COMMENTS: 29
Hey Progressives, Join Forces to Fight the Health Insurance Industry!
June 29, 2009 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.
Advertisement
“A ‘Public Plan’ is a sell-out, crafted to appease Big Pharma.”
“’Single Payer’ is politically impossible, and advocacy of it only weakens our one chance at real reform.”
As our country once again tries to fix our unsustainable for-profit health care system, conflicting messages threaten to derail the whole process. Progressive advocates, progressive members of Congress, and health care providers need to provide a roadmap through the maze of conflicting perceptions.
Progressives have at least two remedies to the healthcare crisis:
1) A “single-payer” system, which is most easily described as “Medicare for All.” It is a publicly financed, privately delivered national healthcare system, This option makes healthcare a human right, granting universal coverage, eliminating out-of-pockets costs for consumers and slashes wasteful administration costs of our current patchwork for-profit system. As Physicians for a National Health Program reveals “The potential savings on paperwork, $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying more than we already do.” Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has introduced a bill that calls for Single Payer.
2) A “public option” system, which offers a public (government) health insurance option alongside the private, for-profit plans that make up our current system. It would compete with the for-profit plans, preserve the so-called “marketplace of competition,” but provide a guarantee of affordable, accessible high-quality healthcare to all. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has what seems to be the most progressive principles for such a public option.
One problem in progressive circles that contributes to the confusion is the perception, real or not, that single-payer and public option advocates are fighting each other, weakening support for both. Though some of that is going on, the greater problem is that people think that's what's going on, and thereby try to push each other out of the room.
There are very few healthcare advocates who will tell you that a single-payer healthcare system is not the correct remedy for the U.S. health care crisis. What they instead will say is that single-payer is dead politically, and that Obama and the Progressive Democrats' public option is the only politically viable option.
Most smart single-payer advocates, like the California Nurses Association, Physicians for a National Health Program and Progressive Democrats for America, will tell you that the proposed public option won’t solve our healthcare crisis. But often they identify the real enemy as the for-profit health industry, not the incremental proposals that seek to address the crisis.
Like both camps above, I too believe that the only real solution to our health crisis is a universal, single-payer, “Medicare for All” approach. Only through a public system that puts patient care and not corporate profits as the bottom line can we achieve the promise of health care as a human right, and effectively bring down exponentially skyrocketing healthcare costs at the same time. Even the best public option runs the risk of being the dumping ground of the nation’s sickest people while only slightly cutting overall administrative costs. A public option system does not achieve the goal of health care as a universal human right.
Karen Dolan is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. She directs the Institute's Cities for Progress project.
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 29 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE IS AN OXYMORON
Posted by: jacksmith on Jun 29, 2009 3:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jacksmith on Jun 29, 2009 3:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
both camps are needed
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Jun 29, 2009 6:37 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Jun 29, 2009 6:37 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear counts of 30 million individual members for HCAN (pro public option) and 20 million for the National Single Payer Alliance. Even with some people belonging to both organizations, it's clear there is a lot more clout if the two camps work together.
Let's focus on what we can agree on and work together for that. Fight the problem, not one another. Fight medical bankruptcies and foreclosures, job lock, and needless death and lack of care.
Example of cooperation: I think we get a better public dialogue when the people advocating different solutions come together on community panels and town halls and we hear all the arguments in a respectful setting. I have seen this work. Sometimes invitation to the debate is better outreach than marketing one true answer or another.
Let's focus on what we can agree on and work together for that. Fight the problem, not one another. Fight medical bankruptcies and foreclosures, job lock, and needless death and lack of care.
Example of cooperation: I think we get a better public dialogue when the people advocating different solutions come together on community panels and town halls and we hear all the arguments in a respectful setting. I have seen this work. Sometimes invitation to the debate is better outreach than marketing one true answer or another.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: both camps are needed
Posted by: KDelphi5950
Comments are closed-
DerRotBaron
Posted by: DerRotBaron on Jun 29, 2009 7:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: DerRotBaron on Jun 29, 2009 7:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This suggested political/advocacy solution is misdirected and incorrect. If public option and single payer "embrace", then single payer will not be a left flank, it will disappear, as it was "disappeared" before. Public option will become the left flank. Compromise will be away from a public option to something that continues unmitigated subsidy of nonpublic underwriters, Big Pharma, etc to achieve only minimal increases in access to care, if any, at continued cost exponentiation.
