Showing posts with label single payer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label single payer. Show all posts

"We are only as safe as the least insured person in America." -- Sen. Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders delivered a speech on Friday addressing "the lessons the nation can learn" from the coronavirus outbreak, which has intensified progressive demands for Medicare for All, paid sick leave, and other policies that would provide health and economic security for all.

Sanders, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, noted that America's for-profit healthcare system has left tens of millions of people in the U.S. uninsured or underinsured in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, highlighting the need for a system that covers everyone as a right.

"If this isn't a red flag for the current dysfunctional and wasteful healthcare system, frankly I don't know what is," Sanders said of COVID-19. "We are only as safe as the least insured person in America."

"This crisis should be a moment in which people ask fundamental questions about the dysfunctionality of our current healthcare system," the Vermont senator added.

In addition to demanding a Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare system, Sanders called for the immediate expansion of unemployment benefits and paid sick leave to help workers and others affected by the coronavirus.

The government's response should "pay attention to the most vulnerable people in this country," Sanders said, not just the wealthy and large corporations.

Watch Sanders' full speech:
 

Read the rushed transcript of Sanders' remarks below:

Good afternoon everyone, thank you for being here. In the midst of a major healthcare and economic crisis currently facing our country, I’d like to take a few minutes to talk about the lessons we can learn long-term about what we are experiencing today.

As I discussed yesterday, our country is facing, as everybody knows, a medical and economic crisis, the likes of which we have not seen for generations. And we must prepare for this response in an unprecedented way, making certain that our government responds effectively, and protects the interests of all our people regardless of their income, or where they live. In other words, this is not just about giving tax breaks to large corporations, but about remembering the people today who don’t have much money, who are nervous about their economic futures and healthcare prospects.

Needless to say we must massively increase the availability of test kits for the coronavirus and the speed at which the tests are processed. We need to anticipate significant increases in hospital admissions, which means that we will need more ICU units and ventilators, we will need more doctors, nurses, and medical personnel of all kinds - and we must make sure that these frontline personnel are well protected from the diseases they are treating. I have talked to nurses recently who worry very much about whether they are getting the kind of knowledge and equipment they need so that they do not get sick.

We need to significantly improve our communications and collaboration with other countries to ensure that we are learning everything that we can about the successes and failures of other countries as they deal with this crisis. And furthermore, we must be honest with the American people and communicate as effectively and directly as we can with all of the scientific information that we can provide.

Further, and most importantly, our response to this entire crisis must be guided by the decisions of doctors, scientists, and researchers, not politicians.

But as we struggle with this crisis, it is also important that we learn the lessons of how we got to where we are today, and what we must do in the future so that we are better prepared for similar crises that may come.

Poll after poll already shows us that the American people understand that we must do what every other major country on earth does, and that is to guarantee healthcare to all of our people as a human right, not a privilege. As we begin to see the failures and vulnerabilities of the current healthcare system, my guess is that those numbers and the demand for universal healthcare will only go up.

The American people are asking: how is it possible that we spend twice as much per capita as the people of Canada and other major countries, while 87 million of us are uninsured or underinsured.

And obviously, in this crisis, and unbelievably, it means that people who are sick today, people who woke up this morning with symptoms of the coronavirus, are saying, “you know I feel sick but I cannot afford to go to a doctor.” And when somebody is not treated for the virus – somebody who is unable to afford to go to that doctor – that means that that infection can spread to many others, putting us at risk.

So it’s not just a question that in normal times – tragically, unbelievably – that we lose 30,000 people a year because they don't get to doctor on time, but now the lack of healthcare threatens other people as well.

How could it be, that when we spend so much more than what other countries are spending, we have millions of people who may be dealing with the virus but they cannot go to the doctor because they can’t afford it? That is a question that must resonate in every American’s mind.

If this isn’t a red flag for the current dysfunctional and wasteful healthcare system, frankly I don’t know what is.

For the benefit of all of us, we must make sure that every person in this country who needs to seek medical treatment can go to a doctor free of charge regardless of their income. That is obviously what we must do now in the middle of a crisis, but it is what we must do as a nation in the near future.

Here are just a few instances about how absurd and dysfunctional our current healthcare system is.

It has been estimated that a full battery of tests for the coronavirus costs over $1,300. First of all, take a look at that – $1,300 to get the test people need to have to know if they have the virus or not.

In America today, 40% of our people don’t have $400 in the bank to pay for an emergency expense.

We have half of our people living paycheck to paycheck.

