Top Ten Enemies of Single Payer

By Russell Mokhiber

Most people, when they arrive in Washington, D.C., see it for what it is – a cesspool of corruption.

Two reasonable reactions to the cesspool.

One, run away screaming in fear.

Two, stay and fight back and bring to justice those who have corrupted our democracy.

Unfortunately, many choose a third way – stay and be transformed.

Instead of seeing a cesspool, they begin seeing a hot tub.

The result – profits and wealth for the corporate elite – death, disease and destruction for the American people.

See this important list HERE

What does "off the table" mean? In this case it means "70% of the public supports single payer and 0% of the insurance companies do. If we allow discussion it will surely pass, and that's the last thing in the world the industries want. They gave us $46 million in campaign contributions and you gave zero. That all translates to being 'off-the-table.' "

The Public Option in Congress Is Now a Sham. Who Cares If Lieberman Kills It?

The so-called "public option" -- as it remains in the bills being proposed in the House and Senate -- is a fraud and a sham. It bears no resemblance to the "robust" public option originally sold by its supporters as the most pragmatic, "uniquely American" multipayer way of achieving affordable universal health care, instead of importing successful single payer models from other democratic capitalist countries which provide better health to its citizens at considerably lower costs.

See Huffington's take on it HERE

1payer.net - Public Bailout of Private Insurance

Thursday, 29 October 2009 16:24 Clark Newhall

Here is the bad news from the House of Representatives with a timeline for the most massive bailout ever -- the bailout of the private for-profit insurance industries. Looks like they have until 2018 to make all the money they can.

Based on this, I think we should tell liberal Democrats to dump health reform NOW or we will dump Democrats. No bill at all is better than a bailout of the private insurance industry at taxpayer expense.

Prepared by the Committees on Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor - October 29, 2009 1
America’s Affordable (HAR HAR HAR -- THE JOKE'S ON YOU, MR TAXPAYER) Health Choices (OH YEAH, YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHICH DNGEROUS INSURANCE PRODUCT YOU ARE FORCED TO BUY) Act

See this complete list HERE

As with all congressional giveaways to private industry, there are likely some good things scattered throughout. But judging by the cash flow, there won't be many.

If you think that because you currently get insurance through your employer that this does not affect you – think again. As the price of health costs and insurance rises unabated, your employer will be forced to cut back coverage or have you pay a larger share of the cost.

Jerry Call, South Thomaston, Maine

On my recent blog I was asked: Why not take what we can get and improve on it?

Because it’ll take ten years and a lot of cash.

I oppose the current bills going through congress because they are giveaways to the insurance industry and do not solve the people’s problem. They should:

– Kill all bills and reset to zero.
– Pass a single bill to move all unemployed, SCHIP, and Medicaid patients to Medicare
– Start working on a national single-payer system (HR676 & SB703)

But the real message is that our moneyed political system is killing us, not just in healthcare but everything else. This country is going belly up as the insurers and bankers are laughing all the way to the bank.

A few people are getting very rich and most of us are growing poorer as each day passes. And the guys we elected to run our country are taking cash from the bad guys. Why are we so ambivalent?

See Congressman Kucinich on MSNBC Video, The Ed Show: "Restore State Single Payer" HERE

What role will insurance companies play in the “public option”?

By Kip Sullivan, JD

Both the Senate and House versions of the proposed “public option” require that corporations with expertise in health insurance “administer” the “option.” This fact received no attention until October 24 when the Washington Post reported that the “option” would “likely” be run by insurance companies. Several bloggers attempted to assure readers that this news was nothing to be concerned about. They asserted that Medicare has always contracted with insurance companies to process claims, and then leaped to the conclusion that the role of insurance companies within the “option” will be no more significant than it is within Medicare.

But this conclusion is clearly wrong if the Senate version of the “option” becomes law, and almost certainly wrong if the House version becomes law. This conclusion rests on the widespread belief that the “option” will “look like Medicare,” which is not accurate. The most important differences between Medicare and the “option” are size and the environment within which the programs will function. While Medicare enrolls 15 percent of the population, the “option” is projected to enroll somewhere between zero and 2 percent. While Medicare is a single-payer system, the “option” will function within a multiple-payer environment.

See the complete article here: http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/11/01/what-role-insurance-companie/

This is critical. Not only will the "public option" be available to only a select group of the public, no more than 2% according to Sullivan, but it will be run by the same insurance industry that is draining 31% of our current healthcare costs by adding massive overhead costs (shareholder profits, et al). But not to worry, the taxpayers will pick up the tab, thus subsidizing an already very wealthy industry.

Who can afford health insurance after reform?

Every lobbyist swarming Capitol Hill these days knows that, when it comes to legislation, the devil is always lurking in the details, not lounging in the concepts. Yet it is concepts, not details, which are drifting down to the public—who will be in for a surprise when they realize that reform is not what they think it is. How these details are hashed out or slipped into a bill at the eleventh hour is crucial to the success or failure of reform. This is the second of series of occasional posts that will look at where the devil lies in key provisions of the health care bill. The entire series is archived here.