If progressives believe that single payer is the real solution, then that's what should be pressed through any and every means. Political will cannot be created by making single payer a throw away, particularly an unrecognized, unspoken throw away. Until Senate civil disobedience, single payer was literally "blacked out" by the White House, Congress, and the beltway media control, because it was deemed by big power brokers as "politically unfeasible" (inconvenient), and most recently, "too late". Groups like OFA want lockstep support of White House directives, which is the public option, not single payer, so they won't even say the words "single-payer", won't compromise, and therefore, public option will be the "left flank" suggested, functionally without single payer on the bargaining table. A majority of the health reformers now participating in OFA are staunch single payer supporters, who understand the economic superiority of this route. Single payer has been deemed unfeasible because someone wanted it to be unfeasible, not because its intrinsicly unfeasible. The private underwriters who make the campaign contributions have already deemed the public option unfeasible, and we have been through this cycle several times before in the last half century. We will not avoid failure again, and get any meaningful reform by the embrace of public option and single payer, because single payer will be pushed off the table again, before the public has a chance to learn what it is. With the drop out rates from both parties rising, I'd hate to think what 2010 will be like without something that really does reduce costs and expand access.
It is a mistake to vilify the private underwriters, when all that is necessary is to elaborate the list of obvious current problems caused by this system. If progressives believe that single payer is the real answer, then just show how single payer solves the elaborated problems created by completely nonpublic third party control of access to care. What needs to be elaborated carefully and clearly *now* is that a single payer system is the only economically viable solution to restructuring access to disease and trauma care in America. The numbers are there, and they can be scored by CBO, which cannot be done with the other options reliably. The other options are so cost inefficient, even "public option"(mixed), that they will not be able to expand access to everyone, even incrementally, and they will not control costs. A medicare for all policy like Sanders S 703, or Conyers HR 676 is the only economically viable solution, and now is the time to elaborate that for the public. Look at the relief it offers employers, particularly small business. "Competition" will not get us there; it never has in the past. Lay out the economics as well as the social equity in a national public system, and then let the best elements be put into any compromise, if you can't get the real deal. Don't vilify and bow up the "enemy". Now is the time to demonstrate the economic superiority of single payer.
If progressives believe that single payer is the real solution, then that's what should be pressed through any and every means. Political will cannot be created by making single payer a throw away, particularly an unrecognized, unspoken throw away. Until Senate civil disobedience, single payer was literally "blacked out" by the White House, Congress, and the beltway media control, because it was deemed by big power brokers as "politically unfeasible" (inconvenient), and most recently, "too late". Groups like OFA want lockstep support of White House directives, which is the public option, not single payer, so they won't even say the words "single-payer", won't compromise, and therefore, public option will be the "left flank" suggested, functionally without single payer on the bargaining table. A majority of the health reformers now participating in OFA are staunch single payer supporters, who understand the economic superiority of this route. Single payer has been deemed unfeasible because someone wanted it to be unfeasible, not because its intrinsicly unfeasible. The private underwriters who make the campaign contributions have already deemed the public option unfeasible, and we have been through this cycle several times before in the last half century. We will not avoid failure again, and get any meaningful reform by the embrace of public option and single payer, because single payer will be pushed off the table again, before the public has a chance to learn what it is. With the drop out rates from both parties rising, I'd hate to think what 2010 will be like without something that really does reduce costs and expand access.
It is a mistake to vilify the private underwriters, when all that is necessary is to elaborate the list of obvious current problems caused by this system. If progressives believe that single payer is the real answer, then just show how single payer solves the elaborated problems created by completely nonpublic third party control of access to care. What needs to be elaborated carefully and clearly *now* is that a single payer system is the only economically viable solution to restructuring access to disease and trauma care in America. The numbers are there, and they can be scored by CBO, which cannot be done with the other options reliably. The other options are so cost inefficient, even "public option"(mixed), that they will not be able to expand access to everyone, even incrementally, and they will not control costs. A medicare for all policy like Sanders S 703, or Conyers HR 676 is the only economically viable solution, and now is the time to elaborate that for the public. Look at the relief it offers employers, particularly small business. "Competition" will not get us there; it never has in the past. Lay out the economics as well as the social equity in a national public system, and then let the best elements be put into any compromise, if you can't get the real deal. Don't vilify and bow up the "enemy". Now is the time to demonstrate the economic superiority of single payer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 1, 2009 4:10 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 1, 2009 4:10 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I respect their values, activism and passion some of my single-payer friends are non-compromising idealogues.
They will not budge off their hardline postion.
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
They will not budge off their hardline postion.
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I don't think you get it
Posted by: james108
» RE: I don't think you get it
Posted by: drricklippin
» lie
Posted by: james108
» RE: I don't think you get it
Posted by: james108
» RE: I don't think you get it
Posted by: bluevistas
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: railhead
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: wtfo
» RE: GOOD COMMENTS BY wtfo
Posted by: drricklippin
» You're Perpetuating A Damaging, Widely-Held Myth
Posted by: armorypk
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: armorypk
Comments are closed-
World of difference, same desires
Posted by: james108 on Jul 1, 2009 5:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: james108 on Jul 1, 2009 5:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, democrats and republicans have more in common than advocates of single payer do with the public health "option". At least the democrat and republican parties are both lies to their constituents.
