Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Momentum Gathers for Truly Universal Health Care

By Mischa Gaus, Labor Notes. Posted January 23, 2009.


A new campaign was launched to make clear to policy-makers that the moment is right to embrace truly universal health care.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Labor activists from 31 states gathered in St. Louis last weekend, solidifying their strategies to push "Medicare for all" -- and to oppose the half-hearted health care plans circulating in Washington.

The meeting launched Labor for Single-Payer Healthcare, a campaign whose reform would cut the insurance industry out of health care and expand an improved Medicare system to everyone.

The single-payer concept has been endorsed by 39 state AFL-CIO federations, 100 central labor councils, and more than 400 local unions.

Yet some major unions that have endorsed single payer, including AFSCME and the Service Employees, in practice are backing plans that would preserve private insurers. Both union federations, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, already have lined up behind compromise plans.

"There's another agenda out there. It's not what's best or what's right, but what's opportune," said Sandy Eaton, a regional president of the Massachusetts Nurses Association.

Heavy hitters in D.C., including Senators Edward Kennedy and Max Baucus, are pushing mixed public-private reform ideas. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney praised the plan Baucus floated in November, calling it a "giant step."

But their approach is fatally flawed, said Martha Livingston of Physicians for a National Health Program. Because it leaves the profit-making insurance companies as major players, it can't control spiraling costs and does nothing to prevent insurers from denying care.

The new campaign was launched to make clear to policy-makers that a substantial section of the labor movement sees through the flawed proposals and believes the moment is right to embrace truly universal health care.

In contrast, Democrats are likely to put forward a Massachusetts-style plan, adopting an approach the state initiated in 2006. It mandated that each resident purchase health insurance, yet Eaton said tens of thousands in his state are still uninsured because they can't afford premiums but don't qualify for subsidies.

Grassroots Pressure

Representatives from 13 central labor councils and four state federations attended the kick-off meeting.

"Single payer is the only reform in health care that has a constituency," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association (CNA). "We have to light the fire that builds the movement to get single payer."

The 150 delegates discussed how to grow support for single payer in their unions and communities. They'll be coordinating actions, from plant gate and parking lot rallies to lobby days to more dramatic confrontations at insurance companies.

They believe they will have some breathing room, as Obama will likely not attempt a full overhaul of the system in his first year. They anticipate instead that the administration will focus immediately on smaller changes, such as expanding medical insurance for poor children and reining in excessive costs from private insurers that lure healthy seniors out of Medicare.

Tackling Union Opposition

Conference-goers said one problem within labor is that unions that run their own welfare funds tend to oppose single payer. These funds, which typically administer health care plans directly to union members, are common in the building trades and Teamsters. Union officers there generally argue that their members are happy with the status quo.

But whether plans are union-run or not, others said, the price of private health care is climbing, eating into salary gains and eroding members' benefits.

Some attendees foresee even the strongest unions being dragged into health care concessions.

"We don't want to be the ones going back to members, saying, ‘it's going to be more expensive this year,'" said Mark Dudzic, the campaign's coordinator. "Suddenly we become the agent of retreat for our members."

Dudzic added that activists need to challenge union leaders to think about what unions could do with the savings that national health care could achieve.

"You could convert a $6 per hour cost into a $2 per hour cost," Dudzic said, "and do incredible things -- subsidized childcare, educational benefits -- with the surplus we create as workers."

Indeed, single payer could pull the U.S. economy out of its quagmire by injecting $317 billion in public and private funds into the economy and creating 2.6 million new jobs, according to the CNA's research arm.

A study the union previewed at the St. Louis conference said the spending would pump $100 billion in wages into the economy and create almost as many jobs as the economy lost last year.

Many activists raised a big, unanswered question: How to approach union supporters of the mediocre health care reforms competing for attention in Washington?

Essentially, they won't -- for now. Unions and coalitions that support combined private-public plans will go their own way, while activists raise the profile of single payer and pressure Congress members back in their home districts.

"If everybody puts this plan into play," said Al Cholger, a Steelworkers staffer in Detroit, "this train won't leave the station without us."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: labor, health, unions, medicare, single-payer

Mischa Gaus is an editor of Labor Notes, the country's largest cross-union magazine writing from a workers' perspective.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Politics! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Medicare for all is the only way to go ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 23, 2009 12:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And now is the perfect time to implement it! We need a money infusion into the economy to contain this crisis. Medicare for all would save millions of jobs, keep unemployment checks, programs for children and the needy going while covering the 47 million without coverage and the tens of millions with inadequate coverage.

Medicare for all could start to be implemented within weeks of the Bill passing with Medicaid and expanded from there using the Medicare infrastructure of payment and records be completed within 18 months to 2 years!

They keep telling us that we are the richest country in the world, well, it's time to help those that need it most ... the poor, the working poor and the middle class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best medicine is liberty
Posted by: WarDogLRS on Jan 23, 2009 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People will argue there is nothing wrong with the status of health care in the US In fact, the sentiments against the status quo are almost unanimous: the system is broken.