If their car breaks down they can't afford to get it fixed, and if somebody tells them it costs $1,300 for the test to determine whether you have the coronavirus if they’re sick, what are they supposed to do? What happens to them?

How can someone without insurance afford to pay $1,331 to get tested when they don’t even have $400 in the bank? What are they supposed to do? What happens to them? Do they go to a payday lender where the average interest rate is over 390%? Do they borrow money from their family? Or do they go without the test? Which every doctor in the world will tell them is a test they should have.

And while the Trump administration says it may cover co-pays to cover the cost of testing for those who have insurance, they will not cover the cost of treatment - which could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

How cruel is that? How absurd is that? To say to people, “we’re sorry you have coronavirus, we covered the cost of the test, but now you’re on your own and it’s going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to get treated.” That is totally absurd.

Clearly what we need to do is to make sure that if someone has the coronavirus that person gets the treatment that they need.

In other words, our current system leaves people uninsured, but even if you have insurance you may not even have the ability to travel to a doctor near you.

Because now we’re talking about a system in which many rural hospitals have closed down and they cannot find a doctor in their communities.

The reality today, and this is an issue we must to deal with, is that we don’t have enough doctors, we don’t have enough hospitals, and we don't have enough clinics in rural communities and inner cities.

Further, we are in a situation when we desperately need affordable prescription drugs, yet we have a pharmaceutical industry that continues to make billions in profits by charging outrageous prices for prescription drugs, sometimes 10x more in this country than in other countries.

In my view, the most cost effective way to reform our dysfunctional and cruel system is to move to a Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare system.

And I think in the midst of this crisis, more and more Americans understand the truth of that.

It is nearly impossible to believe that anyone can still think it’s acceptable to continue with a healthcare system that leaves tens of millions of people uninsured. The cruelty and absurdity of that view is more obvious in the midst of this crisis than it has ever been.

And let’s be clear. Lack of healthcare and affordable medicine does not only threaten the healthcare and well-being of the uninsured. It threatens everyone who comes in contact with them.

In fact, what this crisis is beginning to teach us is that we are only as safe as the least insured person in America.

Further, we are the only major country on earth that does not mandate paid family and medical leave. And we’re seeing how that crisis is impacting where we are today.

As we speak, there are millions of workers -- right now -- who are being told to go to work, yet they may be ill and should be staying home.

But these very same families will face financial ruin if they don’t go to work. These are workers in the restaurant industry, transportation industry, tourism, retail -- in other words the people who interact with the public every single day.

Right now, at a time when half of our people live paycheck to paycheck, and at a time of massive wealth and income inequality, we must directly address the economic desperation facing a huge number of Americans.

So we must finally pass a paid family leave program in the United States to keep this virus from spreading and to keep Americans healthy.

We must do it right now.

People should not be going to work when they are sick, it is unfair to them, it is unfair to the people they are in contact with. And yet, that reality exists, because we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee paid family leave and sick time.

Finally, from a national security perspective, it is incomprehensible that we are dependent on China and other countries for masks, for prescription drugs, for rubber gloves, and for key parts needed to make advanced medical equipment like ventilators.

As a result of globalization and our disastrous trade policies, we have been outsourcing millions of jobs and factories overseas that have gutted our economy. Now we are seeing another tragic and devastating result of those policies, as we find ourselves dependent on other countries to provide the most essential things we need to combat a pandemic and protect the lives of the people in our country.

Now trade is a good thing, but it has to be based on common sense principles. It has to be based on protecting American workers and protecting our national security, making sure we are producing what we need in this country in the event of a national crisis.

Now is the time to begin bringing back production and manufacturing to the United States and enact fair trade policies so that we are never in this position again.

Now here is the bottom line. As we are dealing with this crisis, we need to listen to the scientists, to the researchers, and to the medical professionals, not politicians.

We need to move quickly to prepare for the exponential increase of cases we will be seeing here in our country.

But as we do that, we must begin thinking about how, as a society, we can create a healthcare and economic system that is humane, that is compassionate, and that works for all people, not just the wealthiest.

Now that is an issue that people have had to think about for a long time, but I think in this moment of crisis more and more people understand that we need fundamental changes to our economy, and we need fundamental changes to our healthcare system.


Published on Friday, March 13, 2020, by Common Dreams. Sanders Says Coronavirus 'A Red Flag for Current Dysfunctional and Wasteful Healthcare System' by Jake Johnson, staff writer (Common Dreams)

Health Care: A milestone on the long road to affordable universal medical insurance

Medicare turned 45 this week, not old enough to qualify for benefits, and the DNC celebrated with a little video bloviating. The smug tone is undeserved. Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman believed that they were taking only the first modest step toward affordable universal health care, toward Medicare For All. They never imagined a day would come when the Democratic Party would pat itself on the back for delivering the American people into the clutches of the for-profit insurance industry.