Single payer is just one option of a rational society, so is establishing a fair fee schedule or real public hospitals that don't charge $200/hr and then some.
The "public health option" is mostly an expansion of the failed Massachusetts plan, which led to higher expenses without covering anyone. That's because it's really crafted by people heavily bought out by the industry, and just keeps shoveling more money with extra room for kickbacks.
Think about it for one minute. Raise use taxes, tax employer health benefits, reduce medicare/medicaid services, penalize people on their income taxes, force "re-worded" mandates for some, AND STILL NOT COVER EVERYONE'S REQUIRED LIFE OR DEATH SERVICES, leading to higher cost shifting.
Oh yea, we may want the same thing but even many Nazi party members wanted to help their brother. Public health option pushers are blind democratic stooges for now, until they get it together.
Single payer is just one option of a rational society, so is establishing a fair fee schedule or real public hospitals that don't charge $200/hr and then some.
The "public health option" is mostly an expansion of the failed Massachusetts plan, which led to higher expenses without covering anyone. That's because it's really crafted by people heavily bought out by the industry, and just keeps shoveling more money with extra room for kickbacks.
Think about it for one minute. Raise use taxes, tax employer health benefits, reduce medicare/medicaid services, penalize people on their income taxes, force "re-worded" mandates for some, AND STILL NOT COVER EVERYONE'S REQUIRED LIFE OR DEATH SERVICES, leading to higher cost shifting.
Oh yea, we may want the same thing but even many Nazi party members wanted to help their brother. Public health option pushers are blind democratic stooges for now, until they get it together.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» i meant everyone
Posted by: james108
Comments are closed-
Now that Obama is bullying Congress into more war spending and shutting out single payer,
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 1, 2009 6:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 1, 2009 6:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
maybe it isn't a bad idea to call him Barry HUSSEIN Obama after all only because he's screwing us even worse than Saddam Hussein screwed his own people at any time. It won't be long before Barry gases us all !
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Now that Obama is bullying Congress into more war spending and shutting out single payer,
Posted by: wtfo
» RE: Now that Obama is bullying Congress into more war spending and shutting out single payer,
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Rahm Emanuel says......
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 1, 2009 7:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 1, 2009 7:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...adroitly that "our real goal in health care reform is success"
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
my blog
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
my blog
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» too empty
Posted by: james108
Comments are closed-
Are ideologues the new liberals?
Posted by: sherry on Jul 1, 2009 8:14 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sherry on Jul 1, 2009 8:14 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the past few months, I've noticed the term "ideologue" and variations of that word used as a slur, the way Republicans tried to label all opponents as liberals, a ploy which worked for the most part, sort of shaming us into submission or dsappearance. The Obama campaign is seeking to diminish my political advocacy by calling me an ideologue. And since they own the stage, there's no place to ask what the hell that means.
Here's a dictionary definition of ideology: the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, a group, a class or a culture.
Then look at the comment above (I actually gave it a rating of 5 because it's so telling) quoting Rahm Emanuel. What does "success" mean? Success for whom?
We're going to be dodging lots of language bullets so in the meantime . . . read DerRotBaron again and please ask your representatives (White House included) to demand a CBO scoring of single payer and compare that score to the scores of all other proposals. That's not asking a lot, or so it would seem. If they refuse, that refusal sends a clear message no matter what language they wrap it in.
Here's a dictionary definition of ideology: the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, a group, a class or a culture.
Then look at the comment above (I actually gave it a rating of 5 because it's so telling) quoting Rahm Emanuel. What does "success" mean? Success for whom?
We're going to be dodging lots of language bullets so in the meantime . . . read DerRotBaron again and please ask your representatives (White House included) to demand a CBO scoring of single payer and compare that score to the scores of all other proposals. That's not asking a lot, or so it would seem. If they refuse, that refusal sends a clear message no matter what language they wrap it in.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Keep it simple
Posted by: archivistIII on Jul 1, 2009 8:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: archivistIII on Jul 1, 2009 8:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution has to be simple.
Single payer is simple. Any other hybrid is going to be a back-and-forth debate and tussle trying to hold to some priciple of profit for health care companies.
How ethical, or for that matter, sane is profit in healthcare. Does it not violate the hippocratic oath?
Think about it, for those who are smart enough to refuse emergency room charges and not get conned into signing the papers during addmittance, the government already pays those charges and you get treated anyway.
The government is already paying for the sickest and poorest people.
Single payer is simple, gets health care off the backs of our small businesses (largest employer), brings the cost in line and lets us get on with reforming health care into a preventative measure instead of a disease treatment circus.
Single payer only.
