Bill Moyer’s: Single Payer Health Care. Why isn’t it on the table?

[snowdays]

It's all about the WH and congress bowing to the insurance industry!!


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

Bill Moyer’s: Single Payer Health Care. Why isn’t it on the table?



Transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/transcript1.html




May 22, 2009

BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the JOURNAL. Health care reform. It's the talk of the town - if the town is Washington, D.C. But some possible reforms aren't being talked about at all. Not officially, that is.
The White House and Congress have kept the lid on one of the most controversial but popular options, known as single-payer. It's a story the mainstream press has largely ignored and that's why we are covering it in this broadcast.
You don't expect to see these people demonstrating in our nation's capitol. You'll most likely encounter them in the examining room, the operating theater, the clinic or the laboratory.
They're doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, unaccustomed to making themselves heard in the streets.
GERI JENKINS: People are fed up with seeing the process hijacked by the insurance industry. So, we have to keep the heat on. We have to keep putting the pressure on them to have the voice of the people heard and what people in this country really want is, which is a single-payer system, publicly funded, privately administered. And we're going to keep pushing to make sure that message gets out there. …………………………………………..
………….BILL MOYERS: That's exactly what brought them here. They want the White House and Congress to know they can't do their job taking care of us under the health care system the way it is today.
DR. MARGARET FLOWERS:I wanted to take care of patients. And to have insurance companies and administrators that don't know anything about medicine, telling us what we can and can't do, was really ridiculous to me. You know, I couldn't understand it.

………………BILL MOYERS: They've come here to tell policy makers how the life-and-death choices they make in caregiving are affected by decisions made in corporate board rooms and behind closed doors in Washington.

DR. PAT SALOMON: There were all these arbitrary decisions, which were not about people's health care. They were about profits. How can I get away with the least amount of care offered to this person, so that their premium is going to give me the most profit? That's not the way health care decisions should be made. It's wrong. It's wrong for us as a nation.

GERI JENKINS: We're there around the clock. So we feel a real sense of obligation to advocate for the best interests of our patients and the public. You know, you can talk about policy but when you're staring at a human face, it's a whole different story. So I think sometimes people who define policy haven't seen the human side up close and personal like we see it every day.
BILL MOYERS: What the protestors want is single-payer health care - a non-profit system that would remove the role of the insurance companies and unify the financing of the health care system under one entity, a government run organization, like Medicare, that would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs.
………………………………………

[babylonsister]

1. Whaaa! It sucks! Do you have an idea that might work, because

that's what we're all looking for.

Do tell!

[snowdays]

3. you give in to easily to the insurance industry just like the WH and congress have done.

[babylonsister]

7. I do? Do tell. Link? nt

[snowdays]

12. No link--except to the pessimistic tone of the post. Obama has

been rude about this issue. His WH Health forum is what sucked. It is shameful how he demeaned the single payer advocates.

[ClassWarrior]

68. It works in Canada.

And rather well, at that.

:shrug:

NGU.

[eridani]

123. HR 676/1200 and S 703 n/t

[sandnsea]

2. It would be filibustered by Democrats

why waste time and confuse people with a program that is never going to get to the floor.

We're going to have our hands full getting a good public plan, time to organize and fight for that.
June 6
http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=240

[NYC_SKP]

4. +1 n/t

[babylonsister]

6. +1+. Thanks. And you rock, friend!

:yourock: :fistbump:

[Captain Hilts]

11. To ensure the debate does not start on the right's turf. That's why. nt

[snowdays]

17. No thanks. It is advertised as a listening tour but the WH has shut

out single payer advocates. shameful of them.

[eridani]

124. That doesn't mean you have to shut up

If they won't let you talk, carry a sign and some literature.

[snowdays]

132. I put out literature last week. and will do so again next week

[Mass]

18. We are not. By taking single payer off the table, we made sure a GOOD public option will not happen.

This will be seen as the lefties option and people like Baucus, Nelson, Snowe, (and others, clearly. Only 28 people signed on Brown's bill stating there should be a public option).

So, do not count on it too much. Baucus knows what he does when it takes single payer off the debate table. He insures that the concessions and compromises will go in the direction of the insurance companies WHO DO NOT WANT A GOOD PUBLIC OPTION.

[sandyd921]

Dupe - delete

[sandyd921]

52. Thank you for making that point.

I've been trying to make it and keep getting shouted down. Why progressives can't figure this out I don't know. The strategy that most of the major progressive groups are going with is extremely shortsighted. I predict that we'll end up with a totally watered down public option that's not worth anything (so that the insurance industry's plans are still competitive), preservation of the current system, and eventual bankruptcy of the nation's health care non-system.

[slipslidingaway]

105. Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[snowdays]

19. HERE IS A 'GOOD' PUBLIC PLAN.....FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD....

http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/ue-statment-on-health-care/
UE statment on health care


Posted on May 25, 2009 by dsalaborblogmoderator


Meeting at the union’s national headquarters in Pittsburgh on May 14-15, UE’s General Executive Board discussed the national debate on healthcare and the reform proposals now being considered by Congress and the Obama administration. The union’s national leadership board adopted the following statement on healthcare reform. Talking Union believes that the UE statement will be of interest to a single-payer advocates at this critical juncture in the debate over health care reform.
UE STATEMENT ON HEALTHCARE REFORM


At least since the 1940s, UE has actively supported proposals to provide healthcare coverage to all in the U.S. through a national public health insurance plan, instead of private for-profit insurance. Our position was restated in UE Policy adopted at the 2007 convention, “Healthcare for All,” and at the national level and in UE communities across the country, UE has been an outspoken advocate of the “single-payer”, Medicare-for-all solution embodied in HR 676, whose primary sponsor is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI.) In the current Congress, HR 676 has 75 House co-sponsors in addition to Conyers, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has introduced a Senate version of the bill. HR 676 has been endorsed by 516 union organizations in 49 states ncluding 125 central labor councils and 39 AFL-CIO state federations.


For the first time in decades, the country has a presidential administration and a Congress that are working for a major overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system. While we are disappointed that the broadly-outlined plan under consideration by the Obama administrationand the Congressional leadership is not single payer, we note that it does include the creation of a public health insurance system. We welcome the national discussion of the need for an alternative to profit-driven health insurance.
Millions of workers and their families face a desperate situation, paying up to half their income for healthcare. Runaway medical costs have been the cause of half the personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in recent years. The healthcare cost crisis pushes municipalities, schooldistricts and private employers to the brink financial collapse and exacerbates the economic crisis in many ways.
The costs of maintaining a private, for-profit health insurance industry impose an enormous burden and competitive disadvantage on U.S. businesses. Nonetheless, blinded by some combination of “free market” ideological rigidity and capitalist class solidarity with the insurance executives, the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business, and almost every employer continue to oppose a single-payer plan that would drastically reduce their costs. These business interests strenuously object to creating even a strong public plan in competition with private insurers, despite the fact that this would almost certainly bring down employers’ costs.