Press Release O' the Day: Real Socialists Don't Heart Obamacare

Reality check:

Socialist Party USA Co-Chair Opposes Obama Healthcare Bill

March 22, 2009- Co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, Billy Wharton, opposes the healthcare bill passed yesterday by the House of Representatives and scheduled to be signed into law by President Barack Obama on Tuesday. Wharton’s opposition is based on the belief that this bill is not a reform. Instead, it is a corporate restructuring of the health insurance industry created to protect the profit margins of private insurance companies.

The bill passed by the House yesterday would mandate all Americans to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine. It would also create health insurance exchanges, an idea crafted by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, where people would purchase insurance from private companies. Those not eligible for Medicaid but who still could not afford to purchase insurance would receive public funds from the federal government to purchase bare bones coverage insurance plans from private insurers.

Wharton opposes this restructuring on the grounds that the mandates allow private insurers to use the coercive power of the state to enhance their private profits. Insurance credits will serve as a public subsidy to private companies. It is yet another case of public money that could be used for necessary social programs being funneled towards companies that engage in practices that are abusive and detrimental to the overall society. He believes the bill is also a demonstration of how deeply corporate lobbyists and campaign contributions have infected the country’s political system.

“This is not a healthcare reform bill,” says Wharton, “It is instead a corporate restructuring of the American healthcare system designed to enhance the profits of private health insurance companies disguised with the language of reform”

Instead, Wharton believes that public funds would be better spent in creating a national single-payer system. Democratic socialists see such a system of open access to care as one part of a larger transition toward making healthcare a guaranteed human right for all. Wharton calls for people to take power into their own hands by supporting the demand for single-payer health insurance and by conducting a red and green rebellion at the voting booth and in the streets to claim our human rights.

Wharton encourages people to visit the website of the Socialist Party USA to gain more information about the struggle for healthcare and the organization’s broader vision of a democratic socialist society. -- Socialist Party USA
There you go. Word's still out on whether he's the Antichrist, but at least Obama is not a socialist.

Health Care Reform: The elephant in the room

"Distinguished leaders went round and round on Thursday debating the problems of delivering and paying for health care for the American people without finding actionable agreement. Not one mentioned a simple known model to cut costs dramatically and deliver care efficiently to everyone -- Medicare for all.

"No one dared to recommend this common-sense way to extract the poisons of useless costs and unnecessary complexity from the system." -- Connell J. Maguire, Riviera Beach, Fla., Letter to the Editor (New York Times 2010-02-27).
Of course that just might be because no senator or representative who supports single-payer -- Medicare for All -- was allowed in the room; neither the president nor the health care industry's paid representatives in Congress want to talk about it. Ever since the House leadership took single-payer "off the table" at the insistence of the Obama White House, discussion of the only system that reliably can deliver affordable, universal health care has been verboten. As the senior White House correspondent Helen Thomas put it the other day, "In my opinion, Obama blew it big time when he refused to fight for a single payer program." You think?

Health Care Reform: National Single-Payer Conference Call Tomorrow

Improved Medicare for All: Still the One

Join leading single-payer advocates on a national conference call at 8pm (EST) tomorrow Monday, February 15th for a discussion of the rise and fall of the public option and why improved Medicare for All is still the leading policy solution to our health care crisis.

Featured speakers include:
Kip Sullivan, steering committee, MN chapter of PNHP
Kay Tillow, All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care--HR 676
Andy Coates MD, Capital District chapter of PNHP
Moderator: Katie Robbins, National Organizer, Healthcare-NOW!

Action: Register for single-payer health care national conference call.

Health Care Reform: Not!

Here's a statement by Healthcare-NOW! summing up the prospects for affordable, universal health care:
On Saturday, November 7, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, to much celebration by the Democratic party. Healthcare-NOW!'s view, however, is that the House bill is a gift to the insurance industry at the further expense of the people of this nation.

The bill's advocates claim it will cover an additional 36 million people, subsidize the cost of insurance for families up to 400% above the poverty level, increase Medicaid coverage to 150% above the poverty level, close the Medicare donut hole by 2019, place a surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples making more than $1,000,000, will end rescissions and pre-existing conditions.