Let our businesses concentrate on investing and making jobs instead of juggling balooning health care costs or just cutting benefits and or ultimatly jobs.
Single payer is simple. Any other hybrid is going to be a back-and-forth debate and tussle trying to hold to some priciple of profit for health care companies.
How ethical, or for that matter, sane is profit in healthcare. Does it not violate the hippocratic oath?
Think about it, for those who are smart enough to refuse emergency room charges and not get conned into signing the papers during addmittance, the government already pays those charges and you get treated anyway.
The government is already paying for the sickest and poorest people.
Single payer is simple, gets health care off the backs of our small businesses (largest employer), brings the cost in line and lets us get on with reforming health care into a preventative measure instead of a disease treatment circus.
Single payer only.
Let our businesses concentrate on investing and making jobs instead of juggling balooning health care costs or just cutting benefits and or ultimatly jobs.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jul 1, 2009 10:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mnstra on Jul 1, 2009 10:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anything public really worked for the people, it would have to be banned..........
Don,t count on anything substantive to come out or Washington, like health care for all. You and I will pay through the nose for anything like health care guarantees.Jus look at the plan D medicare drug plan . how expensive it is and profitable for big pharma!!!!
What we need is community based medicine at reduced prices and generic drugs, leaving out the big guys.
Don,t count on anything substantive to come out or Washington, like health care for all. You and I will pay through the nose for anything like health care guarantees.Jus look at the plan D medicare drug plan . how expensive it is and profitable for big pharma!!!!
What we need is community based medicine at reduced prices and generic drugs, leaving out the big guys.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
I agree with Dr. Lippin
Posted by: willymack on Jul 1, 2009 12:31 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: willymack on Jul 1, 2009 12:31 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should loudly demand HR676, or single-payer universal health care, but use the "public option" as a fallback.
The big hurtle will be convincing Congress and the Senate that they have more to fear from us if we're crossed than they do from their corporate owners.
The big hurtle will be convincing Congress and the Senate that they have more to fear from us if we're crossed than they do from their corporate owners.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree with Dr. Lippin
Posted by: lyta
Comments are closed-
Let's take a closer look at the Senate's HELP committee "public option" proposal
Posted by: bluevistas on Jul 5, 2009 4:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bluevistas on Jul 5, 2009 4:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before going all ga-ga about Senators Schumer, Specter, and Hagan's support of the Senate's HELP comittee plan, see if this is the healthcare change you really want and can afford--
There's no public opting in. The only folks to get in are basically those now uninsured. Or those whose health insurance through employers is too high of a percentage of their income. Kennedy and Dodd specifically made it impossible for the general public to opt in. Employers are mandated to provide private health insurance, there is a $750 employer penalty for not covering employees. Small businesses are exempt.
Individuals now not covered with low and moderate incomes would have to pay from 1-12.5% of our income to buy in. My income has not increased 12.5% recently, has yours? There are "subsidies" available for low income folks who are currently uninsured. This plan is still beyond my reach financially.
This "public option" does not address the basic problems with our healthcare "system"--like the ~30% administrative costs of private insurance--read "marketing/advertising, millions/billions for CEO pay, profit for shareholders. That 30% minus the 3% (Medicare's overhead) could/should go toward provision of services.
This "public option" is a HUGE financial windfall for the private health insurance corporations. Think about it! Employers being mandated to provide private insurance. What health insurance corporation isn't privately salivating to get all those new enrollees!!
The "public option" proposal will become a dumping ground for the chronically ill, costly (needing care which has been postponed), and surely will fail financially because the patient risk pool will be too small to gain all the advantages of a larger risk pool.
It adds another fragmented layer to the already cumbersome, unwieldy, confusing, provision of care we currently have. It does NOTHING to address the difficulties that practitioners, like myself, have to deal with now--the multiplicity of programs/plans/policies/eligibility.
Sources--Center for Policy Analysis
Health Care Reform That Doesn't Fix the Problems
Hold Out For Single Payer
There's no public opting in. The only folks to get in are basically those now uninsured. Or those whose health insurance through employers is too high of a percentage of their income. Kennedy and Dodd specifically made it impossible for the general public to opt in. Employers are mandated to provide private health insurance, there is a $750 employer penalty for not covering employees. Small businesses are exempt.
Individuals now not covered with low and moderate incomes would have to pay from 1-12.5% of our income to buy in. My income has not increased 12.5% recently, has yours? There are "subsidies" available for low income folks who are currently uninsured. This plan is still beyond my reach financially.
This "public option" does not address the basic problems with our healthcare "system"--like the ~30% administrative costs of private insurance--read "marketing/advertising, millions/billions for CEO pay, profit for shareholders. That 30% minus the 3% (Medicare's overhead) could/should go toward provision of services.
This "public option" is a HUGE financial windfall for the private health insurance corporations. Think about it! Employers being mandated to provide private insurance. What health insurance corporation isn't privately salivating to get all those new enrollees!!
The "public option" proposal will become a dumping ground for the chronically ill, costly (needing care which has been postponed), and surely will fail financially because the patient risk pool will be too small to gain all the advantages of a larger risk pool.
It adds another fragmented layer to the already cumbersome, unwieldy, confusing, provision of care we currently have. It does NOTHING to address the difficulties that practitioners, like myself, have to deal with now--the multiplicity of programs/plans/policies/eligibility.
Sources--Center for Policy Analysis
Health Care Reform That Doesn't Fix the Problems
Hold Out For Single Payer
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Alternet Comments:
» RE: both camps are needed
Posted by: KDelphi5950
» I don't think you get it
Posted by: james108
» RE: I don't think you get it
Posted by: drricklippin
» lie
Posted by: james108
» RE: I don't think you get it
Posted by: james108
» RE: I don't think you get it
Posted by: bluevistas
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: railhead
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: wtfo
» RE: GOOD COMMENTS BY wtfo
Posted by: drricklippin
» You're Perpetuating A Damaging, Widely-Held Myth
Posted by: armorypk
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: armorypk
» i meant everyone
Posted by: james108
» RE: Now that Obama is bullying Congress into more war spending and shutting out single payer,
Posted by: wtfo
» RE: Now that Obama is bullying Congress into more war spending and shutting out single payer,
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» too empty
Posted by: james108
» I agree with Dr. Lippin
Posted by: lyta
Comments are closed-
PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE IS AN OXYMORON
Posted by: jacksmith on Jun 29, 2009 3:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jacksmith on Jun 29, 2009 3:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
both camps are needed
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Jun 29, 2009 6:37 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Jun 29, 2009 6:37 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear counts of 30 million individual members for HCAN (pro public option) and 20 million for the National Single Payer Alliance. Even with some people belonging to both organizations, it's clear there is a lot more clout if the two camps work together.
Let's focus on what we can agree on and work together for that. Fight the problem, not one another. Fight medical bankruptcies and foreclosures, job lock, and needless death and lack of care.
Example of cooperation: I think we get a better public dialogue when the people advocating different solutions come together on community panels and town halls and we hear all the arguments in a respectful setting. I have seen this work. Sometimes invitation to the debate is better outreach than marketing one true answer or another.
Let's focus on what we can agree on and work together for that. Fight the problem, not one another. Fight medical bankruptcies and foreclosures, job lock, and needless death and lack of care.
Example of cooperation: I think we get a better public dialogue when the people advocating different solutions come together on community panels and town halls and we hear all the arguments in a respectful setting. I have seen this work. Sometimes invitation to the debate is better outreach than marketing one true answer or another.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: both camps are needed
Posted by: KDelphi5950
Comments are closed-
DerRotBaron
Posted by: DerRotBaron on Jun 29, 2009 7:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: DerRotBaron on Jun 29, 2009 7:38 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This suggested political/advocacy solution is misdirected and incorrect. If public option and single payer "embrace", then single payer will not be a left flank, it will disappear, as it was "disappeared" before. Public option will become the left flank. Compromise will be away from a public option to something that continues unmitigated subsidy of nonpublic underwriters, Big Pharma, etc to achieve only minimal increases in access to care, if any, at continued cost exponentiation.
If progressives believe that single payer is the real solution, then that's what should be pressed through any and every means. Political will cannot be created by making single payer a throw away, particularly an unrecognized, unspoken throw away. Until Senate civil disobedience, single payer was literally "blacked out" by the White House, Congress, and the beltway media control, because it was deemed by big power brokers as "politically unfeasible" (inconvenient), and most recently, "too late". Groups like OFA want lockstep support of White House directives, which is the public option, not single payer, so they won't even say the words "single-payer", won't compromise, and therefore, public option will be the "left flank" suggested, functionally without single payer on the bargaining table. A majority of the health reformers now participating in OFA are staunch single payer supporters, who understand the economic superiority of this route. Single payer has been deemed unfeasible because someone wanted it to be unfeasible, not because its intrinsicly unfeasible. The private underwriters who make the campaign contributions have already deemed the public option unfeasible, and we have been through this cycle several times before in the last half century. We will not avoid failure again, and get any meaningful reform by the embrace of public option and single payer, because single payer will be pushed off the table again, before the public has a chance to learn what it is. With the drop out rates from both parties rising, I'd hate to think what 2010 will be like without something that really does reduce costs and expand access.
