Tom Seabourn has some information. It’ll be at the courthouse, tonight at 5:00 p.m.
It’s part of a national coordinated action. Single payer advocates have largely been left out of the discussion. In fact, they’ve been asked to leave meetings as Obama vehemently resists the concept. From my point of view single payer is a moderate proposal. It’s socialized insurance, not socialized medicine.
Addendum: Looks like Kennedy’s not going quietly into the night. He’s calling for a public option which can at least compete with private insurance companies.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 29, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Tom Hanson
I agree with you in supporting single payer, Eric, but let’s not deceive ourselves: socialized insurance will inevitably lead to a form of socialized healthcare — he who pays the piper calls the shots, and a single payer system will mean less freedom for some participants. I think the price is worth paying, for our current system is highly inefficient and inequitable.
May 29, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Eric Kirk
socialized insurance will inevitably lead to a form of socialized healthcare
Well, that’s an optimistic note from my point of view.
As for freedom, I really don’t think I have much freedom under the present system other than to pay large premiums with large copays and deductibles, with half the services not being covered, and a hapless insurance commission to appeal to. It’s not like market forces are compelling these companies to perform. They talk about how much social benefit they provide whenever the issue of health care reform comes up, but then when you actually demand anything from them they say, “hey, we’re trying to run a business here.”
We have the examples. Medicare is very efficient on the dollar, so let’s universalize it. Better yet, let’s universalize the V.A.
May 29, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Tom Hanson
Your points are quite valid — but, once again, let’s not pretend that everything will be peachy under the system that you and I would prefer. Have you seen the Canadian film “The Barbarian Invasions,” with its portrayal of the healthcare system to the north of us? Do you know why Natasha Richardson was flown from Canada to N.Y after her accident? As far as “freedom” goes — yes, the rich man and the beggar both have the option of doing without health insurance in our current system — a freedom that may be pointless or illusory, but nevertheless allows one to spend one’s dollars as one pleases. You might get feedback from vets about the desirability of extending V.A coverage to everyone. Medicare, as it’s structured now, almost always requires supplemental insurance if one wants first-rate coverage. But I’m nitpicking — I agree with your main points.
May 30, 2009 at 7:14 am
Carson Park Ranger
“Do you know why Natasha Richardson was flown from Canada to N.Y after her accident?”
Let me guess: because the worst fucking health care system in the industrialized world is able to pamper the wealthy minority?
To be able to “spend one’s dollars as one pleases” is an argument that has little appeal to a patient.
May 30, 2009 at 8:18 am
Tom Hanson
As is often the case (I’ve debated for many decades), the use of vulgar language is a symptom of incomprehension or refusal to admit one’s errors. The so-called Park Ranger probably demonstrates both. I don’t think the family of Ms. Richardson would use the word “pampered” to describe her removal from the Canadian scene of the accident, nor do I think that the many residents of other (wealthy) countries would use such sneering language — their choice of American treatment is an indictment of their home-countries’ systems, not an endorsement of ours (whose flaws I’ve never denied). Some countries limit the right of patients to procure costly private care (it undermines equality), and I suspect that anyone with ample means would indeed find freedom to spend healthcare dollars as one wishes a very appealing notion.
May 30, 2009 at 9:29 am
Eric Kirk
Well, one of the main reasons Canadians state as their reason for coming down here for health care is they want to avoid waits. But if you’re going to have universal health care, that means more people have to be served. Fewer people served, shorter waits. The Kaiser Permanente system everyone touts as the free market model to cover working class people involves waits. It took me six months to see a specialist when I was there.
The Canadian system is considered the second worst in the industrial world after us and it’s a public-private mixture. If Sweden was next door to the US I wonder if many other than the upper class would come here for treatment.
We do put the money into the research and when it comes to the boy in the bubble and the baby with the baboon heart medicine we do very well. But we can’t get basic inoculations to all of our kids (whose parents want them anyway).
As for the freedom, we don’t even have it. We can’t buy Canadian medicine for instance because it’ll undercut our own company’s prices. So much for the free market.
May 30, 2009 at 9:59 am
Carson Park Ranger
“…vulgar language is a symptom of incomprehension or refusal to admit one’s errors.”