What the Democrats fail to mention is the bill leaves millions of people uninsured, allows medical bankruptcies to persist, criminalizes and fines the uninsured, increases the number of underinsured, does nothing to contain the sky rocketing costs, blocks women from their reproductive rights, transfers massive public funds to private insurance companies strengthening their control over care, protects pharmaceutical companies' superprofits at patient expense, fails to reclaim the 31% of waste in our system, expands Medicaid without regard to the state budget crises, discriminates based on immigration status and age, and sets up several levels of care covering less for those without the ability to pay. Those who have coverage will increasingly find care unaffordable and will go without. The whole system will inevitably fail from being fiscally unsustainable.

So is the House bill better than nothing?

"I don't think so," writes Marcia Angell, M.D. , former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. "It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right."

Given that the bill does nothing to contain or reduce rising costs or end the private health insurance industry's dominance, we hoped that the Progressive Caucus would stand strong. But they did not. All but two of H.R. 676's cosponsors voted for H.R. 3962 -- Rep. Eric Massa [D-NY] and Rep. Kucinich [D-OH].

Rep. Massa stated, "At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it."

Despite telling single-payer advocates that Congressman Weiner's single-payer amendment could not go to vote because it would open the floodgates for regressive amendments on abortion and immigrant access, the Democratic leadership allowed votes on both. Prior to the vote on H.R. 3962, the Stupak Amendment passed that will prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion and in many cases will prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely.

"The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry," writes Terry O'Neill, President of National Organization for Women. "We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion."

Healthcare-NOW! fought to win a fair and open debate on healthcare reform including the merits of a single-payer system. This has not yet happened, but the advocacy for this system has greatly impacted the debate in meaningful ways.

We need to continue to build the grassroots movement for single-payer, not-for-profit, national healthcare. We look forward to much brain-storming at our upcoming national strategy conference in St. Louis this weekend, and the opportunity to move forward with renewed energy, creative ideas, and resolve.

Meanwhile, we have the opportunity NOW to continue to support the Sanders' Single-Payer Amendment to be introduced in the U.S. Senate, Congressman Kucinich's efforts to get the state single-payer amendment back in when the House and Senate bills are reconciled, and the efforts of the Mobilization for Health Care for All.
Action: Donate to Healthcare-NOW!

See, also: Why I Voted "No" by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

Health Care Reform: Why I voted "no" - Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich Explains Why He Voted Against the Affordable Health Care for America Act

Congressman Kucinich has been one of the strongest voices for health care for all. With Rep. John Conyers, he introduced HR 676, the single-payer or Medicare-for-All bill, the proposal that had the widest support among Democrats in Congress until Pelosi and Obama pulled it "off the table" to make way for H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, a.k.a., the Save-the-Insurance-Companies bill that passed Saturday. Thirty-six Democrats joined all but one Republican in voting "nay," Kucinich among them. On his website, he explains why:
“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying Rep. Dennis Kucinichbills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

“During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

“Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy -- in which most Americans live -- the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

“This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

“Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.”
Why I Voted NO by Dennis Kucinich

Health Care Reform: House vote on Medicare For All cancelled

This has just been released by Healthcare-NOW!:

On the eve of what could have been the first vote on single-payer legislation in our nation's history, we have just learned that because of last minute developments, the vote and debate on Congressman Weiner's single-payer amendment will not happen.

Speaker Pelosi received a statement from Rep. Kucinich and Rep. Conyers, the co-authors of HR 676, that they do not think that this is the right time for a vote on national single-payer legislation. They made this statement despite the extensive mobilization in support of this vote across the country. In addition, Speaker Pelosi felt that offering a single-payer amendment would open the floodgates to amendments proposed to limit abortion funds, restrict immigrant access to healthcare, and other regressive legislation.

Let us remember that the potential vote on Congressman Weiner's single-payer amendment resulted from holding fast to our principles of universal, comprehensive healthcare with no financial barriers. These efforts have brought truth and clarity to a national debate on healthcare reform that has been polluted by the corporate influence over Congress. While the private insurance industry has sent 3,000 lobbyists to Capitol Hill this year, spending 1.4 million dollars a day to shape reform that protects their profits, our calls, faxes, and demonstrations have created the momentum to bring legislation based on HR 676 to the floor of the House and Senate.

The vote for Congressman Weiner's single-payer amendment would have allowed advocates to have their representatives on record as single-payer supporters.

But this legislative battle is not yet over. Our focus can now turn to two remaining efforts for single-payer in this Congress. Sen. Bernie Sanders will introduce S 703 in coming weeks, and we understand that he is considering editing it to be more like HR 676. We will have the opportunity again to see the first ever vote on single-payer in this Congress. In addition, Rep. Kucinich's amendment to allow states to more easily implement a single-payer system may be reinserted into the bill during the conference committee between the House and Senate.