It is a mistake to vilify the private underwriters, when all that is necessary is to elaborate the list of obvious current problems caused by this system. If progressives believe that single payer is the real answer, then just show how single payer solves the elaborated problems created by completely nonpublic third party control of access to care. What needs to be elaborated carefully and clearly *now* is that a single payer system is the only economically viable solution to restructuring access to disease and trauma care in America. The numbers are there, and they can be scored by CBO, which cannot be done with the other options reliably. The other options are so cost inefficient, even "public option"(mixed), that they will not be able to expand access to everyone, even incrementally, and they will not control costs. A medicare for all policy like Sanders S 703, or Conyers HR 676 is the only economically viable solution, and now is the time to elaborate that for the public. Look at the relief it offers employers, particularly small business. "Competition" will not get us there; it never has in the past. Lay out the economics as well as the social equity in a national public system, and then let the best elements be put into any compromise, if you can't get the real deal. Don't vilify and bow up the "enemy". Now is the time to demonstrate the economic superiority of single payer.
If progressives believe that single payer is the real solution, then that's what should be pressed through any and every means. Political will cannot be created by making single payer a throw away, particularly an unrecognized, unspoken throw away. Until Senate civil disobedience, single payer was literally "blacked out" by the White House, Congress, and the beltway media control, because it was deemed by big power brokers as "politically unfeasible" (inconvenient), and most recently, "too late". Groups like OFA want lockstep support of White House directives, which is the public option, not single payer, so they won't even say the words "single-payer", won't compromise, and therefore, public option will be the "left flank" suggested, functionally without single payer on the bargaining table. A majority of the health reformers now participating in OFA are staunch single payer supporters, who understand the economic superiority of this route. Single payer has been deemed unfeasible because someone wanted it to be unfeasible, not because its intrinsicly unfeasible. The private underwriters who make the campaign contributions have already deemed the public option unfeasible, and we have been through this cycle several times before in the last half century. We will not avoid failure again, and get any meaningful reform by the embrace of public option and single payer, because single payer will be pushed off the table again, before the public has a chance to learn what it is. With the drop out rates from both parties rising, I'd hate to think what 2010 will be like without something that really does reduce costs and expand access.
It is a mistake to vilify the private underwriters, when all that is necessary is to elaborate the list of obvious current problems caused by this system. If progressives believe that single payer is the real answer, then just show how single payer solves the elaborated problems created by completely nonpublic third party control of access to care. What needs to be elaborated carefully and clearly *now* is that a single payer system is the only economically viable solution to restructuring access to disease and trauma care in America. The numbers are there, and they can be scored by CBO, which cannot be done with the other options reliably. The other options are so cost inefficient, even "public option"(mixed), that they will not be able to expand access to everyone, even incrementally, and they will not control costs. A medicare for all policy like Sanders S 703, or Conyers HR 676 is the only economically viable solution, and now is the time to elaborate that for the public. Look at the relief it offers employers, particularly small business. "Competition" will not get us there; it never has in the past. Lay out the economics as well as the social equity in a national public system, and then let the best elements be put into any compromise, if you can't get the real deal. Don't vilify and bow up the "enemy". Now is the time to demonstrate the economic superiority of single payer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 1, 2009 4:10 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 1, 2009 4:10 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I respect their values, activism and passion some of my single-payer friends are non-compromising idealogues.
They will not budge off their hardline postion.
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
They will not budge off their hardline postion.
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I don't think you get it
Posted by: james108
» RE: I don't think you get it
Posted by: drricklippin
» lie
Posted by: james108
» RE: I don't think you get it
Posted by: james108
» RE: I don't think you get it
Posted by: bluevistas
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: railhead
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: wtfo
» RE: GOOD COMMENTS BY wtfo
Posted by: drricklippin
» You're Perpetuating A Damaging, Widely-Held Myth
Posted by: armorypk
» RE: Some Single Payer People Are Idealogues
Posted by: armorypk
Comments are closed-
World of difference, same desires
Posted by: james108 on Jul 1, 2009 5:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: james108 on Jul 1, 2009 5:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, democrats and republicans have more in common than advocates of single payer do with the public health "option". At least the democrat and republican parties are both lies to their constituents.
Single payer is just one option of a rational society, so is establishing a fair fee schedule or real public hospitals that don't charge $200/hr and then some.
The "public health option" is mostly an expansion of the failed Massachusetts plan, which led to higher expenses without covering anyone. That's because it's really crafted by people heavily bought out by the industry, and just keeps shoveling more money with extra room for kickbacks.
Think about it for one minute. Raise use taxes, tax employer health benefits, reduce medicare/medicaid services, penalize people on their income taxes, force "re-worded" mandates for some, AND STILL NOT COVER EVERYONE'S REQUIRED LIFE OR DEATH SERVICES, leading to higher cost shifting.
Oh yea, we may want the same thing but even many Nazi party members wanted to help their brother. Public health option pushers are blind democratic stooges for now, until they get it together.
