think it's far too early to award this to Obama. 9 Months into his presidency? Wow. I support Obama and voted for him...but at least wait two years before awarding him for god's sake. He hasn't had a chance to really do much.
I think winning the nobel prize so early into his presidency is going to put a hell of alot more pressure on him to accomplish all these wonderful things he says hes going to do. That could be a really bad thing because just one hint of failure and his entire reputation is on the line.
Someone please tell me where this presumption that he's only been nominated for his work since he became president has came from. I mean, as far as I'm aware he didn't just appear out of nowhere at the start of 2009. I don't know who else was being considered but, when you actually take the criteria into consideration, he hasn't exactly done nothing and I can't really think of anyone who has done significantly more than him for the world. Put simply, maybe there are people who have actually done more but most people who are criticising his win seem to be missing the point in some way or another regardless.
If I'm looking at the list right and not skipping any names, he's only the third African-American from the US to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.