All of these efforts are crucial to building the movement for the only solution to our healthcare crisis - single-payer national healthcare.

If this Congress passes inadequate legislation, there will no doubt be emboldened state movements in the coming years. We welcome them. But let us not forget the movement to push our federal legislators to meet the demands of the people, not roll that responsibility onto the states.

Healthcare-NOW! and the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care remains committed to a national, single-payer solution to the healthcare crisis.

Comprehensive, quality healthcare is a right that should be extended to every U.S. resident.

At this important time, let us not forget how far we have come. Either now or later, a single-payer national healthcare system must come to the table. We will keep building the movement to make that happen.

For healthcare justice, Healthcare-NOW!

Physicians for a National Health Program
Progressive Democrats of America
Public Citizen
Healthcare for All Texas
Western PA Coalition for Single Payer
Alliance for Democracy

Action: Donate to Healthcare-NOW!

Clip File: The inevitability of an American single-payer health system

"Amidst the ideological back and forth that is the health care reform debate of 2009, recent studies reveal a growing reality that each of us can easily understand, no matter what our ideological point of view.

"It will not be long until the private health insurance model will no longer work – for anybody.

"It’s got nothing to do with public options or single payer advocates just as it will have nothing to do with those prepared to defend America from socialism at all costs.

"The simple fact is that single-payer, government controlled health care is inevitable because the trajectory of the private health insurance system reveals that it is doomed to fail – and sooner than we might realize."

The rest of the story: The inevitability of an American single-payer health system by Rick Ungar (True/Slant 2009-10-20)

Health Care: Single-payer may be on life-support, but it's not dead yet

It's do or die time for Medicare for All!

Although media coverage of the health care reform debate is focused on the Senate finance (Baucus) committee's bill (which was largely drafted by current and former executives at Wellpoint, the nation's largest private health insurance company and the dominant member of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association), several congressional votes on single-payer Medicare for All are imminent.

Sometime in the next two or three weeks, Rep. Anthony Weiner's (D-NY) amendment that would substitute single-payer legislation (along the lines of Rep. John Conyers' HR 676, which has deep support in the House) for the Democratic leadership's bill, HR 3200, will come up for an up-or-down vote on the House floor. In addition, a provision in HR 3200 that was secured by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) allowing individual states to adopt their own single-payer systems will be challenged by representatives of the insurance industry. Meanwhile, in the upper body, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will introduce two single-payer amendments to the Senate bill, one to create a national single-payer plan and the other to allow individual states to adopt single-payer.
Action: Contact Congress and ask them to vote "yes" on the Weiner, Kucinich, and Sanders amendments for single-payer. Go here to call Congress for free: the site matches your zip code to your representatives, provides a simple call script, and is toll-free. Or, call the congressional switchboard directly at 202-224-3121.

Rep. Anthony Weiner's CountdownToHealthcare.com
Read the Kucinich and Weiner amendments
Senate Finance Committee Approves Sen. Baucus' Health Care Bill
by 14-9 Vote
-- Snowe the only Republican to vote yes; Wyden and Rockefeller vote yes reluctantly by Huma Khan, Byron Wolf and Jonathan Karl (ABC News 2009-10-13)
Why we must vote on the public health care plan by Rep. Anthony Weiner (Politico 2009-07-22)
New twist in Washington gives public option backers some hope by Daniel Barlow (The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus 2009-10-13)

Health Care: Obama endorses HR 676 - Medicare for all

From the advance text of a speech to be delivered by Pres. Obama to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, Sept 9, 2009:
During the campaign, I promised that if I was entrusted with the job of president I would do everything in my power to put an end to political divisiveness and partisanship in Washington. In the months since then, my administration and the Democratic members of Congress have done everything we can to reach a compromise with the Republicans on the essential task of reforming a health care system that all side agree needs to be fixed. Even before we approached our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we Democrats indicated our willingness to work with the opposition by removing from the table, even before they asked, an element of reform -- single-payer health insurance -- that has been a central tenet of Democratic health care policy since Harry Truman was president, because we believed it was something GOP leaders would never agree to. Neither that nor a dozen other concessions made by the majority since January has made a difference, however, and I have had to conclude, very reluctantly, that we made a mistake: there is nothing that we can do that will satisfy the opposition. Despite their protestations to the contrary, the leaders of the Republican Party do not want to give all Americans equal right to quality health care. We do.