Single payer is just one option of a rational society, so is establishing a fair fee schedule or real public hospitals that don't charge $200/hr and then some.
The "public health option" is mostly an expansion of the failed Massachusetts plan, which led to higher expenses without covering anyone. That's because it's really crafted by people heavily bought out by the industry, and just keeps shoveling more money with extra room for kickbacks.
Think about it for one minute. Raise use taxes, tax employer health benefits, reduce medicare/medicaid services, penalize people on their income taxes, force "re-worded" mandates for some, AND STILL NOT COVER EVERYONE'S REQUIRED LIFE OR DEATH SERVICES, leading to higher cost shifting.
Oh yea, we may want the same thing but even many Nazi party members wanted to help their brother. Public health option pushers are blind democratic stooges for now, until they get it together.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» i meant everyone
Posted by: james108
Comments are closed-
Now that Obama is bullying Congress into more war spending and shutting out single payer,
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 1, 2009 6:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 1, 2009 6:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
maybe it isn't a bad idea to call him Barry HUSSEIN Obama after all only because he's screwing us even worse than Saddam Hussein screwed his own people at any time. It won't be long before Barry gases us all !
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Now that Obama is bullying Congress into more war spending and shutting out single payer,
Posted by: wtfo
» RE: Now that Obama is bullying Congress into more war spending and shutting out single payer,
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Rahm Emanuel says......
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 1, 2009 7:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 1, 2009 7:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...adroitly that "our real goal in health care reform is success"
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
my blog
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
my blog
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» too empty
Posted by: james108
Comments are closed-
Are ideologues the new liberals?
Posted by: sherry on Jul 1, 2009 8:14 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sherry on Jul 1, 2009 8:14 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the past few months, I've noticed the term "ideologue" and variations of that word used as a slur, the way Republicans tried to label all opponents as liberals, a ploy which worked for the most part, sort of shaming us into submission or dsappearance. The Obama campaign is seeking to diminish my political advocacy by calling me an ideologue. And since they own the stage, there's no place to ask what the hell that means.
Here's a dictionary definition of ideology: the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, a group, a class or a culture.
Then look at the comment above (I actually gave it a rating of 5 because it's so telling) quoting Rahm Emanuel. What does "success" mean? Success for whom?
We're going to be dodging lots of language bullets so in the meantime . . . read DerRotBaron again and please ask your representatives (White House included) to demand a CBO scoring of single payer and compare that score to the scores of all other proposals. That's not asking a lot, or so it would seem. If they refuse, that refusal sends a clear message no matter what language they wrap it in.
Here's a dictionary definition of ideology: the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, a group, a class or a culture.
Then look at the comment above (I actually gave it a rating of 5 because it's so telling) quoting Rahm Emanuel. What does "success" mean? Success for whom?
We're going to be dodging lots of language bullets so in the meantime . . . read DerRotBaron again and please ask your representatives (White House included) to demand a CBO scoring of single payer and compare that score to the scores of all other proposals. That's not asking a lot, or so it would seem. If they refuse, that refusal sends a clear message no matter what language they wrap it in.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Keep it simple
Posted by: archivistIII on Jul 1, 2009 8:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: archivistIII on Jul 1, 2009 8:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution has to be simple.
Single payer is simple. Any other hybrid is going to be a back-and-forth debate and tussle trying to hold to some priciple of profit for health care companies.
How ethical, or for that matter, sane is profit in healthcare. Does it not violate the hippocratic oath?
Think about it, for those who are smart enough to refuse emergency room charges and not get conned into signing the papers during addmittance, the government already pays those charges and you get treated anyway.
The government is already paying for the sickest and poorest people.
Single payer is simple, gets health care off the backs of our small businesses (largest employer), brings the cost in line and lets us get on with reforming health care into a preventative measure instead of a disease treatment circus.
Single payer only.
Let our businesses concentrate on investing and making jobs instead of juggling balooning health care costs or just cutting benefits and or ultimatly jobs.
Single payer is simple. Any other hybrid is going to be a back-and-forth debate and tussle trying to hold to some priciple of profit for health care companies.
How ethical, or for that matter, sane is profit in healthcare. Does it not violate the hippocratic oath?
Think about it, for those who are smart enough to refuse emergency room charges and not get conned into signing the papers during addmittance, the government already pays those charges and you get treated anyway.
The government is already paying for the sickest and poorest people.
Single payer is simple, gets health care off the backs of our small businesses (largest employer), brings the cost in line and lets us get on with reforming health care into a preventative measure instead of a disease treatment circus.
Single payer only.
Let our businesses concentrate on investing and making jobs instead of juggling balooning health care costs or just cutting benefits and or ultimatly jobs.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jul 1, 2009 10:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mnstra on Jul 1, 2009 10:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anything public really worked for the people, it would have to be banned..........