Even a limited public plan, set up in competition with private insurers, would have a major cost-reducing effect on the American healthcare system. Studies show that because they have much lower administrative costs, get larger volume discounts for health services, and do notinclude profit margins, public healthcare plans such as Medicare are able to offer premiums that are 20 to 30 percent lower than those of private plans.


Most of the plans being advocated by President Obama and leading Congressional Democrats continue to rely on employer-paid health insurance through for-profit insurance companies, but also offer a public health insurance option similar to Medicare. Since the likelihood is growing that such a proposal may be adopted, we need to spell out what provisions would be acceptable to our union in such a plan, and what we would find unacceptable.


A public plan must be open to all workers and their families, and all employers must have the option of insuring their employees through the public plan rather than private insurance. This will allow more workers to share in the benefits of lower-cost public healthcare, and the savings to employers from the public plan will remove a major incentive for corporations to move jobs overseas.


Premiums for the public plan must be indexed to income and affordable for working class people. We oppose any effort to force the public plan to charge artificially high premiums for the purpose of bailing out the private insurance companies. If the private insurers cannot compete with a public plan on a level playing field, perhaps they should get out of the healthcare business.


A public plan must have the ability to bargain with providers over rates for services, and over prescription drug prices. Such bargaining would be one of the public plan’s most powerful tools for bringing down healthcare costs overall.


We reject the inclusion of “user fees” such as co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses in a public plan. Those who need care should not be penalized and forced to pay more than those who are healthy.


We oppose any effort to contract out the administration of the public plan to private profiteers. This would be a waste of resources that should go into providing healthcare, diverting some of those resources instead into cultivating a new crop of millionaires and billionaires. Such privatization would put people in charge of the public plan whose motives are in opposition to the public good............MORE.

[vaberella]

22. This plan doesn't work for me. I actually want to have a co-pay for those working.

But then I want the public option to pay for gym memberships for everyone in America. It would be a pre-emptive step for preventative care. However...I won't get that...so meh.

[snowdays]

24. I fear it will be contracted out to "private profiteers" instead of

expanding Medicare which already has the administrative structure in place. With private contractors there will have to be another whole layer of bureaucrats to 'administer" it.

[vaberella]

26. Private contractors?

Where is that discussed in the plan. All O has always said is that there would be deals and discussions made with private insurances in order to protect those who still want their health care. That's the biggest problem as a matter of fact. Putting a public option is an easy deal since it could expand medicare/medicaid as you said. However the difficulty is to meet the problems that those with private insurance still face and who are mainly against public option because of stigmas.

Can you please provide the info where you feel that there would be private contractors?

If you fought along side other public option people, which is apparently ON THE TABLE, then we might be able to protect against that if it should prove to be true. This is the thing I don't get with single payer advocates. A public option provides the same things except it allows private insurance to exist in tandem. I'm for universal health care and I have a lot of demands that I want with it----gym membership is just one. But I'm willing to concede things for the future. What does a public option not provide you that a single payer besides no private insurance company.

Plus I think it's ludicrous that O would try to just take out private business entities---the power of the government doesn't roll like that. However, what he's doing is legal and the economical way to push out private insurance. If you have such issues with private insurance, back the public one. Force the hand of the public one to meet some conditions. That is exactly why I'm backing the public option to ensure that. I'll thrown in free gym membership---but I doubt it would go through. However, overall basic care can go through and that's why all single payers should back the public option as well. Ensure that those private companies don't try to ensnare their way into our lives through the plan.

Because I can tell you...they already have with medicaid. Medicaid has private insurance lines like Fidelis, CIGNA, GHI, and the lot.

[snowdays]

28. Baucus had to be pushed to even talk of a possible public plan. It

was only after Kennedy came out a few days ago and said that he would push for the public option that Baucus is now talking of it--and he is skiddish at best as he does not want to "frighten' the insurance. His main goal is to continue to reap in the campaign contributions. What a disgusting example he sets!!



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22814.html

Dem senators push “public plan” on health reform

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 5/21/09 12:45 PM EDT
Updated: 5/22/09 5:39 AM EDT

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and 27 co-sponsors introduced a resolution Thursday demanding that any health care reform bill include a public insurance option.

The “sense of the Senate” resolution is the latest effort by a bloc of Democratic senators to influence the closed-door negotiations of the Finance Committee, where the bulk of the bill is being written. The group wrote a letter last month to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Health Committee Chairman Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), calling the public option essential to reform.
Speaking with reporters at a breakfast briefing Thursday, Baucus said he does expect the package to include some sort of public plan.

“I do suspect that a version will be there,” Baucus said. “Now, by saying that, I don’t want to frighten people, particularly on the industry side. … All I’m saying is, there are ways to skin a cat. There are ways to find a solution.”
The debate, though, centers on exactly how to construct a public plan. Some members of the Finance Committee have been giving consideration to a “fallback” plan, which would trigger a public insurance option if private competition proves inadequate in a geographic region. ............

[vaberella]

112. We're not talking about Baucus and I NEVER was.

He along with Schumer are the ones the public option people don't want around. We were talking about O's plan and you had mentioned O. Now it's Baucus. I don't give a rats ass about that guy---besides not wanting him even breathing on the health plan. Kennedy is writing one and I want to see what he's pushing, and Kennedy is writing a universal health plan NOT single payer.

[snowdays]

118. Kennedy essentially handed it over to Baucus. So Baucus

is the boss. It will be a re-do of the Mass plan-or something similar.

[eridani]

125. Why? It costs far more to administer than it would bring in

It prevents essential care as well as unuseful care. There would have to be poverty exceptions and chronic illness exceptions. All in all, a rat's nest that adds nothing and will kill some poor people.

[vaberella]

20. That's what I've said from the beginning. Ugh...DUers...n/t

[quantass]

30. Exactly!

yup

[PretzelWarrior]

129. I WANT FUCKING SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE> FUCK YOU, INSURANCE!!!!

[Strawman]

139. Yep. Political reasons are why and they're good ones

Because we're not starting from scratch like most single payer national health programs were back in the beginning to middle of the 20th Century. We have a system of private insurance which actually provides good coverage for alot of people. Unfortunately it is too expensive and leaves too many uncovered.

People with good insurance don't want to lose their good insurance. The solution is something like Obama is proposing where there is a public plan that will inevitably become more attractive than the private options (unless the Republicans and insurance lobby poison it). Private insurance will be phased out are more opt for the better and cheaper public option and in a few decades we will effectively have single payer.