As long ago as 2003, when I was running for the U.S.Senate back in my home state of Illinois, I said "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program." I saw no reason then, and there is no reason now, why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 17 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. Everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I wanted to see. But as all of you know, back then we had a lot of work to do first. We had to take back the White House, we had to take back the Senate, and we had to take back the House. We did those things, and now it's time to take the next step. It is time to make good on our party's promise of universal access to health care.

So, today, we go back to page 1. We start over. We do what we should have done all along. Beginning today, the Democratic Party stands together to guarantee that quality health care will be the right every citizen. Today I join the 93 Democratic members of the House of Representatives who have already endorsed House Resolution 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act to provide expanded and improved medicare for all. This administration will work closely with Representatives Conyers, Kucinich and other leaders in the House to pass HR 676 by the end of September. I am confident that the passage of Medicare for all by the House will encourage Democrats and moderate Republicans in the Senate to support the Senate version, S 703, the American Health Security Act of 2009, and they will join Sen. Sanders in endorsing the equitable and fiscally responsible course of bringing the benefits of Medicare to all Americans. -- Pres. Barack Obama 2009.
Hey, it could happen.

The Citizens Alliance for National Health Insurance - HR676.org,Inc.
Take action: Support Single Payer Health Care (Democrats.com)

Health Care: Medicare-for-All Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy

Single-payer health insurance would generate 2.6 million new jobs, $317 billion in business revenues, $100 billion in wages. The number of jobs created by a single-payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008, according to the findings of a study by the California Nurses Association.

The complete study (pdf): Single-Payer/Medicare for All -- An Economic Stimulus Plan for the Nation
View study's charts (pdf)
Press release

Health Care Reform: Medicare Truth Squad

From National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare:

America’s seniors have a huge stake in the national health care reform debate. Unfortunately, well-financed misinformation campaigns have led many to believe health care reform will destroy Medicare. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The National Committee’s Truth Squad is mobilized to arm seniors with the facts about health care reform’s impact on Medicare.Without health care reform, Medicare will continue to suffer from skyrocketing costs associated with general health care costs, until neither seniors nor the government will be able to afford the program. This inevitably will lead to unprecedented cuts in Medicare-cuts that unlike current health care reform proposals-will directly target Medicare beneficiaries.

National health care reform provides an historic opportunity for us to improve Medicare by closing the Part D doughnut hole, allowing government negotiation of drug prices in Part D and eliminating billions of dollars of wasteful subsidies to private insurers in Medicare Advantage. Ignoring Health Care Reform is not an option.

The Truth Squad tool kit is available on our website to anyone who’s tired of the misinformation and wants the truth about health care reform and seniors. It includes: links to Health care reform policy analysis, “EntitledtoKnow” health care blog posts, a link where you can download your own myth busters badge and our Truth Squad video series.

We hope you’ll share the Myth Busters badge with friends and wear it proudly to town halls and meetings with your members of Congress. Because as President Franklin Roosevelt said: “Repetition does not transform a lie into truth”.

The National Committee is mobilized to fight health care reform fiction with fact…we hope you’ll join us.

Get the Facts

National Committee Blog Posts on Health Care Reform

Facts Matter
Town Hells and Medicare
House Health Care Reform and Medicare
When Fiction Replaces Facts in the Health care/Medicare Debate
"MedPac on Steroids" or Permanent Entitlement Commission?
Medicare Reforms play Critical Role in Congressional Health Care Proposal
Head of GOP Health Care Group Says We'd Be Better Off Without Medicare..

Recommended Links

Health Care Town Hall : CSPAN 1 .  Rep. Gerry Connolly and National Committee President/CEO, Barbara B. Kennelly
HHS Report:  America 's Seniors and Health Insurance Reform
U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging Report: Health Care Reform: FACT vs. FICTION
Countering Health Reform Misinformation:
Center for Medicare Advocacy

Seven Falsehoods about Health Care: FactCheck.org
The House Version of the Health-Care Legislation: Washington Post

Health Care: Rep. Anthony Weiner argues for "Medicare for all"

Weiner Leaves Scarborough "Speechless" Part 1
Weiner Leaves Scarborough "Speechless" Part 2
G'night, Joe.

For more health care reform fun, watch as Weiner Blasts the Critics of Health Reform on the floor of the House.

Reform: Let's get back on track

Single payer is not socialized medicine. People would be free to pick the health care providers -- doctors and medical facilities -- they prefer. Single payer would, however, eliminate private insurance, saving nearly $400 billion annually on useless paperwork by insurance bureaucracies and providers' billing departments, enough to cover the uninsured and plug the gaps in coverage for those with insurance. No other option will provide universal coverage and save money.

How does our health care stack up against other countries' health care systems? It's not a pretty picture.

Health Care Reform: 32% favor single-payer; 57% oppose (Rasmussen)

It must be discouraging for right wing propagandists that despite decades of whining and puling about the dangers of "socialized medicine" and relentless disinformation about the costly, inefficient, disincentivizing Canadian system, a third of Americans should still favor single-payer health insurance. Seems you can't fool all the people all the time.
Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.
There's more at Rasmussen Reports.

Reform: 10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

 "... the better phrase is "Medicare for all."

This piece (10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted by Sara Robinson, TomPaine.com 2008-02-05) circulated widely on the internet a year and half ago. As we enter the endgame of the health insurance reform debate, it's more important than ever that we have all the facts about the fateful choices before us.
2008 is shaping up to be the election year that we finally get to have the Great American Healthcare Debate again. Harry and Louise are back with a vengeance. Conservatives are rumbling around the talk show circuit bellowing about the socialist threat to the (literal) American body politic. And, as usual, Canada is once again getting dragged into the fracas, shoved around by both sides as either an exemplar or a warning -- and, along the way, getting coated with the obfuscating dust of so many willful misconceptions that the actual facts about How Canada Does It are completely lost in the melee. I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here.
To that end, here's [an essay] aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.

1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."

2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.

Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.
One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.

Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.
Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.

3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

5. You don't get to choose your own doctor.
Scurrilously False. Somebody, somewhere, is getting paid a lot of money to make this kind of stuff up. The cons love to scare the kids with stories about the government picking your doctor for you, and you don't get a choice. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

For the record: Canadians pick their own doctors, just like Americans do. And not only that: since it all pays the same, poor Canadians have exactly the same access to the country's top specialists that rich ones do.

6. Canada's care plan only covers the basics. You're still on your own for any extras, including prescription drugs. And you still have to pay for it.
True -- but not as big an issue as you might think. The province does charge a small monthly premium (ours is $108/month for a family of four) for the basic coverage. However, most people never even have to write that check: almost all employers pick up the tab for their employees' premiums as part of the standard benefits package; and the province covers it for people on public assistance or disability.

"The basics" covered by this plan include 100% of all doctor's fees, ambulance fares, tests, and everything that happens in a hospital -- in other words, the really big-ticket items that routinely drive American families into bankruptcy. In BC, it doesn't include "extras" like medical equipment, prescriptions, physical therapy or chiropractic care, dental, vision, and so on; and if you want a private or semi-private room with TV and phone, that costs extra (about what you'd pay for a room in a middling hotel). That other stuff does add up; but it's far easier to afford if you're not having to cover the big expenses, too. Furthermore: you can deduct any out-of-pocket health expenses you do have to pay off your income taxes. And, as every American knows by now, drugs aren't nearly as expensive here, either.

Filling the gap between the basics and the extras is the job of the country's remaining private health insurers. Since they're off the hook for the ruinously expensive big-ticket items that can put their own profits at risk, the insurance companies make a tidy business out of offering inexpensive policies that cover all those smaller, more predictable expenses. Top-quality add-on policies typically run in the ballpark of $75 per person in a family per month -- about $300 for a family of four -- if you're stuck buying an individual plan. Group plans are cheap enough that even small employers can afford to offer them as a routine benefit. An average working Canadian with employer-paid basic care and supplemental insurance gets free coverage equal to the best policies now only offered at a few of America's largest corporations. And that employer is probably only paying a couple hundred dollars a month to provide that benefit.

7. Canadian drugs are not the same.
More preposterious bogosity. They are exactly the same drugs, made by the same pharmaceutical companies, often in the same factories. The Canadian drug distribution system, however, has much tighter oversight; and pharmacies and pharmacists are more closely regulated. If there is a difference in Canadian drugs at all, they're actually likely to be safer.

Also: pharmacists here dispense what the doctors tell them to dispense, the first time, without moralizing. I know. It's amazing.

8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. The papers would have a field day if there was the barest hint that this might be true.

One of the things that constantly amazes me here is how well-cared-for the elderly and disabled you see on the streets here are. No, these people are not being thrown out on the curb. In fact, they live longer, healthier, and more productive lives because they're getting a constant level of care that ensures small things get treated before they become big problems.

The health care system also makes it easier on their caregiving adult children, who have more time to look in on Mom and take her on outings because they aren't working 60-hour weeks trying to hold onto a job that gives them insurance.

