pap19

pap19 8 months ago

June 24 is a good day to call your Senators regarding this issue. There are a number of pseudo Democrats that need to be reminded that if they wear the label, they need to vote with their brethren. While you are at it, call Max Baucus' office and tell his staff that a majority of Americans, even greater than the majority that voted Obama into office and leaving out the diehard Republicans, want a universal single payer public option health plan either to compete or ideally to replace the Insurance Industry.

Tomorrow June 24, is a national call in day. John Conyer's has an excellent bill that seems to have good support in the House. The Senate version closest to Conyer's bill is not being considered. That legislation was put forth by Bernie Sanders (S 703). Bernie is an independent in the true sense of the word. Max Baucus received more money from the Insurance Industry than any other Democrat in the Senate. Baucus chaired the Senate Finance Committee that only allowed Insurance Industry executives to testify regarding the need for reform. The Senate bill being considered and the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimate of expected cost of that bill ONLY utilized figures that LEFT OUT the single payer, public option. This is why we have Democratic Senators and ex officials such as Tom Daschle making press announcements of "we can't afford the bill that will be voted on by the Senate". Call those Senators and tell them to get a budget estimate that takes into account information from single payer or don't bother to vote. The bill that they will be considering stands little chance of surviving the minority party and the wholly owned by the Insurance Industry Democrats that are concerned about the TARP and stimulus packages that have already put us trillions in debt. Of course those same legislators didn't worry about putting two wars on the credit card or bother to place any conditions on the TARP bailout money (Bush term) or the "too big to fail" banks and AIG under Obama. Only the auto companies and union employees working for them got close scrutiny. The bottom line gets down to this: Government has done very little to help the common citizens that are drowning in debt, losing their homes, their health and cannot find work. A universal, single payer public healthcare plan would provide jobs, keep workers and their families healthy and save citizens and government a great deal of money. American citizens have not aked for a hand out, they want and desperately need a hand up. Government needs to respond to that need.

pap19 8 months ago

We need to press the Senate to request a CBO report that factors in a single payer public option and leaves out the Insurance Industry. The current CBO report was generated utlizing figures that leave the Insurance Industry in the equation. We need a comparison, otherwise we are shooting ourselves in the foot and allowing the minority party to continue to frame the debate, decide the experts that will be consulted and which 'facts' are relevant. This issue is too important to the citizens of this nation to worry about a bi-partisan approval of the debate.

From watching Senate proceedings, it appears that Obstructionism is the one and only tactic being utilized; it is childish, counter productive and keeps the Senate from getting the work of the people done. As Obama said, elections have consequences, of course the Democrats understood that all too well when the Supreme Court annointed Bush after a very questionable vote standoff in Florida.

pap19 9 months ago

Facts don't move a man whose head is "made up" but here is another source debunking the myths about the Canadian Health Care System:

Published in the Denver Post on Sunday June 7, 2009 "Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths" by Rhonda Hackett and also posted on Common Dreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/07-0

pap19 9 months ago

Sorry friend, it appears that you have the "wrong end of the stick". The HMO model is still working quite well for some people. I know many people that belong to Kaiser and are very happy with the coverage. At this point, I do not belong to Kaiser or any other HMO. It was not an invention of the government. It actually began as the idea of a physician interested in providing "wellness" care for his patients, to keep them from developing chronic illnesses. I believe Kaiser was the first, followed by Ross Loos (two physicians) somewhere in the mid 1930's. When my children were young our family was given the option to join Ross Loos; it was a welcome change to the private insurance policy for which we dutifully paid and then were denied coverage when a hospitalization was required. Ross Loos provided excellent care, both wellness and when hospitalization was required. Ross Loos was bought out by Cigna and then by some other company. With every change in owner, quality declined and the expense of the policy increased. That old profit motive at work; stockholders have every right to expect a good return on their investment.

Which takes us to the issue of single payer or universal health care coverage. The bottom line is the profit has to be removed from health care. People are dying because they can't afford insurance or to pay for their own medical care. At this point, a chronic illness or a cancer diagnosis can be a death sentence, not a pleasant death. As Americans we need to be concerned about this. Health care Administration costs have increased exponentially, driving physicians from their practices and closing hospitals due to uncollected payment for services. The number of providers has not begun to keep up with administrative costs.

We no longer live in the "old west" where it was every man for himself. An epidemic could destroy this nation from within, with our neighbor's health care problem quickly becoming yours and mine. In the 1800’s my great grandfather made a trip to New Orleans where he became ill with cholera. He was treated in their hospital and lived to return to his small city. He then founded a hospital for his city. Civilization progresses when ordinary citizens understand that structure and order is required and that needed amenities are created by a community. We have moved beyond helping a neighbor to raise a barn. We belong to a nation made up of states and the cities and communities within those states. Everyone has fire services, not just those with the emblem on their dwellings. Police and the military keep order and protect the nation. All those amenities are paid for by taxes.