But single payer now would be a non-starter. Most Democrats wouldn't even support it. Why? I guess you could say that there is a "lack of political will." Another way to put it is that legislators are rational agents who seek re-election as their goal and kicking constituents with good private insurance off of those insurance plans and likely worrying the shit out of them tends to conflict with that.

Obama's approach is a sensible one. But he needs to be careful not to compromise too much. If the public plan is watered down and crappy in the name of compromise it will discredit the entire enterprise of universal health insurance in this country for another generation.

[DearAbby]

5. We can have a full blown

debate on torture...if it works or not...but not a debate about Single Payer Healthcare. :eyes:

[nightrain]

8. we have a bunch of weak-kneed Dems in Congress

who refuse to challenge the health and pharm corporations. These "representatives" have been bought off by the corporations. My guess is that if anything happens on healthcare, it'll be a massively watered-down option instead of something really gutsy like single payer. Obama could promote single payer, he could be courageous. But, I doubt he will. Obama is somewhat of an improvement over the Bush Admin, but mostly a HUGE disappointment as he caves on major issues (out of fear?).

[snowdays]

13. He does not have the courage to promote

single payer. Simple as that.

[vaberella]

23. Hah, you make me laugh.

He won't follow the same path of failure that HRC faced end of story. He's trying to get something done that Dems wouldn't destroy. The man tried to close down Gitmo and Dems shot him down. Now you say he has no courage? He's following a plan that won't make Dems fuck him over where he won't get any damn health care done. Obviously, for you, smart approach is weak. I find it the best thing he can do with the hand he's been given. And anyone with an understanding about how the market works for anything knows that private insurance companies will be crowd out.


On a last note, you keep pushing your meme. I've come to realize that a plan like yours has no success and I'd like to have some form of health insurance in the way of a public option versus none at all and EVERYONE, who remembers HRC or the power of the private insurance in the Senate, knows that single payer wouldn't even be viable. Courage or no courage...failure is the only thing waiting for single payer as HRC saw with her universal plan.

[snowdays]

43. He and Dem congresscritters are wimps. Scared of upseting the

insurance industry.

[ClarkUSA]

64. Then you believe all the 2008 presidential candidates besides Kucinich were "wimps", right?

Because none of them besides Kucinich said they wanted single-payer.

[eridani]

126. Yes. Exact;ly right. Gutless slaves of the money people n/t

[snowdays]

137. Its not the primaries anymore. He is in charge and time to make

BOLD decisions and to stop caving to the insurance industry. It is time for him to Lead ON THIS IMPORTANT MATTER. So far he has kicked the can to congress.

[Doremus]

54. Sure no chance of it with people so willing to settle for less.

Medicare for all does not have to be an insurmountable goal.

Acquiescence is the enemy of change.

[vaberella]

114. It doesn't have a chance b/c the Senate wouldn't vote it in.

Get it together dude. The Senators overall and this is all the repubs and some of the Dems don't give a rats ass about the American people. They only care about themselves and the lobbyist who has the deepest pockets. That's all their in it for. They will fuck O two times to Sunday if it means risking their financing. So you can blame it on the people, you can blame it on Dems. But we need things passed and people have been without it too long.

People seem to conveniently forget HRC's history because it's better for them. Well after her failure we had nothing for over 16 years. Now we have a chance and O is doing it in a way so that everyone has the chance to get something. You call it settling for less, but compromises are made all the time. And considering I don't trust the Dem Senators O wouldn't be able to say, "Si-" before they shut him up.

To be honest, I find the single payer people settling for less because we won't get things done. IF they back up the public option and fight to make sure that people don't mess it up then we'd be good. Instead for them it's all or nothing and inadvertently hurt everyone in the process.

It's like having a battle between a progressive Dem and a same-old self interested Repub and the Independent (left-leaning libeeral) candidate shows up. If the Independent candidate had supported the Dem we might have had a progressive Dem in office that could get things done for the independent voters. But instead we're stuck with the same old shit with the self interested Repub.

[Doremus]

120. As I said, acquiescence is the enemy of change.

Letting the Senate corpos get away with handing us the same-old shit wrapped up with a new bow because "they aren't going to pass single-payer anyway" is exactly what they are hoping you do.

If we don't get Medicare for all it will be because too many were willing to settle, and even work against it in some deluded idea of party loyalty.

If we don't get single payer (and so many other quote progressive unquote programs/policies), WTF difference does it make if we have a cohesive party? The only people who stand to benefit from that are those who depend on winning elections to line their own pockets ... and that ain't us.

[ClarkUSA]

66. Yeah, just like the Clintons in 1994, but without the secret closed-door meetings.

[snowdays]

72. There you go again--trying to scare folks. Over and over like a broken record.

[ClarkUSA]

83. How so? I'm not aware of anyone here "scared" by historical fact. Such a charge is truly ironic...

... coming from you.

[DaLittle Kitty]

93. John Russell Has KNEES OF STEEL And Has Championed Single Payer for the Past 6 Years Watch This!

John Russell discusses the means of obstruction employed to leverage the legislators to defeat Single Payer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBJAkCjjz1Y

[DaLittle Kitty]

96. John Russell Nurse Practitioner and Congressional Candidate Has The Answers And The GUTS To Prevail!

http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/page.asp?PageId=35


http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/page.asp?PageId=38


http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/page.asp?PageId=37
From John's website
The Solution for Health Care Consumers

* Commence the incremental transition to a National Single Payer Universal Health Care system through a competitive model utilizing a Medicare for All approach similar to the plan proposed by 2008 Presidential candidate John Edwards..
* Mandate that all health insurers will be required to use a uniform standardized health care claims reporting form.
* Mandate that all health care insurers be required to adhere to a uniform standard set of rules for claims submission for services reimbursement.
* Mandate that there will be a uniform standard of compensation per medical specialty for equivalent services rendered without arbitrary/preferential variation between differing health care providers per a given geographic/locality/region.
* Mandate a 25% federal tax deduction for physicians and other licensed Medicare-eligible primary health care providers based upon parameters established via Diagnostic Related Groups for care rendered to the indigent.
* Increase Medicare re-imbursement levels so as to broaden program participation among physicians/health providers.
* Invest in preventative care targeted at known causes of increased morbidity/mortality e.g., Diabetes, Basic Dental Care.
* Increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, which currently performs nearly half of this country's research into new drugs and therapies. The pharmaceutical industry subsequently patents these drugs and sells them to the U.S. consumer. Drugs derived from this federally funded research should then enter the market WITHOUT PATENTS… given the substantial taxpayer investment in the development of these drugs thereby greatly decreasing the cost to government as well as consumers.
* Provide a “Means-Tested” Prescription Drug Plan for those without coverage.
* Improve Medicare reimbursement levels in rural areas.