9. People won't be responsible for their own health if they're not being forced to pay for the consequences.
False. The philosophical basis of America's privatized health care system might best be characterized as medical Calvinism. It's fascinating to watch well-educated secularists who recoil at the Protestant obsession with personal virtue, prosperity as a cardinal sign of election by God, and total responsibility for one's own salvation turn into fire-eyed, moralizing True Believers when it comes to the subject of Taking Responsibility For One's Own Health.

They'll insist that health, like salvation, is entirely in our own hands. If you just have the character and self-discipline to stick to an abstemious regime of careful diet, clean living, and frequent sweat offerings to the Great Treadmill God, you'll never get sick. (Like all good theologies, there's even an unspoken promise of immortality: f you do it really really right, they imply, you might even live forever.) The virtuous Elect can be discerned by their svelte figures and low cholesterol numbers. From here, it's a short leap to the conviction that those who suffer from chronic conditions are victims of their own weaknesses, and simply getting what they deserve. Part of their punishment is being forced to pay for the expensive, heavily marketed pharmaceuticals needed to alleviate these avoidable illnesses. They can't complain. It was their own damned fault; and it's not our responsibility to pay for their sins. In fact, it's recently been suggested that they be shunned, lest they lead the virtuous into sin.

Of course, this is bad theology whether you're applying it to the state of one's soul or one's arteries. The fact is that bad genes, bad luck, and the ravages of age eventually take their toll on all of us -- even the most careful of us. The economics of the Canadian system reflect this very different philosophy: it's built on the belief that maintaining health is not an individual responsibility, but a collective one. Since none of us controls fate, the least we can do is be there for each other as our numbers come up.

This difference is expressed in a few different ways. First: Canadians tend to think of tending to one's health as one of your duties as a citizen. You do what's right because you don't want to take up space in the system, or put that burden on your fellow taxpayers.

Second, "taking care of yourself" has a slightly expanded definition here, which includes a greater emphasis on public health. Canadians are serious about not coming to work if you're contagious, and seeing a doctor ASAP if you need to. Staying healthy includes not only diet and exercise; but also taking care to keep your germs to yourself, avoiding stress, and getting things treated while they're still small and cheap to fix.
Third, there's a somewhat larger awareness that stress leads to big-ticket illnesses -- and a somewhat lower cultural tolerance for employers who put people in high-stress situations. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for their greed. And finally, there's a generally greater acceptance on the part of both the elderly and their families that end-of-life heroics may be drawing resources away from people who might put them to better use. You can have them if you want them; but reasonable and compassionate people should be able to take the larger view.

The bottom line: When it comes to getting people to make healthy choices, appealing to their sense of the common good seems to work at least as well as Calvinist moralizing.  

10. This all sounds great -- but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn't the system in bad financial shape?
False. On one hand, our annual Canadian tax bite runs about 10% higher than our U.S. taxes did. On the other, we're not paying out the equivalent of two new car payments every month to keep the family insured here. When you balance out the difference, we're actually money ahead. When you factor in the greatly increased social stability that follows when everybody's getting their necessary health care, the impact on our quality of life becomes even more signficant.

And True -- but only because this is a universal truth that we need to make our peace with. Yes, the provincial plans are always struggling. So is every single publicly-funded health care system in the world, including the VA and Medicare. There's always tension between what the users of the system want, and what the taxpayers are willing to pay. The balance of power ebbs and flows between them; but no matter where it lies at any given moment, at least one of the pair is always going to be at least somewhat unhappy.

But, as many of us know all too well, there's also constant tension between what patients want and what private insurers are willing to pay. At least when it's in government hands, we can demand some accountability. And my experience in Canada has convinced me that this accountability is what makes all the difference between the two systems.

It is true that Canada's system is not the same as the U.S. system. It's designed to deliver a somewhat different product, to a population that has somewhat different expectations. But the end result is that the vast majority of Canadians get the vast majority of what they need the vast majority of the time. It'll be a good day when when Americans can hold their heads high and proudly make that same declaration.
Sara Robinson is a twenty-year veteran of Silicon Valley, and is launching a second career as a strategic foresight analyst. When she's not studying change theories and reactionary movements, you can find her singing the alto part over at Orcinus. She lives in Vancouver, BC with her husband and two teenagers.

It appears that this essay was written for TomPaine.Com, the invaluable online public affairs journal of progressive analysis and commentary, but I picked it up from Physicians for a National Health Program, a single-issue organization of medical professionals advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. It was distributed also by the independent online newsmagazine, AlterNet. All these sources have rss feeds and/or email newsletters.
 
Related Posts with Thumbnails