Don,t count on anything substantive to come out or Washington, like health care for all. You and I will pay through the nose for anything like health care guarantees.Jus look at the plan D medicare drug plan . how expensive it is and profitable for big pharma!!!!
What we need is community based medicine at reduced prices and generic drugs, leaving out the big guys.
Don,t count on anything substantive to come out or Washington, like health care for all. You and I will pay through the nose for anything like health care guarantees.Jus look at the plan D medicare drug plan . how expensive it is and profitable for big pharma!!!!
What we need is community based medicine at reduced prices and generic drugs, leaving out the big guys.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
I agree with Dr. Lippin
Posted by: willymack on Jul 1, 2009 12:31 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: willymack on Jul 1, 2009 12:31 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should loudly demand HR676, or single-payer universal health care, but use the "public option" as a fallback.
The big hurtle will be convincing Congress and the Senate that they have more to fear from us if we're crossed than they do from their corporate owners.
The big hurtle will be convincing Congress and the Senate that they have more to fear from us if we're crossed than they do from their corporate owners.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I agree with Dr. Lippin
Posted by: lyta
Comments are closed-
Let's take a closer look at the Senate's HELP committee "public option" proposal
Posted by: bluevistas on Jul 5, 2009 4:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bluevistas on Jul 5, 2009 4:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before going all ga-ga about Senators Schumer, Specter, and Hagan's support of the Senate's HELP comittee plan, see if this is the healthcare change you really want and can afford--
There's no public opting in. The only folks to get in are basically those now uninsured. Or those whose health insurance through employers is too high of a percentage of their income. Kennedy and Dodd specifically made it impossible for the general public to opt in. Employers are mandated to provide private health insurance, there is a $750 employer penalty for not covering employees. Small businesses are exempt.
Individuals now not covered with low and moderate incomes would have to pay from 1-12.5% of our income to buy in. My income has not increased 12.5% recently, has yours? There are "subsidies" available for low income folks who are currently uninsured. This plan is still beyond my reach financially.
This "public option" does not address the basic problems with our healthcare "system"--like the ~30% administrative costs of private insurance--read "marketing/advertising, millions/billions for CEO pay, profit for shareholders. That 30% minus the 3% (Medicare's overhead) could/should go toward provision of services.
This "public option" is a HUGE financial windfall for the private health insurance corporations. Think about it! Employers being mandated to provide private insurance. What health insurance corporation isn't privately salivating to get all those new enrollees!!
The "public option" proposal will become a dumping ground for the chronically ill, costly (needing care which has been postponed), and surely will fail financially because the patient risk pool will be too small to gain all the advantages of a larger risk pool.
It adds another fragmented layer to the already cumbersome, unwieldy, confusing, provision of care we currently have. It does NOTHING to address the difficulties that practitioners, like myself, have to deal with now--the multiplicity of programs/plans/policies/eligibility.
Sources--Center for Policy Analysis
Health Care Reform That Doesn't Fix the Problems
Hold Out For Single Payer
There's no public opting in. The only folks to get in are basically those now uninsured. Or those whose health insurance through employers is too high of a percentage of their income. Kennedy and Dodd specifically made it impossible for the general public to opt in. Employers are mandated to provide private health insurance, there is a $750 employer penalty for not covering employees. Small businesses are exempt.
Individuals now not covered with low and moderate incomes would have to pay from 1-12.5% of our income to buy in. My income has not increased 12.5% recently, has yours? There are "subsidies" available for low income folks who are currently uninsured. This plan is still beyond my reach financially.
This "public option" does not address the basic problems with our healthcare "system"--like the ~30% administrative costs of private insurance--read "marketing/advertising, millions/billions for CEO pay, profit for shareholders. That 30% minus the 3% (Medicare's overhead) could/should go toward provision of services.
This "public option" is a HUGE financial windfall for the private health insurance corporations. Think about it! Employers being mandated to provide private insurance. What health insurance corporation isn't privately salivating to get all those new enrollees!!
The "public option" proposal will become a dumping ground for the chronically ill, costly (needing care which has been postponed), and surely will fail financially because the patient risk pool will be too small to gain all the advantages of a larger risk pool.
It adds another fragmented layer to the already cumbersome, unwieldy, confusing, provision of care we currently have. It does NOTHING to address the difficulties that practitioners, like myself, have to deal with now--the multiplicity of programs/plans/policies/eligibility.
Sources--Center for Policy Analysis
Health Care Reform That Doesn't Fix the Problems
Hold Out For Single Payer
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Stop the Execution of an Innocent Man!
DNA testing could free Hank Skinner before Feb. 24 execution date.
Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
One of the Most Common Chemicals Used in Modern Life Is Now Being Seen as a Health Threat