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS IMPACT

The steps outlined above represent the first steps toward a universal single-payer health care program. It is the “Velcro” lining of the health insurance industry that is the root cause of the massive inefficiencies in our health care system. These solutions adopted wholly, or in part, will increase patient access as well as participation by qualified physicians and health care providers. Additionally by improving remuneration for medical services, we will begin to make medicine and the health sciences more attractive to those capable of enduring the rigors of preparation for these vital careers.

John Russell, MS/ARNP (Acute Care), MBA, Health Systems Management



http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/page.asp?PageId=36

Share
The Problem for Health Care Consumers

Americans are being priced out of health care. A typical employment-based health insurance plan in 2003 was $8,800 split somehow between the employer and the employee according to economist Uwe Reinhart. According to Reinhart, these prices in recent years have been rising at a rate of 10% annually. If this inflationary trend continues at only a 10% rate according to Reinhart, small changes in productivity growth, product price levels, and health insurance premiums could easily drive the fraction of total compensation that is absorbed by health insurance to over 50%.

A St. Petersburg Times article ( 4/23/04 ), quotes Florida Governor Jeb Bush as a strong proponent of so-called “Bare Bones” health insurance policies with low premiums, minimal coverage and high deductibles. While state lawmakers lift coverage mandates for cost- effective preventative care such as mammograms and other screening tests on the recommendation of the Governor, citizens covered by these programs are the losers.

Solutions such as those proposed by the governor are merely the first giant leap toward health care rationing. These plans severely limit access to more sophisticated and costly health care services through onerous plan restrictions and deductibles. As more and more people are forced by economic circumstance into these bare bones coverage plans, a broader cross section of society is shut out of modern health care services. Consequent to this phenomenon, modern health care becomes a luxury commodity provided mostly by those of relatively modest circumstance (Nursing staff) to those affluent enough to afford premium health care insurance coverage.

The rising cost to business for employer based health care coverage places smaller employers at a competitive disadvantage with larger organizations relative to cost and competition for employees. High costs for providing health insurance coverage diminish profits as well as employee earnings. Meanwhile as premiums rise and services are restricted, profits grow for the insurer at the expense of the insured. Again the prevailing direction is one favoring the shifting of risk and cost away from the insurer to the insured, those unable afford insurance, and the providers of health care.

Veterans are increasingly bearing the brunt of budget cuts at the federal level. The closing of Veterans Administration health facility displaces cost and risk to from government to the consumer (Veterans). One veteran told me a story of brother who had to travel to Gainesville, Florida because the facility in Georgia had been closed as a result of budget cuts. The teller of this story himself badly scarred both physically and emotionally from his Vietnam and Korean experience became emotional as he told me this. We have a whole new group of disabled veterans from depleted uranium Gulf War (1991) and blast injured amputees. Our debt to our veterans must be repaid with the care necessary to put their lives back together. I will support our veterans unwaveringly.

John Russell, MS/ARNP (Acute Care), MBA, Health Systems Management

[quidam56]

9. Profit Care is more important than Patient Care in America

After a recent experience with the health care system, I used to proudly work in, it is a pure shame what health care has come to. Greed and lies are killing U.S. but as long as the politicians and the profit machines are getting wealthy, people don't matter at all. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 It is shocking to see what is deemed, defended and supported as "the acceptable standards of health care" these days.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Ins. Cos. AND single payer advocates need to be at the negotiating table to make it fair.

Without single payer advocates, the debate starts too far to the right.

[ejpoeta]

15. it's like they said on the moyers show.... obama and the congress have already

made up their minds. my fear is that they will mandate insurance under THIS system. that sure is what it sounds like they are going to do from what i am hearing. so, then people who can't afford the insurance will be forced to buy it, even if they don't have a job!! and the insurance companies can charge them whatever they want to charge. it sounds like car insurance. we have to have it. and the insurance company can charge us whatever they want. if i have an accident, there goes my insurance costs through the roof. people who don't have insurance don't have it because they don't want it... they don't have it because they can't afford it. when bob worked for his previous employer, it would have cost us $600/mo for insurance that didn't cover anything. and that was several years ago. Emily was on child health plus and i believe i ended up on medicaid. In fact, if i remember correctly, the employer sent a letter with the paycheck directing employees towards state insurance plans we should sign up for. That is the kind of thing people are faced with. But let's just force them to buy insurance in this system as it is right now. yeah, that will sure help!

[snowdays]

21. The WH and congress are into EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICES in

relation to this issue. Shameful practices so congresscritters can still get their donations for their campaigns.

[ClarkUSA]

31. The Clintons took single payer off the table much more dramatically than Baucus has.

In 1994, after months of "EXCLUSIONARY" closed-door meetings that shut out Democratic Congressional leaders AND the public, Hillary emerged with a complex proposal containing more than 1,000 pages of reform measures. The rest is history. In contrast, what the Obama administration is doing is very much being conducted in the public square and relatively inclusive of the players involved.

[snowdays]

36. oh clark... you always bring up the Clintons. This is NOT about them. Get

the chip off your shoulder and we might have a fruitful conversation.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Um, it's relevant to the discussion to provide historical contrast to dispute your rhetoric.

You are obviously loathe to have me point out historical precedence on healthcare reform because it might cast doubt on your baseless opinions.

[snowdays]

44. I know the history and am not afraid of it. YOU use it to scare people.

[ClarkUSA]

62. Really? How so? It's ironic that you of all DUers would accuse me of trying "to scare people".

[sandyd921]

113. You keep saying HRC took single payer off the table

I have to correct this. Hilary did not take single payer off the table because she did not propose anything approaching single payer. In fact her proposal, while it would have regulated the health insurance industry, would have preserved it. It actually provided for a mandate that would have required employers to provide a qualified plan (from private insurers) to their employees. The plan was complex and Hilary's strategy of developing the plan within a task force that excluded congressional Democrats was a mistake. However the reason for the defeat has nothing whatsoever to do with single payer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

[eridani]

127. And forced us to choose our providers from our employers' lists.

Thereby making sure that the US continues to have the industrial world's highest rate of medical errors.

[nightrain]

85. yeah, no kidding on the possiblity of mandating PRIVATE

insurance!!! I'll be damned if someone will force me to support those corrupt corporations! (oh, and maybe provide a little care on the side)

If that's what ends up as a bill, you can be sure that the "reps" are bought by the corporations!!!

[ejpoeta]

107. i already know they are. it's frightening and depressing.