In other words, if you are concerned about Socialism then focus on the bail-out of Wall Street, subsidies to the Oil industry and big Agriculture (CONAG, etc.) they come much closer to socialism than offering all Americans affordable healthcare, whether through taxes or as part of an insurance plan.

pap19 9 months ago

There is one issue that few people are taking into consideration when looking at this polarizing issue. We will eventually be unable to convince sufficient American students to enter the health care field. Currently they are graduating with hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan obligations.

Private practice for family practice physicians is rapidly becoming a quick route to loss of practice and even more debt. Chasing down insurance reimbursement is an unecessary drag to many practices and Medicare reimbursement while it is faster and more trouble free to collect is insufficient to rely on. The elderly are fortunate to have a physician willing to take them into a practice because the reimbursement rate set by Medicare drives down the co-pay on the supplemental insurance plans and few physicians can afford to staff an office, pay rent and also take many Medicare patients in their practices.

Our health care system is broken with too many people showing up at emergency rooms with life threatening diseases and much more difficult to treat illnesses because people cannot afford to see a physician and turn to the emergency room as a last resort. That drives up Malpractice rates because when the outcome is bad, every physician that was even peripherally involved gets sued. Those patients and/or their families will be billed the full price for services rendered, not the prices negotiated by insurance companies that use the finese of the mob in negotiating reimbursement rates. Too often those people will be unable to pay even over a long term payment plan, the debt incurred, this is why they are in the emergency room to begin with. Their next option becomes the malpractice attorneys advertising to the desperate on televisions and in throw away advertisements. This vicious cycle plays out repeatedly and has accelerated in large cities often burdened with large homeless, mentally ill and underserved veteran populations.

Hospitals are going out of business due to unpaid bills; remember the federal government mandates that many of those cases have to be seen and treated. It has become a rapidly deteriorating health care emergency that only requires a public health emergency, such as an epidemic or another attack on our nation to bring us all to our knees. It is long past time to take the profit out of keeping this nation healthy and optimally functioning. Single payer has to be given an opportunity, Americans are not looking for a handout, they need a handup.

pap19 9 months ago

The thread here appears to be to simplify the proposal and narrow the scope so that people have a clear up or down choice.

It appears that the discussion has run aground on ideology and because David cannot edit the original post, perhaps we can agree to allow this particular idea to percolate some new simplified versions that will allow posters to winnow out the unacceptable ideas and get to the golden nuggets that were contained in the original post.

David had some interesting propositions and we are merely voting on whether it sounds promising or reject it outright. I will reword my original post: I'm not ready to jettison the Senate. It provides protection to the smaller states against being unfairly treated by the larger states. What I would like to see is a more "democratic" election of Senators. The only way I can see to get to this is to remove the money from the electoral process. Public financing of elections with stiff penalities to those candidates that try to circuvent the process and candidates having to start at the bottom rungs of democracy to get on the ballot by having to convince ordinary citizens that he/she will be a good choice for the Senate or for the House. All elections would be publically financed and the money would be paid through our income tax returns. Public service broadcasts could be fairly allocated to every candidate. That is roughly what could be a simplification to our electoral problems.

pap19 9 months ago

Profit motive and the health and well-being of Americans is a no-brainer. Making a profit is the legitimate business of the private insurance industry. We get that part, the part we don't get is how that equals providing optimal health care for those that pay the premiums. I didn't just fall off the "turnip truck", the only way to fix this dysfunctional system is to remove the profit motive and allow these greedy businessmen to find another way to turn handsome profits. I believe that we should not have to play "russian roulette" when it comes to our health and/or quality of life. It is time to have some honest dialogue about what is best for all Americans, not just those wealthy enough to afford maintaining a quality existence.

I have long wondered how Congress was able to pass Medicare for the elderly. Logic tells me that the insurance industry was delighted to drop this demographic from their rolls, they are after all, more apt to suffer from diseases of aging and a longer life. AARP will fight with the private insurers, not for the welfare of their demographic but because they offer supplemental insurance that is a "cash cow" for them.

pap19 9 months ago

True campaign finance reform to create a level playing field for candidates that can get sufficient campaign contributions and signatures (say $5.00 per person) is certainly worth trying before we dump the Senate (House of Lords). Every taxpayer contributing $5.00 or $10.00 when they file state and federal tax forms and no other dollars permitted other than the $5.00 to assist a person trying to get sufficient signatures in order to make the voting slate. The money would have to be divied up to cover all offices, local, state and federal. Television and radio time would be allotted to every legitimate candidate and no more time allotted just because a person has personal wealth or big contributors to supply the backing. Removing the money won't cure all the problems but it certainly would help to remove the undue influence that money and cronyism has exercised over our electoral politics.

Categories

User Activity Stream

Comments Posted