If this can be asked without making people freak...

[Ken Burch]

Is there a reason that NO single-payer advocates were going to be included in the health summit?

(as a post belowing now indicates, this has changed, and I commend President Obama for listening to the grassroots on this)

Why the initial refusal to even allow the idea into the summit at all?

The concept DOES have majority support, after all.

What's to fear from just letting it into the room?

I'm glad this has changed, but we shouldn't have to spend the whole four or eight years fighting simply for the right of progressives to be heard in this administration. Now that the election is over, there's no reason for President Obama to distance himself from us.

And why are there people here at DU who, if this hadn't changed, would have defended to the bitter end having no single-payer types in the summit? Can't the people who'd have done that accept that the time for telling progressives to be silent has passed?

[sandnsea]

1. They are

Just got in my email a few hours ago...

Update from PNHP


We have good news.

This afternoon we received word that Dr. Oliver Fein, president of Physicians for a National Health Program, has been invited to participate in tomorrow's White House summit on health care. He will therefore be joining Rep. John Conyers in the meeting as a strong advocate for a single-payer national health program.

Given this development, we are canceling the demonstration outside the White House that was planned for tomorrow.

While it remains true that the number of single-payer advocates in the summit will be few in number, we feel we have won an important victory and that demonstrative activity at the White House at this juncture is unnecessary.

Please continue to urge your members of Congress and President Obama to support single-payer national health insurance, the only fundamental solution to our health care crisis.

And thanks to everyone who called and e-mailed the White House about including the single-payer viewpoint at the summit - you helped make this victory happen!


Cordially,


Quentin Young, M.D.
National Coordinator
Physicians for a National Health Program

[Ken Burch]

5. And that's a positive development. Thanks for the new info, sandnsea

n/t.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Where did you get that information from?

That NO single-payer advocates are included in the health summit?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/obama-will-have-single-pa_n_171994.html

[Ken Burch]

3. From here on DU, among other places. If he's changed on that, I'm glad.

n/t.

[vaberella]

14. How do you know he changed?

A lot of people on DU post crap from AP who have been known to work for the GOP and this goes double for yahoo news. They don't report on everything and people on here jump on stuff, without getting more information, like ants on chocolate.

[Pab Sungenis]

4. The fear of just letting it into the room

is that it will be obvious that it's the best option.

It's also the option that, while it has majority support, is going to elicit the biggest fight from the entrenched powers. Look at what they did to the Clinton "Health Security" plan, which was a lot friendlier to them than single payer would have been. They destroyed it, and 12 years of Republican Congressional Rule was built on its grave.

Obama knows that he can't afford to lose this fight. And he seems willing to put aside the best option to get a doable option instead. However, the more people hear about the best option, the more they'll want it and the longer and harder the fight will become, and thus the greater the risk of everything falling apart. Again.

[FrenchieCat]

8. At the end, let us pray that we will get something passed

that will get us to Single Payer Health Care eventually...which was Obama's intent anyways.

Perhaps having the two extremes at the table (single payer on one end, and private only on the other, will lead to Barack Obama getting what he wants; a stairway straight to Single Payer, without starting there.

I agree, unfortunately, based on our reality and our history on healthcare, single payer can be made to look radical easily by the opposition....especially with millions of dollars expanded on PR, and the media doing what they do best. They would highlight lack of choice, socialism, inferior care, etc., etc., etc.

Obama knows this.....

But others have actually fooled themselves into thinking that we live in a fair society that would allow Single Payer Health to be given a decent chance in a fight for reform. Sadly, it won't happen that way. Amd we need something better than what we have, like the day before yesterday.

[Ken Burch]

12. I'm with you that we need something passed now. We ALL are, Frenchie.

And you're right that single-payer can be MADE to look excessively radical. The way to counterract that, though, is to make sure that supporters of the single-payer idea are always given a chance to make their case and be heard by the great bulk of the people. We as a party have nothing whatsoever to lose by doing that.

Nice picture of your daughter, btw.

[tsuki]

19. I doubt anyone but John Edwards understands why single payer

health care is not an option.

If you look at the insurance industry, it is built around privatized medical care and human misery.

Employers that provide health care are forced to carry two health care policies, health care and workers' compensation. Workers' compensation, in my industry, can be anywhere from 15% to 125% of payroll plus fees. It is government mandated and has no accountability or transparency. It is a great big money pot, so big in fact, that years ago the legislature mandated that every claimant have a "case manager" from an "independent" company to "help" workers through the WC process. The majority of case management companies are owned by the insurance companies. They bleed money from the WC policies to show losses.
Once, one of my workers had a WC claim. Cost for the eye wash was $100.00. Loss reported to the state, 93%. At the time, I was paying about $14,000. a year plus fees. I protested and was told that the accident happened two weeks after my renewal date. Because he had only accrued two weeks payment (even tho I paid 25% down) that was the "loss." It was also the loss reported at the end of the year by the insurance company, the only reporting agency. Big pot of money.

Take out the medical care, and now WC is only wages lost. Premiums will sink like a rock.

Auto insurance. The largest liability is the medical in an accident. Medical costs can go on for years for an unknown amount. Car repair and even lost wages or disability is more easily calculated. Single Payer means premiums will sink like a rock.