[vaberella]

25. How so?

Give me an example. At the Health Summit it was clear that there were many Dems who were single payer advocates but realized they were in the minority. Secondly, our President and our HHSS has advocated for a public option to bring forth universal care. Single payer is not going to be a success and from what I can see of single payer----if we take the proper definition, there is no middle ground for them. That means they will not have any concessions and that makes me wonder what they would ever bring to the table than, "single payer is the only way to go." For instance on this board is a perfect example. If all single payers like that, and based on what I know of single payer there is no other way, they have nothing to bring to the table.

If they had a workable plan, that allowed concessions and was not a single payer but something of a hybrid like the public option then it wouldn't be a problem.

What makes this all so much more unnerving is that so many of you are screaming your heads off that O is flip-flopping and not standing by his campaign promises but O made it clear during his run that he would be for a public option that competed with private market. He'd turn the nation upside down if he just pushed a single payer. Considering that was a protective clause in his health reformation plan.

[thread-bear]

29. flip-flop

From Moyer's show:PRESIDENT OBAMA: I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.

BILL MOYERS: That was State Senator Obama, who said there was just one big obstacle standing in its way.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We may not get there immediately, because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House.

Sounds like flip-flop to me. There's no question it will be hard,but the insurance companies have left the American people no other affordable choice. I'm not a big fan of socialism except for basic needs and health care is certainly one of them. I'm certainly not a fan of insurance companies,to put it mildly.

[vaberella]

115. Yeah....that's not a flip-flop.

I've seen that over and over and over again. As I stated very clearly candidate Obama did not run on that statement. Further more, as a proponent he realized his obstacles and he also sees that after taking back the WH and Senate we have Dem Senators who are siding with Repubs who will fuck us up. He came to realize that when they would vote against his plans. He proposed a realistic plan during the campaign. You can be realistic with a public option even though striving for a single payer option.

HELLO!!! This seen clearly. Further more that was 3 years before he joined the candidacy. His candidacy is one thing seperate which is what I sated. In any event...I would be a proponent for single payer even though I prefer universal care---however I am fully willing to compromise when I see people willing to do nothing instead of getting proper care for the American people.

[dgibby]

74. He IS flip-flopping. Proof: In the words of the man, himself:

Watch and weep.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Obamas_2003_healthcare_comments_revisited.html

[vaberella]

117. What did I say in my post..operative word is "campaign" If you missed it.

3 years BEFORE he declared his candidacy. And I stated specifically stated his message on the campaign. His candidate promise was NEVER EVER single payer, it was written on his site as public option. He made concessions when he realized things he could get done. He tried to make realistic promises. You can still be a proponent of a damn plan even if you don't see it as probably being successful right away. This is quite common. I support universal health care but see the advantage of a public option.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

60. Fuck the genocidal Ins. Cos. AND those who support them!

They orchestrate a holocaust against the bulk of Americans and you want them at the table!? The only table they have earned the right to be situated at is located directly under a hangman's noose!

Talk sense man!

[ejpoeta]

14. the single payer segment was amazing!! the arguments for it are so common sense.

as long as we have all these different entities, the bureaucracy will have to remain. and that adds a lot to the cost. the more i hear about how just having a public option won't help the more i agree. i had thought that at least if there were a public option then everyone would end up going there. apparently that is what happened to medicare. but then they did the thing where people could go with univera or independent health... and they take all the healthy folks and leave the sick to the public plan. the public plan can't work if only the sick people are in it. that makes a lot of sense. if everyone is in one system, then the healthy not using as much as the sick offsets the costs. and it would go back and forth so that not everyone is needing to use from the system at the same time. if only the sick people are in the public system, then everyone is drawing from it at the same time. how is it possible that would ever work. it's like everyone going down to the bank and pulling their money out at the same time. the bank would fail in that situation.

[snowdays]

37. even with the

public option--it sets more administrative costs--. This whole reform is going down the tube.


Thanks for reading/listening to the Moyers segment. I hope you pass it onto all you know.

[EndElectoral]

16. it helps people, employer comptetitiveness abroad, but detracts from insurance firms. won't happen

[ClarkUSA]

27. President Obama on Single Payer Healthcare (May 14, 2009 NM townhall Q&A | YouTube video link) --->

I prefer listening to the President explain his own eminently sensible reasoning rather than read/listen to conflated rhetoric from those who continue to ignore legislative and economic reality. In this video, President Obama implies that he does not want to risk the failure of getting a Healthcare Reform Bill at the expense of ideological purity. He states that if we were starting from scratch he understands that the Single Payer Healthcare insurance would be preferable, but given that healthcare is 1/6th of our economy, we probably could not afford to make that drastic transition at this point in time.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yily0Mf2eQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmcafe%2Etalkingpointsmemo%2Ecom%2Ftalk%2Fblogs%2Fpoliticaltruths%2F2009%2F05%2Fpresident%2Dobama%2Don%2Dsingle%2Dpaye%2Ephp%3Fref%3Drecmuck&feature=player_embedded

[dwilso40641]

33. I believe

that it's time to show the insurance industry some tuff love like was shown to the past and present workers of G.M. and Chrysler.
Where do they get all the money that they throw around?
They steal it from us.
H.R.676 is the only way to go. Get the fox out of the hen house.

[slipslidingaway]

34. "it would disrupt the health insurance industry."

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/transcript2.html

"BARACK OBAMA: If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer based health care and although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is that the vast majority of people currently get their health care from their employers, and you've got this system that's already in place. We don't want a huge disruption as we go into health care reform where suddenly we are trying to completely reinvent 1/6th of the economy.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: When I hear something like that, you sort of have to say, "What about all the people whose health care is so disrupted that they can't even get in the door at all? What about the people that are underinsured?"

It's interesting, because before Medicare passed, which is in 1965, we had older people, either uninsured or going to private insurance. And within a year of the time Medicare passed, the disruption, meaning that they were actually able to disrupt not having health insurance or having under insurance, 90 percent of them were already in Medicare. So, we already have a model in this country of how non disruptive it is.

When you hear the word "disruptive" what you're really hearing is code for "it would disrupt the health insurance industry." And that's exactly what needs to be done. So, disruptive is the wrong word.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: And for doctors, patients, nurses, it's not disruptive. It actually frees us to do our work. But for the insurance industry, for people making $225 thousand a day as CEOs of insurance companies, yes, it's disruptive for them..."

[ClarkUSA]

39. Pres. Obama didn't say that at all; a doctor on PBS spun 44's words and you quoted him.

It's not as if President Obama is against single-payer in theory, after all. The doctor also conveniently ignores the legislative realities involved in passing healthcare reform.

[slipslidingaway]

47. I never said President Obama made that statement....

read the relevant portions of the transcript that I copied in my post.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

50. I didn't say you did. I simply wanted to make it clear to those following the thread.

Thanks for the transcript.

[slipslidingaway]

55. For anyone following the thread they should be able to tell

the difference.

:)

You're welcome.