No offense intended, as the intensifier I used was perfectly appropriate. Mr. Hanson’s conclusions about vulgarity are quaint, but do little to further his arguments. The vulgar use of a wealthy celebrity’s unfortunate death doesn’t further the discussion much either.
One of the many problems with our insurance-based system is that even the insured find little comfort. You don’t know what you’re covered for until you need treatment. A friend of mine, with an expensive, low-deductible plan broke her ankle. She later received a bill for over $8,000 from the hospital for expenses not covered by her insurance.
May 31, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Horse
WASHINGTON, DC–Green Party leaders and health care reform activists said today that the ‘public health care option,’ promoted by many Democrats, is not an acceptable alternative to a Single-Payer/Medicare For All national health care program (HR 676).
The Green Party of the United States has endorsed the national Day of Action (http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/may-30th-day-of-action) for Single-Payer national health care on Saturday, May 30 (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=212).
Party leaders sharply criticized Democratic politicians, health care advocacy groups like the Health Care For America Now coalition and Maine People’s Alliance, unions, and liberal and progressive caucuses in Congress (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/28-25) that have backed away from demanding Single-Payer in favor of the public option.
“The so-called public health care option is an attempt to confuse Americans who actually want Single-Payer. The ‘public health care option’ leaves the for-profit insurance and HMO industry intact and in charge, with expensive segregated and multi-tiered coverage designed for maximum complexity and minimum efficiency,” said Phil Huckelberry, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.
“The public health care option constitutes political malpractice,” Mr. Huckelberry added.
Greens call insurance companies and HMOs the principal reason why the US spends far more money for a ‘sick care’ system that performs worse than all other industrial countries’ health care programs.
“Democrats in Congress are killing real health care reform by insisting on a dominant role for insurance companies. A public option alongside numerous private insurance and HMO plans will not curb the high cost of coverage. Single-Payer will cover all Americans in a single insurance pool, with comprehensive health care for all and full choice of physician and hospital, while cutting administrative costs to the tune of $400 billion,” said Jody Grage, treasurer of the national Green Party.
According to Physicians for a National Health Program, “[o]ver 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc.” in private coverage, and has estimated a reduction of 84% in administrative costs under Single-Payer (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php). The public health care option cannot guarantee any such savings, because private coverage would continue to exist.
Single-Payer, argued Greens, will also give government the leverage to negotiate and reduce the cost of medicine and medical technology. The public health care option will not allow such negotiation and will not stem the rising costs of health care.
Another danger, warned Greens, is that a multi-option system would result in many employers shifting their health care benefits plans to the less-expensive public option, which would already cover many working Americans and older, poorer, sicker, and at-risk populations. The resulting strain will lead to a demand to privatize public insurance and to huge taxpayer subsidies for private insurers.
“It is absolutely inevitable that additional taxpayer subsidies would be required to pay for private plans, whether through tax credits, tax deductions or vouchers. It is morally wrong to require taxpayers to subsidize inferior private health plans when they could be replaced with a superior, more efficient public insurance program–an expanded and improved Medicare for all.” (Physicians for a National Health Program blog, http://www.pnhp.org/blog)
Greens noted that the health care industry recently sabotaged an announcement from President Obama that insurance and other health care companies had pledged to trim the rapid growth of health care costs (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=ai_lzQQmWn3U). The promised reduction over ten years would have slowed the expected 6.2% per year increase by 1.5%, too negligible to have an effect on Americans’ health care expenses. However, the health care industry decided that even this amount was too much (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/health/policy/15health.html).
Greens called this a sign that insurance companies and allied industries will not cooperate in any effort to cut health care costs and expand coverage.
“Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus, who keeps insisting that Single-Payer is off the table, took $183,750 from health insurance companies and $229,020 from drug companies in the last two election cycles. Many of his fellow Senators and Representatives have taken similar contributions (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09). The health insurance and HMO industry wants to kill reform so they can continue to enlarge their profit margins by excluding Americans and by overcharging and restricting treatment for those who do have coverage,” said Starlene Rankin Co-chair, co-chair of the Lavender Green Caucus (http://www.lavendergreens.us).