General liability for business, home insurance, name it. Medical cost figure mightily in the premium cost with no accountability or transparency.

Finally, the stranglehold the insurance company has on the medical industry. Insurance companies now dictate how much we pay for medical insurance, how much doctors pay for malpractice and what care we are allowed to receive. In a single payer system, the stranglehold is broken. There would be fewer malpractice suits, and no hat in hand begging for care. Single payer users seem to be
happier with their system and they are far less likely to sue. Premiums will sink like a rock.

Single payer advocates are taking on the death merchants like William McGuire who have become accustom to 1.7 billion dollar salaries. They are well heeled and extremely territorial. They want it all, fuck the rest of us.

They went after Hillary Clinton like a bunch of rabid hyenas. When John Edwards went on Bill Maher and said that you do not negotiate with the insurance companies, you take them on and win, I turned to my husband and said "He gets it. He's gone."

We don't have anyone in power left to speak for us. They are too afraid.

[vadawg]

6. personally if you want single payer then go for it, as long as i can get private if i want

there is no way in the world i am going to ever be without private health insurance.

[sandnsea]

7. I don't understand

What do you think would happen to you if the government administrated billing instead of your insurance company.

[vadawg]

9. as i said single payer okay, just let people like me who want to have private, keep their private

health insurance, i love my coverage and i simply dont want or need the use of a national health service.

[sandnsea]

10. What if it's the same, but cheaper

Would you still want your private health insurance? I'm not a single payer advocate, but most private health insurance will bankrupt people if they have a real health emergency. I don't get the adamency. Just asking.

[vadawg]

13. from experience i know it might be cheaper but it wont be the same

I like being able to get a doctor today if i want one, as i said im for a national health service but i want to be able to purchase private insurance if i want to.

[vaberella]

15. Interesting. Did you think he would take the option away?

I lived in England for 5 years and whenever I needed a doctor I got one.I don't see private insurance here as anything to think is special. PPO people are treated better and get more services than the HMO people and both are sucking people dry.

But to each his own...enjoy private---added to that Obama never was going to take away private insurance. He always said during the primaries for those who have health insurance he was going to make it cheaper for you by talking and working with health insurance companies...as he's currently doing. Added to that he wanted to open up the option to people of having an extended medicare which he's doing. So you should have nothing to worry about.

[vadawg]

16. never said he said that he would take it away

but there are a lot of people who want to totally dismantle the private health insurance industry. I say it has its place. Having lived in England too, i gotta say that i much prefer what i have here even if i pay more for it.

[vaberella]

18. I know you didn't.

However, I was letting you know that he never said he would and that he's always supported an expanded "medicare" as an optional form that could lead to single payer if it keeps up to the hype and people make the decision to forgo private insurance for something cheaper. I've come to realize all groups have loud people...some of which have misguided or very little information.

I live in Manhattan and I can't even afford health insurance that I had to dump it. I could tell you horror stories and I would have much preferred to live in London since I could go anywhere and get treated for nothing. You're lucky you're happy with the services now. I have had no such experience and neither has my family...keeping in mind my mother has problems with two insurance companies currently but has full coverage.

[Ken Burch]

11. You're in a tiny, priveleged minority, my friend.

n/t.

[vaberella]

17. No s/he is not, it's not a priveleged minority and it's not so much a minority.

You're just among a loud group that is thinking a particular way and supports a particular way. To think so is silly. Many people have reasons AGAINST that sort of system because they equate it to the Medicaid system which is also seen with a stigma. They have heard these silly horror stories of people waiting on line abroad. Others have these socio-political views about it being socialist. Then you have the group that believes there are to little medical specialist in areas, particular rural, to handle the influx of people.

The last one is a valid worry for people in actuality because rural communities are known for having very few local facilities or have facilities that are too far from their home. Of course that would call for possibly building more facilities which would entail more government funding or create more public transportation for those in rural areas to more urban.

[Lars39]

23. Does it pay 100% of everything?

'cause if not, when you experience a major illness you are going to be hip-deep in medical bills. Also, the pool of people you are in might shrink if people jump ship for cheaper insurance...there goes your good cheap insurance.

[MercutioATC]

20. I don't support single-payer, but I'm glad they're all going to be at the table.

I'd much prefer an expansion of a plan like FEHBP, but it's good to have differing voices as part of the conversation.

Single-payer may be the "progressive" choice, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best choice for everybody.

[Clio the Leo]

21. LOL, why are we still worried about an "initial refusal" ....

.... if he's doing what you want him to now?

[Ken Burch]

22. the initial refusal, which was overcome, is part of a worrying pattern

The way it SHOULD work is that, in this administration, progressives and activists should always have a place at the table. We shouldn't have to keep fighting simply to be heard. We're an equal part of the coalition, therefore progressives are entitled to a place in the discussion. Is that so hard to understand? The right was NEVER left out in the cold under Dubyus.

[marshall]

24. The support of a majority of whom?

Congress or the general public? Two very differen things.

Obama is not dealing with the general public anymore, like he was during the election. He is dealing with Congress now.