[ClarkUSA]

58. It wasn't clear to me at first. I just wanted to make sure in case others were puzzled..

:)

[slipslidingaway]

65. No problem :) n/t

[snowdays]

48. Obama just conveniently EXCLUDES single payer advocates. And

I do not see where slip ...said Obama said that.

[ClarkUSA]

57. WSJ: "Invited to Summit, Single-Payer Group Cancels Protest"

Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/05/invited-to-health-summit-single-payer-advocates-cancel-protest/

It's Senator Baucus' call on who he wants in his hearings, not the President, who has a busy daily schedule these days. Try not to forget that the legislative and executive branches are co-equal.

[snowdays]

59. First. If Obama would lead and Want them at HIS summit, single payer

would not have been excluded until the last day. It was the Presidents summit-- so stop making excuses for him (the president). Busy. ha ha. How lame.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Okay, I just proved you wrong but you can't acknowledge your mistake. What a surprise.

Not.

[snowdays]

70. Th WH-Baucus caved at the last minute-and looked foolish for

excluding single payer advocates. Now they continue to look greedy and petty. Live your life through rose colored glasses. I admit the WH-Baucus caved the day prior to the White House Health Summit. It was wise of the WH to finally admit single payer advocates to the Summit--finally--but it was a token invite.

[ClarkUSA]

82. Again, your opinion is duly noted but not supported by anything but baseless rhetoric..

[nightrain]

86. if Obama is not opposed to single payer, then he should damn

well come out and support it FULLY!!

[snowdays]

88. He and congresscritters are in bed with the insurance industry.

[snowdays]

42. Baucus does not want to "frighten people, particularly on the industry side. " What a joke he

he has turned out to be.



....http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22814.html

Dem senators push “public plan” on health reform

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 5/21/09 12:45 PM EDT
Updated: 5/22/09 5:39 AM EDT

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and 27 co-sponsors introduced a resolution Thursday demanding that any health care reform bill include a public insurance option.

The “sense of the Senate” resolution is the latest effort by a bloc of Democratic senators to influence the closed-door negotiations of the Finance Committee, where the bulk of the bill is being written. The group wrote a letter last month to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Health Committee Chairman Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), calling the public option essential to reform.
Speaking with reporters at a breakfast briefing Thursday, Baucus said he does expect the package to include some sort of public plan.

“I do suspect that a version will be there,” Baucus said. “Now, by saying that, I don’t want to frighten people, particularly on the industry side. … All I’m saying is, there are ways to skin a cat. There are ways to find a solution.”


The debate, though, centers on exactly how to construct a public plan. Some members of the Finance Committee have been giving consideration to a “fallback” plan, which would trigger a public insurance option if private competition proves inadequate in a geographic region. ............

[eridani]

128. Fuck the industry! Killing 18,000 a year sure the hell is disruptuive! nj/t

[snowdays]

40. Single payer would be a "reality" if Pres Obama would be BOLD and actually LEAD on

health care reform.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

69. Not at all. And you haven't answered my perfectly valid and logical question.

[slipslidingaway]

56. Kucinich - "What is lacking is political leadership..."

Kucinich makes an important distinction about where to gather support...you take the issue directly to the people and then you have the people pressure Congress.

Instead what we have now is an attempt by Congress to block any discussion of a single-payer system.

Educate the people about the system and let them decide.

Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2OUyZesqRg

"...How then could you see yourself being President and simultaneously be subordinate to these powerful interests...I would be very concerned about electing anyone who didn't believe that the President of the US could not rally the American people in the cause of their own health...that is what I intend to do, to rally the American people...I'm talking about taking America in a direction where we rally the American people to create this not for profit health care system, I think the public support is there for it."


Originally posted here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5643541&mesg_id=5643541

[snowdays]

80. Thanks, I had not seen that particular quote from DK. Whow--he

is spot on. Obama could rally the people IF he had the political will to do so--for single payer.

[slipslidingaway]

92. YW and I agree he is spot on - Take it to the people....

Kucinich in 1978, start at the 3 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z0rk5RoP2U


Posted earlier in this thread...


THIS IS A HOAX! IT IS A SWINDLE! WAKE UP AMERICA! DENNIS KUCINICH
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=311402&mesg_id=311402

[ClarkUSA]

91. Really? How so? He isn't a dictator. I wonder if single-payer advocates felt the same way in 1994.

[slipslidingaway]

95. But he does get media time, if P. Obama really believed, as he did

in 2003, that SPHC was the best way forward he would take the issue to the people.

Instead the government is telling people that we need to protect the enormous profits of the HC industry and of course they do not know how to pay for the public option program.

Tax employer benefits, tax on soft drinks???

:shrug:

What is lacking is the political will and leadership on this issue.

[ClarkUSA]

97. You're ignoring the fact that he & other major presidential candidate didn't support single-payer.

I'm not sure why you expect him to change his mind from what he said on the campaign trail last year. He is trying to keep his promise to deliver healthcare reform by the end of his first-term but he never ever said it'd be single-payer. It's fine that you're advocating for it, but it's unreasonable to blame him for not supporting something he went out of his way to say was not economically feasible when he was a candidate. Only Kucinich supported single-payer, as you probably know, and he's accomplished anything legislatively significant in all his years as Congressman.

[slipslidingaway]

99. P. Obama changed his mind on HC since 2003 and yes I am

aware that he did not campaign on SP during his presidential run, it was during his run for the senate.

But P. Obama did state that all parties would be represented and that one group should not dominate the discussions, the for profit advocates have dominated the discussion.

:(

[ClarkUSA]

104. He's always liked the idea of single-payer; he just doesn't think it's economically feasible now.

It'll also be impossible to pass legislation on single-payer, unless you can name the majority of Senators who'll be willing to vote "aye" on it. I'm a liberal Green, but I'm also pragmatist who, like the president, loves the idea of single-payer if we were starting from scratch, but I understand that economic and legislative realities will not permit it at this point in history. I am willing to accept healthcare reform that will be far better than what we have now and bide my time for more reform later, when the country is on a better economic footing and when there are more liberal Democratic Senators on Capitol Hill.

[slipslidingaway]

109. Spending 400 billion on profits and administrative costs is not

economically feasible IMO.

I cannot wait for the cuts to Medicare that I believe will be coming esp. when one considers the number of baby boomers who will be eligible for Medicare in the next ten years. Now is the perfect time to push for a SPHC.

[ClarkUSA]

110. Considering there isn't legislation on the table yet, I feel it's premature to pass judgment.

Until there is, I don't see the point of needlessly promulgating worst-case scenarios.

[slipslidingaway]

121. That is part of the problem, there are no details yet, but people are in

favor of the public option because SP will never pass.

:shrug:

I know the details are being worked on, currently behind closed doors, they are trying to find a way to finance this public option and still maintain the profits for big insurance companies. It is difficult to support an unknown, especially when our reps are already starting from a compromised position.... single payer is not an option.

[snowdays]

131. Yes, Congress and the WH started from a compromised position and

seems they are only working the frills around the edges.

[dgibby]

75. If you prefer listening to the President, then see post #75.

[Radical Activist]

130. Notice the very positive way he describes single-payer.

He's laying the ground work. Congress is the main obstacle.

[MasonJar]

32. Go to PBS and watch the Bill Moyers show of May 22 and you will

clearly understand that the only viable option is single payer. The Obama public option is quite faulty. Be expecially cognizant of the second half of the show when two doctore who have studied the Single Payer for decades tell why it is the only option. The first half is also pertinent because it demonstrates that doctors and nurses and other health care providers now support single payer. The removal of the insurance companies is crucial. They spend multi-billions which could go to the sick on buying politicians (Baucus received the third highest amount/no surprise), advertising and on administrative activities such as denying benefits to their customers.

[slipslidingaway]

35. Link to video and transcript...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/profile2.html

[snowdays]

38. Thanks. Your link was more direct than the one I had in the OP.

[slipslidingaway]

49. YW :) n/t

[Overseas]

46. K&R !! Best discussion of why we need Single Payer Now ! //nt

[sandyd921]

53. Everyone should watch this! n/t

[snowdays]

138. Yes, it is well worth the time.

[slipslidingaway]

61. SP advocates not invited to WH summit on healthcare...

Dr. Quentin Young, Longtime Obama Confidante and Physician to MLK, Criticizes Admin’s Rejection of Single-Payer Healthcare

"While the Obama administration claims “all options are on the table” for healthcare reform, it’s already rejected the solution favored by most Americans, including doctors: single-payer universal healthcare. We speak with Dr. Quentin Young, perhaps the most well-known single-payer advocate in America. He was the Rev. Martin Luther King’s doctor when he lived in Chicago and a longtime friend and ally of Barack Obama. But he was noticeably not invited to Obama’s White House healthcare summit last week. "



http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/11/dr_quentin_young_obama_confidante_and

"AMY GOODMAN: This brouhaha over the last week with the White House healthcare summit, 120 people, there were going to be no single-payer advocates. Congressman Conyers asked to go. At first, he was told no. He directly asked President Obama at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing. He asked to bring you and Marcia Angell—


DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Yes.


AMY GOODMAN: —former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. You weren’t allowed to go. Do you have President Obama’s ear anymore? You have been an ally of his for years, for decades.


DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Well, it’s mixed. I think we’re friends, certainly. At this gala that you mentioned, which was embarrassing, he did send a very complimentary letter. And I appreciate that, but I’d much rather have him enact single payer, to tell the truth. And we did—it’s fair to say, after a good deal of protest, I think we were told there was a—phones rang off the hook. They did allow our national president, Dr. Oliver Fein, to attend with Dr. Conyers—Congressman Conyers. That’s fine, but we need many more people representative of the American people at large to get this thing through the Congress, and Baucus, notwithstanding, be overruled.

[ClarkUSA]

71. WSJ: "Invited to Summit, Single-Payer Group Cancels Protest"

Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/05/invited-to-health-summit-single-payer-advocates-cancel-protest/

Your title is misleading because one advocate (not "advocates") was not invited according to the transcript but even he says his group's president was invited.

[snowdays]

73. Yeah, after looking petty, the WH and Baucus finally caved to

to single payer advocates.

[ClarkUSA]

76. Your opinion is duly noted but not supported by anything but baseless rhetoric.

[dgibby]

78. That article was from Mar09.

Hardly germain to what's happening now.

[snowdays]

79. But single payer option is still off the table.

[redqueen]

100. re: FDR's 'make me do it' comment.

I wonder if either FDR or Obama expected such useless crybaby whining at having to actually participate in getting stuff done.

[slipslidingaway]

77. One person was finally invited at the last minute because of

the public outcry and planned protests, they were not not on the original list, unlike many in the insurance industry.

:(


Added in edit.

Dr. Oliver Fein reports on the White House health summit

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/03/09/dr-oliver-fein-reports-on-the-white-house-health-summit/

By Oliver Fein, M.D.

"Thanks to many grassroots activists and physicians who called the White House and threatened to demonstrate outside its gates, I was at the Health Care Summit at the White House on March 5 along with Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

...What was my role in all of this? Despite my best efforts, I was unable to make a public statement at the meeting, although thanks to the PNHP staff in Chicago we were able distribute my prepared remarks to the media while the summit was under way...

...The media took great interest in the successful battle by Rep. Conyers and myself to get into the summit, with stories in the Congressional Quarterly, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, among other places..."

[ClarkUSA]

81. That's your opinion. The single-payer group's president and Rep. Conyers were both invited.

Their voices were heard. They and you cannot expect this president to advocate a policy he and other presidential candidates (except for Dennis Kucinich) expressly did not support. He's explained why in plain language. And it's not as if he doesn't like single-payer, he just doesn't believe it can be passed at this point in time due to legislative and economic constraints.

[snowdays]

87. yes, they were invited at the last minute. Read the entire post by Dr Fein

that was posted by slipsliding....

Obama is not and has not lead on this so called 'reform". His explanation was weak.


http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/03/09/dr-oliver-fein-reports-on-the-white-house-health-summit/

[slipslidingaway]

89. But you fail to acknowledge that they were being shut out until

people started calling the WH and organizing a protest, they were only allowed in at the last minute and Dr. Fein was not even allowed to speak.

President Obama said during the campaign that everyone would be allowed to participate, but that is not what he did with the healthcare summit.


How come the insurance companies do not have to fight to be invited???


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/transcript2.html


"DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: The seats at the table, or the witnesses at the hearing are, in a sense, controlled by the health insurance industry. They don't want someone essentially saying, "We don't need a health insurance industry. We can do what most other countries in the world have done. Have the government collect the money and pay the bills and get rid of all these people who are wasting $400 billion a year on excessive administrative costs...


...It's- 1968, I was one of a group of physicians that disrupted the American Medical Association's convention, because they were saying then, and in, for all practical purposes it's still true, "Health care is not a right. It's a privilege." And we said, quietly, as we took over the microphone, "That's wrong." We're now 41 years later, and it's still a privilege. And too many people in this country don't have that privilege. It's resulting in huge numbers of people being ill, sick, and almost 20 thousand people dying a year because they don't have health insurance.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: And there's big money being made. I mean, that's the basic problem here. There are billions being made from the private health insurance industry, from the drug industry, and that gets spread around Washington. The biggest recipients of insurance money, of drug money, are the powerful people who chair the committees, who decide what witnesses testify. President Obama himself received huge amounts of insurance money...


DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Here's an example of what David's talking about. Over the last 30 plus years there have been maybe two and a half, three times more doctors and nurses. Pretty much in proportion with the growth in population. There are 30 times, 3-0 times more health administrators. These people are not doctors. They're not nurses. They're not pharmacists. They're not providing care. Many of them are being paid to deny care. So, they are fighting with the doctors, with the hospitals to see how few bills can be paid. That's how the insurance industry thrives by denying care, paying as little out as it can, getting the healthiest patients, and yet getting reimbursed as though these patients were sicker than they really are.

So, it's a system that is guaranteed to waste a lot of money. And what we've said is that the amount of money that's just being wasted in one year is enough to pay for more than enough of the premiums for those that are uninsured and the people that are underinsured. So, it's not a matter of bringing more money..."

[ClarkUSA]

94. I thought the WH said that they were always on the list but people assumed otherwise.

Anyway, that's immaterial. I am not interested in supposition unsupported by hard facts. I give credit where credit is due.

How come the insurance companies do not have to fight to be invited???

Again, that's your opinion. We don't know that they didn't. I am sure they all clamored for access but were not public about it.

[slipslidingaway]

98. If they were on the original list why did they organize a protest

and call in campaign?

Another unsupported fact from Dr. Quentin Young...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/11/dr_quentin_young_obama_confidante_and

AMY GOODMAN: This brouhaha over the last week with the White House healthcare summit, 120 people, there were going to be no single-payer advocates. Congressman Conyers asked to go. At first, he was told no. He directly asked President Obama at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing. He asked to bring you and Marcia Angell—


DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Yes.


AMY GOODMAN: —former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. You weren’t allowed to go. Do you have President Obama’s ear anymore? You have been an ally of his for years, for decades.


DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Well, it’s mixed. I think we’re friends, certainly. At this gala that you mentioned, which was embarrassing, he did send a very complimentary letter. And I appreciate that, but I’d much rather have him enact single payer, to tell the truth. And we did—it’s fair to say, after a good deal of protest, I think we were told there was a—phones rang off the hook. They did allow our national president, Dr. Oliver Fein, to attend with Dr. Conyers—Congressman Conyers. That’s fine, but we need many more people representative of the American people at large to get this thing through the Congress, and Baucus, notwithstanding, be overruled.

[snowdays]

101. It is not immaterial and you believed a lame excuse that had no logic to it -.......

No wonder your own 'excuses" are so lame.

[ClarkUSA]

108. You're welcome to disagree but I tend to be skeptical of baseless supposition by anonymous bloggers.

And I do find baseless supposition immaterial to the fact that single-payer advocates were invited to the presidential summit to air their views to 44.

[slipslidingaway]

111. Dr. Quentin Young is not an anonymous blogger, I posted the interview

with Amy Goodman to you above.

[ClarkUSA]

116. No, but he was repeating hearsay and giving his hardly-unbiased interpretation.

I find this splitting of hairs to be useless. What's the point?

[snowdays]

84. How sad that he did not even get to make a public statement..........

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/03/09/dr-oliver-fein-reports-on-the-white-house-health-summit/

..........It was clear that the main message that President Obama wanted to communicate was bipartisanship and transparency, since he avoided most of the truly contentious issues, such as an individual mandate to carry health insurance either for children and/or adults; an employer mandate to pay for coverage; a public plan to compete the private plans in a health insurance exchange; elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusions from private health insurance; taxation of health benefits offered by employers; or permitting Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for drug prices. These are all issues left for discussion and resolution within Congress. While this is the opposite of the Clinton administration’s approach, the president may be seeking to lay a broad foundation for making hard choices in the future.


Besides the lawmakers, it is interesting to note which organizational leaders he called on to make statements. These included Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans; Dan Danner, president of the National Federation of Independent Businesses; and Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. A few other audience members were called on for statements, including Fredette West, president of Racial and Ethnic Disparities Health Coalition, and Irwin Redliner (a recently mentioned candidate for U.S. surgeon general) from National Center for Disaster Preparedness at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
What was my role in all of this? Despite my best efforts, I was unable to make a public statement at the meeting, although thanks to the PNHP staff in Chicago we were able distribute my prepared remarks to the media while the summit was under way. Our staff member in Washington, Danielle Alexander, also handed out hard copies to summit participants as they left the White House.

[slipslidingaway]

90. Sad... insurance companies did not have to fight to be invited :( nt

[snowdays]

103. Congress critters had their addresses from the campaign donations

they have. Easy to find the insurance industry---just walk over to their donor list.

[dgibby]

102. Without single payer, and if Baucus gets his way,

we will continue to pay HMO's and for profit insurance company's to kill
us. It's just that simple. And without single payer advocates at the table to represent us, the only people left to devise a "public option" are the bought and paid for Congress and their corporate paymasters. I don't think that bodes well for any real reform, and certainly not something that will benefit "we the people". It's just that simple.

For those of you who don't agree with and/or don't understand why some of us are so adament about single payer, please read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5717148

[snowdays]

106. Nationwide Rallies for Improved Medicare for All: May 30th.....

Please pass around to all you know. Thanks


http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/may-30th-day-of-action/




May 30th: National Day of Action

Nationwide Rallies for Improved Medicare for All

Join thousands of single-payer supporters in a nationwide week of action to support improved Medicare for all (HR 676). Single-payer activists will be gathering all over the country to say, "Healthcare, yes; Insurance companies, no," and to show solidarity with demonstrations at the AHIP (American Health Insurance Plans, a private health insurance lobby) conference in San Diego.

If an action isn't already in your city, plan your own day of action! It can be a town hall meeting, demonstration in front of a local insurance company, film showing, vigil, or your own unique idea. Let us know what you'd like to start planning by contacting [email protected].

47 million Americans are uninsured. Private insurance rates are rising faster than inflation and our incomes. By 2025 the cost of private health insurance will exceed our projected income.

A national, single-payer healthcare system is the only healthcare reform option that will cover every American resident while saving us billions of dollars. The majority of Americans want it. The majority of physicians want it. The only thing missing is the political will in Washington.

Improved Medicare for All: We can do it!

[Festivito]

119. BECAUSE, we don't pay for elections. Simple enough? /nt

[slipslidingaway]

122. Unfortunately it is that simple :( n/t

[ecstatic]

133. Pres. Obama has answered the question numerous times

Is Moyers slow or what? Besides, Howard Dean says Obama's plan is the best he's ever seen.

[snowdays]

134. I do not accept Obama's lame response. Nor Dean's.

[ecstatic]

135. Too bad nt

[snowdays]

136. Yes, it is too bad that the Congress and the WH are sucking up

to the insurance industry.