Yet there are many whose ideas to fix the system will make the situation worse for everyone, and especially those who can least afford more costly social experiments. As a physician with more than 30 years of private practice, I have too often found that the very people most hurt by "reforms" in health care are the same ones politicians and pundits claimed they were going to help.
The current legislative drive regarding health care is no exception.

The more government has been involved, the greater the costs & distortions. Initially there was little resistance to the federal meddling, since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors liked being paid adequately for services that in the past were done at discount or for free, while the patients saw they were getting great access without discernable costs. The nation's medical bill grew as the incentive for patients to economize eroded.

But Americans may have deep pockets for the tax man to pull from and the bureaucrat to regulate, those pockets are neither bottomless nor overflowing. In recent years, the increasing tax-bite has become noticeable as the costs of the regulations have become more burdensome.

Yet rather than reverse the trend and liberate patients, physicians and the health care market, many in Congress would make the situation worse by adding new regulations and new fees, while eroding services and limiting choices.

Among these new regulations are "must provide" regulations on health insurance providers. These new regs translate into higher costs for the consumer as insurance companies become forced to provide coverage for services they have no desire to cover precisely because they are too costly. While the knee-jerk reaction might be to say, "That's great, they should pay for…" whatever. But such a reaction means limiting the choices of consumers, because insurance companies will either increase rates to cover the new costs, or deny coverage.

A non-smoking non-drinking single mother may not wish to pay premiums to cover the costs of an alcoholic man's addiction treatments, but new regulations could require just that. No longer will that single mom have the option to pay the lower insurance rates. Suddenly, she has no real choice; she must pay the higher rates or be without coverage.

Worse, yet, she may have no choice at all, as new regulations price her, or her insurer, out of the health insurance market with no alternative.

This is what has happened over the last three decades. More and more people, from the lowest economic classes, have been methodically pushed from the system by the cost of greater regulation. The increased number of uninsured then becomes the rallying cry for more government action, which raises costs again…. A vicious cycle, benefiting no one.

The most important thing Congress can do is to stop practicing medicine and allow market forces to operate by allowing Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) for everyone. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force in reducing cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees with patients. MSAs would help satisfy the American's people's desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care. MSAs will also allow those consumers to do business with insurance provider of their choice, who will cover the needs and procedures for which that family is willing and able to pay.

The American people deserve more than the status quo, and better than quasi-socialized medicine. The experience of the last thirty-plus years is clear: even in health care, liberty is the best medicine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Best medicine is liberty Posted by: beachcomberT
» Outsourcing Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» Single Payer not experimental Posted by: bthespoon
clinton took the bullet for this 16 years ago...
Posted by: tony12000 on Jan 23, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yet the left villified her....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm betting that this is like the phoney version in TaxUhChewSets !
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 23, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No true universal healthcare let alone single payer that I see coming. And then they wonder why people mistrust government !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Been there--done that, worked fine
Posted by: solitarysherlockian on Jan 23, 2009 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having lived in Canada--where I had a child (complicated pregnancy) with excellent care--having a daughter repeating this in UK--this is the only civilized, responsible way for a first world to treat its citizens. Only the third world has this DIY policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Medicare for all does not mean ...
Posted by: peacelf on Jan 23, 2009 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the end to private healthcare. Private healthcare can supplement universal Medicare with extra benefits like private care, private hospital rooms with better food maybe. My point is, that every american under a Medicare for all will have the standard of healthcare everyone deserves and supplemental health insurance will pay for the frills.

Of course, private companies would not influence drug prices or doctor fees anymore, and that will reduce costs drastically.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

caramba
Posted by: Willy on Jan 23, 2009 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's an oft repeated shibboleth that goes like this, "you don't want government bureaucrats making medical decisions for you." The truth of the matter is that, as it is now, insurance bureaucrats make medical decisions for you. And government "one payer" systems, e. g., Medicare, have a much lower overhead than medical insurance companies. My medical expenses have been covered by Medicare for many years and I have no complaints.
Extending Medicare to everybody is the way to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: caramba Posted by: luzmejor
Reinforcements are not heeding the call
Posted by: rac on Jan 23, 2009 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with getting behind single-payer is that the civil-war like battle ahead is all about keeping a public component in the health care reform policy that is being crafted now in the halls of Congress. Progressives could lose everything by not engaging the opposition forces where they are making headway. Right now America’s Health Insurance Plans, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Medical Association, and other special interest groups, are doing everything to kill the public plan that the health czar has proposed. Tom Daschle is overlooking the battle field and notices a weakness in his front line. He also sees that his reinforcements are mired in skirmishes far a field from where he wants them to be, from where they are needed. The entire line could collapse if the single-payer battalion doesn’t properly engage. The single-payer advocates don’t realize that their best chances of survival is within a reform package that includes private insurance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Change WHAT We Pay For!!!
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 23, 2009 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must look carefully at what we are paying for.