One of the great untold stories of health reform has been whether Americans who will soon be required to buy insurance can really come up with the cash to do so—oh dear, that meddlesome “affordability” question, to lapse for a moment into wonk jargon. The crux of any health reform bill is the percentage of income families will be required to spend on coverage, a point drowned out by all the hoopla surrounding the public option. The press has yet to focus on what ordinary people will have to spend.

See this excellent article HERE

Congressmen Lose Big Bucks in 2008, But Still Rank Among Nation's Richest

Members of Congress -- many among the country's richest people -- aren't impervious to the nation's economic recession. Current congressional members' median wealth uncharacteristically dropped nearly 5 percent in 2008 when compared to the prior year, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of federal personal financial disclosure reports indicates. But with 237 millionaires still serving in Congress, most of the nation's leaders are doing fine compared to many of their constituents living paycheck to paycheck, if they're earning a paycheck at all. About 1 percent of all Americans are considered millionaires, while more than 44 percent of congressional members claim that distinction. And 50 members of Congress boast estimated wealth of at least $10 million. » Read More

We are down but not out.

Activists are blinded by ideology, when cash works better.

By Jack E. Lohman

We are losing the health care issue not because we failed to mobilize, but because we fought with logic rather than bribery.

We gave good arguments while the medical-industrial complex gave cash dollars. Over $125 million from insurance, hospital, pharma, and medical device manufacturers in 2008 alone. We were smart, they were smarter. We are now on the outside looking in, and no amount of head-scratching will alter the fact that we were simply outspent.

In this situation we were better off with no bill rather than a bad bill, but we didn’t give the cash to make that happen. Politicians prefer bribes, so the insurance CEOs give cash instead.

Logic is so “yesterday,” and the medical-complex bribes will now keep coming in as long as reform does not happen. Future cash motivates politicians better than historical cash, and that’s why they also prefer private over public services.

There are three critical messages to take from this:

Don’t stop here. We must mobilize to throw the bastards out. Forced term limits is our next “public option.” Politicians must see an immediate response to their favoring money over matter; of selling the country to the highest bidder against the best interests of the nation. All politicians who vote for the current health care bill must be unelected in 2010!
That doesn’t free the Republicans of blame, because they will vote against single-payer when it comes to the table. They are as corrupt; they just allowed the D’s to take this hit. But the R’s must also be replaced. We must rid our system of all miscreants.
Recognize that this enemy — bribery — is deeply imbedded in our political culture. Over 80% of congressional decisions will favor money over people. It is behind the recent spiral of the nation’s economy. It will remain behind the massive transfer of wealth that eclipses our democracy and capitalism. Our country can no longer sustain political corruption or the massive wealth inequality that has resulted.

If activists can be faulted for anything it is for their naivety. There is only one solution to this quagmire, and that’s to get the private campaign dollars out of the public electoral system. Though in its extreme (forced) it does not pass Constitutional muster, a reasonable solution is available: Optional public funding of campaigns.

CALL TO ACTION: All activists and organizations must ask their congressional members to support the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826). Healthcare activists must immediately take on this second issue, because it affects all others. We can no longer afford to lose issues because of bribery.

This bill provides for optional public funding of campaigns for any politician who prefers not to take private or special interest money. A politician who prefers private money can remain on the current system. It is funded by a surcharge on federal contracts. A candidate needs only to acquire a preset number of community signatures to qualify. In Arizona and Maine 70% of their legislators ran and won under public funding, and that included R’s and D’s and Libertarians alike. And it passes constitutional muster, so don’t accept otherwise from your congressman.

Tidbits

– The healthcare bill that passes will almost surely include individual mandates, which drives the insurance market from 85% to 100% of the people. Subsidies will go to the unemployed and low-wage workers, which provides a massive windfall for the insurance industry at taxpayer expense.

– The proposed “public option” will cover only 10% of the people and promises to serve as a massive dumping ground for those people the industry does not want.

– The best solution would have been a single-payer Medicare-for-all system, but cash dollars from the insurance industry kept it entirely off the table. Had it been considered, public pressure would have won the day, but that’s the last thing the industry wanted to see.

– Had we had public funding of campaigns, solid healthcare reform would have occurred years ago.

– It simply doesn’t matter what political party you support, solid nation-oriented political decisions will occur if money is not changing hands.

Health Care Reform 2009: No Bill is Better Than a Bad Bill

Health Care Abroad: Taiwan

Top Ten Enemies of Single Payer

1payer.net - Public Bailout of Private Insurance

The Money Party, The Essence of our Political Troubles

Bernie Sanders Tackles Too Big to Fail in Two Pages

Congressmen Lose Big Bucks in 2008, But Still Rank Among Nation's Richest

We are down but not out.

Tidbits

Have the Rich Won?

Maybe not. A new approach to capping income at the top is starting to gain momentum.