Currently Medicare pays for much that is not effective (doesn't work) or worse is dangerous (is not safe)

The only way out of this mess is-

- much more primary care
- emphsasis on individual and institutional (public health) prevention
- compassionate and ethical rationing -especially at end of life
- fair playing field for cheaper and safer Alternative Medicine

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Change WHAT We Pay For!!! Posted by: peterjkraus
bandz
Posted by: bandz on Jan 23, 2009 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is only one way to go to "fix" our healthcare system: A universal, comprehensive, national, single-payer, not-for-profit system. Public opinion is beginning to come around to this realization. We can no longer afford to be taken-in by the spurious and specious fear-mongers who shout "socialized medicine" at any mention of a single-payer plan. We cannot afford to repeat the timidity of Hillary Clinton's 1992-3 effort at "reform" when, in trying to placate the pharmaceutical and private insurance industries, she sold out and saw her overly-complicated compromise plan fortunately defeated anyway. We must stand up for what is RIGHT and what is BEST and not be intimidated into weak-kneed compromises. I lived in Canada for 15 years, have children and grandchildren living there now, and know from experience the benefits of a single-payer healthcare system. This is our chance to join the rest of the industrialized world in solving the present healthcare crisis in the U.S. -- bandz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bandz Posted by: Gregsdiary
"Health Care And The Recession" from today's New England Journal of Medicine
Posted by: Defenestrator on Jan 23, 2009 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How ? Like the other highly civilized countries .
Posted by: anneliese-nyc on Jan 23, 2009 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You would THINK that a country would want all their citizens to be healthy huh ?
Canada has universal as does most of Europe and Australia and New Zealand .
Just give all CITIZENS a medicaid card .
I am sure our so called reps in gov probably have healthcare for life . What do they care about who doesn't.
That is why GM cannot compete with the Japanese automakers .Healthcare for US citizens is outrageous and a disgrace .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

single-payer
Posted by: Gregsdiary on Jan 23, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There's another agenda out there. It's not what's best or what's right, but what's opportune..."

There is another agenda out there--just like there was in 1993. Back then, opportunists like Joe Lieberman--among others--sold us out to it.

The other agenda is the same-old agenda.

It's time for a real change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Universal health care is unaffordable
Posted by: solrev on Jan 23, 2009 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can not switch to single payer health care, because we need the high cost of health care to drive down the wages of workers. When wages are reduced to a minimum wage then we can implement universal health care and make all kinds of money. When that happens we also have to stop unions from getting a piece of the pie. That’s the American way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two Kinds of Liberty
Posted by: Gregsdiary on Jan 23, 2009 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There's another agenda out there. It's not what's best or what's right, but what's opportune..."

There are two kinds of freedom: selfish freedom and freedom for all.

Selfish freedom--or as Lincoln described it--the wolf's liberty--is the freedom of opportunism. It's on the agenda of inequality and insecurity.

Essentially it's "freedom" through human weakness.

Real freedom--the kind that is for all--brings out the best from human nature and promotes the right agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Going to Be a Scam, Folks
Posted by: Liberty G on Jan 23, 2009 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Allopathic medicine (that promoted by the pharmaceutical companies and high tech medicine) is NOT affordable, and is very dangerous. It sickens or kills thousands each year, and bankrupts others. There is no way this expensive treatment will really be provided to everybody by a beneficent government.

Instead, we are at risk of being forced to pay a kind of health insurance tax, whether or not we can afford it, as in Massachusetts. For this, we'll get a minimum plan that is totally useless, because we won't have the money to pay the co-pays and deductibles.

Medicare is NOT the answer - I have that, and only have Part B because my sons insisted on paying most of it. Since I can't afford the $136 yearly deductible plus the 20% you have to pay for the wildly expensive multiple tests that "visits to the doctor" really entail (never mind actual treatment), I don't and can't use it.

Somewhere down the line the total unaffordability of the corporate pharma medical system will cause it to crash, and they'll have to allow alternative and complementary health care options, as do many civilized countries, such as Britain and Germany. But it may not happen in my lifetime, I fear.

Meanwhile, single payer means - you pay and the government decides what treatment you may have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two-tier health system needed now
Posted by: perspectoff on Jan 29, 2009 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Adding more children to the government dole is not going to help the health care system.

Physicians, hospitals, and clinics get reimbursed at rates lower than their expenses for Medicaid (30% below costs), Medicare (10% below costs), and other programs (like SCHIP). Several states don't pay Medicaid for several months at a time, if at all.

Because of this, there are many areas where it is impossible to find a physician that will accept Medicaid, and the number of physicians that accept Medicare and other government programs is dwindling, as costs rise and reimbursements fall.

We need a two-tier health care system, as is the norm in most of the rest of the world:

1) a national network of state, county, and rural hospitals, clinics, and physicians subsidized by the government (financially and with free electronic medical records and bulk purchasing discounts) in exchange for accepting Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs (such as SCHIP)

2) a private network of hospitals, clinics, and physicians free to set their own rates in order to recoup their costs, and free to negotiate with insurance companies for fair reimbursements for services, instead of the current system (as in California) where insurance companies can set their own arbitrary low rates and are protected by law in doing so

If we don't institute such a two-tiered system now, health care will continue to crumble. This year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement