Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Corporate Democratic Party is into snuff politics.The target this month — single payer, Medicare for all.
The motive — protect the corporate health insurance industry.
Democratic snuff politics was on display yesterday on Capitol Hill.
Senator Ron Wyden was on the Hill surrounded by his corporate supporters — Steve Burd, CEO, Safeway Inc., Art Collins, CEO of Medtronic, Inc, H. Edward Hanaway, CEO, CIGNA, Steve Sanger, CEO, General Mills, and Ronald Williams, CEO, Aetna, Inc.
Wyden has introduced legislation that is similar to that introduced by Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
All claim to create universal health care.
None can, do or will.
What's the common denominator between Wyden-care, and Romney-care and Schwarzenegger-care?
Individual mandates.
The individual must get health insurance or the individual is violating the law.
As opposed to single payer.
Which says to the health insurance companies — get out.
We will take care of our people.
If you sell basic health insurance, you are violating the law.
Everyone is in one insurance pool.
Nobody is out.
All are covered.
No bills, no co-pays, no deductibles.
No losing your health insurance when you change jobs.
No escalating premiums when you get sick.
Cheaper than the current system.
With better outcomes.
One approach sets up a system that outlaws individual wrongdoing.
The other sets up a system that outlaws corporate wrongdoing.
The corporate executives were at the press conference to support Wyden's plan and to push their own newly created Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform.
The key element focused on by the CEOs — a market-based health care system.
The goal — derail publically funded single payer legislation that will cut administrative waste.
The single payer bill has 70 sponsors in the House of Representatives and is supported by 52 percent of the American people.
When asked why he doesn't support single payer when 52 percent of the American people do, Wyden didn't blush.
"The people of my state, not a poll, but at the ballot box in 2002, they voted by about 3-1 against a single payer proposal," Wyden said.
Well yeah, after the insurance industry dumped millions to scare people into believing the government was going to take over their lives.
"If you go to a community meeting and take a poll in my state, what people want is coverage like their member of Congress gets," Wyden said. "They want benefits like their members of Congress. They want the quality of care that their members of Congress get."
But can't single payer deliver exactly that?
Mildly irritated by this question, Wyden reminds reporters in the room that single payer is not the topic of this press conference.
(No, the topic is snuffing out single payer.)
"My guess is that single payer is more government than Americans want, number one," he says. (The CEOs nod their heads in approval.)
"And number two — how do you get there from here?" he asks.
How do you get there from here?
Pass single payer.
Wyden actually means — how do you get there from here if you anger the CEOs of Aetna and CIGNA and all of the other CEOs standing behind him at the press conference by supporting single payer?
Well, one way you get there from here is by building political support for single payer.
Hold a press conference with ordinary Americans and announce an attack on the corporate health care system that results in 31 percent of health care spending on administrative costs, that triggers half of all personal bankruptcies, that leaves 45 million uninsured and 16 million underinsured.
None of this by the way was a surprise to long-time Wyden watchers.
Greg Kafoury is a public interest lawyer based in Portland.
"That Wyden would host a health care news conference surrounded by corporate CEOs is typical of his career in politics," Kafoury told Corporate Crime Reporter. "Most of his public life has been dedicated to serving big money. With his constituency in Oregon, he could be a hero of the people and support single payer. The tragedy is that there is no need for him to serve power rather than confront it."
So that's one tragedy — the corporate Democrats.
The other tragedy is the so-called progressive Democrats.
They held a one day conference in Washington, D.C. last week — titled — The Big Con — The Failure of American Conservatism.
It was sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future — the outfit directed by Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey — and The American Prospect magazine.
The day-long event featured a debate between American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner and neocon William Kristol.
The title — Can Conservatives be Trusted to Govern?
Everyone in the room understood the answer to be no.
The unanswered question, only touched on by Kuttner, was whether Democrats could be trusted to govern.
Kuttner grazed by it when he said the $64,000 question was whether the Democratic Party could throw off its corporate funders.
"As the income distribution becomes more concentrated, so does the distribution of political power," Kuttner said. "For the Republicans, that's not a contradiction. Wealthy Republicans pay Republicans to be Republicans and to carry out conservative ideology. Wealthy Democrats for the most part, except on social issues, pay Democrats to be less like Democrats. So, one party starts out with one hand tied behind its back. The cure for that is leadership."
Which was severely lacking at the conference.
Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg told the conference that one recent poll of likely voters showed that 52 percent want a Canadian-style single payer system. And fully 70 percent of Democratic primary voters want such a system.
If that's true, how come even the progressive leaders at the conference who work on health care, like Hickey and Yale University Professor Jacob Hacker, don't support single payer?
"The problem is that you can't just tell people — you are going to have to change all of your arrangements overnight," Hickey told Corporate Crime Reporter. "The problem is telling people that have good health insurance — you have to shift to something else."
The other problem with single payer, Hickey says, is that the insurance companies would fight it tooth and nail.
Hickey says that if you take a pro-single payer stance, "you will be relegated to the sidelines and you won't have any leverage over the political debate that goes on this year."
"The question people have to ask is — are we going to get the political debate heading in a single payer direction, or do we abdicate the field and let Hillary and Edwards and the best of them end up with something like Schwarzenegger's plan, which is all private insurance, or Romney's plan."
But if Edwards had come out for single payer, he would have energized the 70 percent of Democratic Party primary voters who want it, right?
"And if elephants could fly, you would have a flying circus," Hickey says dismissively.
Hacker is the progressive Dems academic guru on health care.
At the conference, we asked him — why not single payer?
"I am someone who is quite appreciative of single payer," Hacker said. "But countervailing that political story, which is certainly a true story, are the political risks of displacing the private insurance of highly paid workers and the fiscal costs of creating the system in one fell swoop."
"The seventy House Democrats who support single payer are a powerful force for major reform," Hacker says. "They should keep pressing for bold action. They only should be willing to talk about compromise at a point in which they think something could really happen and be valuable. My role as a policy analyst is to try and craft something that could be that compromise, something that could be Medicare for many. Keep in mind, nearly 60 percent of all Americans would be in this Health Care for America plan. And projections show at least ten more percent within a decade. So, we are talking about 70 percent of Americans."
Hacker says that insurers and employers will initially resist anything that reduces their role entirely.
"But once you get the system in place, both actors will see incentives to work with it instead of against it," Hacker said.
"With insurers, it's a little more iffy."
So, the political reality of health care in America can be summed up as a tale of Two Big Cons.
Big Con One — the conservatives offering prosperity for all and delivering cronyism and favoritism for the rich.
And Big Con Two — the progressive Democrats, promising universal health care, and then joining with corporate Democrats and corporate America to snuff out single payer.
© 2007 The Corporate Crime Reporter
50 Comments so far
Show AllIsn't it amazing how often the problems e discuss here remain intransigent as long as electoral campaigns are privately funded?
I am for Single Payer Health Insurance. But we are not going to be able to make it available until we do a lot more to remove both Democrats and Republicans who are enamored of, and beholden to, the present system . For those who are profiting so handsomely today at the public, there is just too much money at stake for them to give up the present system without a struggle.
Here in the 6th Congressional District of Virginia, our incumbent Congressman Goodlatte is well supported by special Interests. But, in 2008 Congressman Goodlatte is to face a challenger, Sam Rasoul , who will support a Single Payer Health Insurance reform initiative. This is a hitherto rare opportunity, and we must make the most of it.
Universal Health Care (single payer) is a Free Speech issue.
With the current [non-] system in place, health care is arbitrarily -- and might we add, quite dictatorially -- tied to employment which not only unnecessarily places a burden on business (who haven't gone to medical school), it keeps the supposed beneficiaries (those with steady jobs) in triple fear of losing their jobs: loss of income with consequential threat of loss of home and family strife -- plus the loss of medical care.
This is an interesting formula if your purpose is control of the working population. It is an integral part of the early stages of the Fear Control we see used so much these days. Make people so afraid of losing employment, once gained, that they become afraid to "make waves."
This all dovetails nicely with the oligarch's policy of discouragement of unions with the great difficulty in forming unions. There has been a long history not only of union-busting, but of dismissal of those workers involved in organizing.
Who's going to speak out when you risk losing all that? In Europe at least, even if you're out of work you will not be deathly afraid of getting sick or hurt.
Universal Healthcare, in fact, while not a panacea of life's ills, would by passage itelf, go a long way to help American's health, including disease reduction and incresing life expectancy: it would in one fell swoop lower the collective blood pressure measurably -- and keep it lower.
But in this country, we have lost the notion of doing what is right for the benefit of all. That idea has long been tossed out and today only serves as lip service. Dreams and slogans.
The Democratic Party, led by the nose by the Corporate Democrats, have always played into this game. In fact one could rightly consider their role in the Grand Scheme of American Things as the prime actors in de-fusing the union movement. What!!? Do I hear some indignation? Aren't the Republicans the ones who fight the workers? Sure they do it outright, aiming for the society we see W's gang trying to build. But the Dems...
The Dem's historic oligarchic role is a kind of rear-guard "mopping up" action. Through the fear of losing votes/power, they embrace, yet asphyxiate the union/labor movement. they have done it for decades, slowly reducing labor's role in fighting for workers rights to, first, mere wage-ism, then to the embarrassing and suicidal collective negotiating of contract and benefit losses.
Far from encouraging labor growth and solidarity, Dems USE it as a kind of brand for votes' sake, but really rally to the cry of major campaign money which they will happily take from weakened unions, but which is only a drop in the bucket compared from the funding from those who REALLY get to "vote" in the USA, the BigDollar donors: Big Pharma, the arms industry, Banks, Insurance, etc.
What this country needs is electoral and media reform plus a Party that really backs workers if it wants a clear shot to universal health care. Single Payer? You can count on the Democrats to fight it, compromise it, or water it down. Their "big tent" has workers and progressives in the bleachers only, with first-class and sky boxes reserved for those who pay the media's million-dollar campaign costs, and who get to name the acts.
While there is no Labor Party here that has much of a chance given the poisoned culture left over from the 50's, I give my support to the Greens (see Switch2Green.org) who openly call for the rescinding of the Taft-Hartley Act, a Living Wage, and Universal HealthCare. For Greens, strengthening real participatory democracy and workers' rights is part of cultural ecology. The idea of changing the Democrats from the inside, while cute on the surface, is part of the "big tent" shell game. It has proven futile for decades and wasted millions of hours and dollars of sincere people, better spent on building an alternative -- in spite of all the "rules" that favor two-parties (the duopoly). Oh, they don't make it easy. It is those rules, however, that keep us enslaved. You can't win their game. You have to start to play another one. Today is a good day to start.
"There's class warfare, all right. It's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
-- Warren Buffett
Nobody in Europe is afraid that an accident or a health problem would not be covered by the health care system and basically all levels of the system are controlled by the authorities.In the US companies try to squeeze as much money out of a citizen as possible and they have probably created more levels in the health care system than we have in Europe. As a better-earning person I pay the maximum for social security in my country (which is a high tax country), about 1.300 US per month (costs for social security are capped at this level). For this sum I am in the regular retirement plan and me and my entire family have health insurance, which covers just about everything. If you want tooth implants then you have to pay this for yourself, but no matter how serious your accident or illness is and how long it takes to fix you up in hospital, social security pays it.
There are certain areas that should not be controlled by industry at all, because these areas are too sensitive. One of them is health care, another one is energy. Unfortunately this debate seems to be covered by an ideological blanket, which, I assume, will evaporate as did the Communist blanket.
We don't pay enough taxes to expect that our government will act in our best interests thus, they pander to the needs of those who support them financially. If we had a system by which everyone, individuals and corporations paid their fair share of income tax, we would not have a problem. Look at the people of Scandavian countries in northern Europe, they pay a hefty portion of their income in taxes but in return the government provides services needed to live a comfortable life. The people of the US are a bunch of self centered, self indulgent cry babies who refuse to take responsibility for themselves and their actions expecting the government to pull them out of the fire again and again. Wake up and smell the coffee - didn't Katrina teach us anything? You need health insurance, talk to an insurance broker but don't count on a Congress lining their pockets with cash from the health industry including the pharmaceutical conglomerates to care one iota about you or your children because they don't. Every American needs to see "the new deal" is done and this country is a mean, ugly dog eat dog world in which nothing is given us. That Americans in this day and age still naively buy into the USA of the old paradigm is pathetic. George Washington did not cut down that cherry tree and you better keep a lid on that pot or today's government will steal those two chickens leaving your cupboards bare with all those children to feed.
The US of the mid 20th century no longer exists in the real world.
so where rtdrury is?
"How is it that the entire'K Street'industry, whose stated purpose is that of subverting our elected "representatives", is not seen as immoral,criminal, and damaging to the common good?"
I see a lot of hypocrisy here.
The same people who don't mind CEOs making hundreds of millions a year, and don't see them as immoral, criminal and damaging to the common good, demand 100% purity from politicians. I wonder if they see CEOs as divine who just deserve whatever ..., unlike mere human politicians.
The problem is somethere else, and I think we should address the problem, namely, we must limit the corruptive power of criminal bastards.
If a politician takes so much as a free cigar from a lobbyist he no longer can represent us properly and must step down.
How is it that the entire'K Street'industry, whose stated purpose is that of subverting our elected "representatives", is not seen as immoral,criminal, and damaging to the common good?
I wish people in power would see health care as a universal right rather than a privilege. That's really what it boils down to. There should be nothing corporate or private about healthcare.
You're on the wrong side of this, Ron Wyden. On this you've lost our respect,support, and in many cases our votes. You're wrong, Ron, like you never seemed to be. Wrong, Ron! Wrong!
You're on the wrong side of this, Ron Wyden. On this you've lost our respect,support, and in many cases our votes. You're wrong, Ron, like you never seemed to be. Wrong, Ron! Wrong!
eurobelle, I totally agree (very strongly) that denying coverage is in some cases tantamount to murder. And it's not a hypothetical for me personally, as one with potentially life-threatenting medical conditions and no insurance.
llibyah, I have my own "one fell swoop" concerns, both practical and political, though not really fiscal at all. I'm concerned about the logistics of throwing out the private system and starting a whole new system from scratch, especially when it would be so, so easy to leverage the existing private system to great and speedy effect. I appreciate your testimonial about Medicare, but it's not universal, and many reasonably believe that increasing the volume of coverage so dramatically might stress the Medicare system too much; I don't know, but I do think such concerns are valid.
I don't want to wait, on the other hand, for a new system to be built before everyone is covered. But I don't think there's a need to wait; I think it could be done overnight, almost literally.
I'm not interesting in punishing rich people, but I'm not against it, either. What I am interested in is doing the right thing, which is providing health care for everyone, as quickly and as effectively as possible. I'm focused on that, and have been focused on it since Ted Kennedy ran in '68 with universal health care as his primary policy idea. That's almost 40 years now, and I'm not much older than that (I wasn't voting age then...).
We pay twice as much per capita for health insurance as most other nations and still have close to 50 millin people without coverage.
I know as a former union memeber since Reagan was in office the cost went up and the benefits went down. It's one of the things hurting our manufacturing base internationaly.
Kucinich is the only way to go, but just because he is so progressive, corporate America and especially the mainstream media will relegate him to the sideliens as if he were some quack out of left field who can't be taken seriously.
Having said that, any democrat who doesn't support universal, single payer health care, an immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq and the curbing of the military industrial complex is nothing but a Republican in Democrat sheeps clothing.
Dr. Zimmerman,
I think we should talk about affordable health care.
"When Americans demand free universal healthcare, Americans will have free universal healthcare.'
I agree.
"Getting progressive laws passed is like pushing a boulder up a hill and having it roll back down."
I mentioned above that I find calling universal health care as "progressive" in 2007 as funny. It became just part of life a long time ago in all industrialized and not countries.
I won't buy any talk about some possible displacement, for a variety of reasons, see above.
Plus, the present situation is murderous - people die,
and personally I don't have a problem with moving people who
well ... murder to other jobs. We have to be honest and
openly say that denying coverage in many circumstances is a murder.
Imagine our objections to changes in East Germany, because some Stasi people could loose jobs. It's possible that Stasi, as repulsive as it was, had fewer victims than our insurance companies have.
Single payer will not fly when the amount of political bribes is key. In the unlikely event it passed, it would be subverted by Big Money, like every other progressive piece of legislation.
To keep Big Money out of the picture, we need to institute binding public referendums that circumvent political bribery and carry the force of law. Getting progressive laws passed is like pushing a boulder up a hill and having it roll back down.
When Americans demand free universal healthcare, Americans will have free universal healthcare.
Many Americans who are covered in a corporate healthcare plan are locked into their jobs in a serf like existence, but at the same time feel superior to those that do not have access to healthcare. It is a lot like the poor, poor southern whites that no matter how wretched their lives, they still could feel superior by saying to themselves, at least we are not blacks.
For the information of Jacob Hacker: when I turned 65 I was controller of one of
Hawaii's 100 largest companies. I was well
paid. I had private group insurance with
superb coverage. I was dropped from my group policy and told to sign up for Medicare.
I easily survived "displacing the private
insurance of highly paid workers."
I got good health insurance coverage from Medicare promptly.
Medicare, a large single payer health insurer, already exists so Jacob Hacker need
not worry about "fiscal costs of creating the
system in one fell swoop".
There is NO VALID REASON for not going directly to single payer NOW.
Yes, eurobelle, I agree.
The British Labour Party, which was openly socialist, has been pushing for a minimum wage for a long time - I don't know if the UK yet has one, even with former-socialist Tony Blair as PM. And I think France is already doing what you suggest, as may be other European socialism-friendly countries.
I first considered socialism as a young man when it occurred to me that employees of large companies have no more democracy in their daily lives than did citizens of the USSR at the time, because CEOs and company executives are in real effect a dictatorial ruling class. Elections are not in and of themselves democracy; and they become meaningless if not relevant to one's daily economic life in direct and immediate terms.
Democracy has to be economic. And it has to protect all of us, not just the wealthy. Jesus said that, too. "That which you do for the least of these, you do also for me," and conversely, "that which you do not do for the least of these, you do not do for me."
Government has two fundamental roles, in my view. Authority is only one. The other is provision. That's the role Jesus was preaching when he talked about _basileia_ ("kingdom" in most English translations, but I think it means "the basics," as in infrastructure), and also the role the Constitution was talking about as "promote the general welfare."
Conservatives don't believe government should have both roles. Socialists do.
John, no I am not suggesting. I don't know.
I know I have a problem with some of his statements.
By the way, I was editing, apparently to slow.
Here is my addition.
Besides, maybe it's time to become civilized and start working 35-40 hours a week. Would you agree that this would
be a good way to absorb the displaced workers.
Millions of employees loose their jobs and millions of others become slaves so CEOs can get rich, and there is silence.
Displacing some employees so people don't die seems to be worthwhile.
Ah, actually, I think that outsourcing is affecting this industry too.
eurobelle,
If you're suggesting rtdrury is a troll, then I hope you're right, since he thus makes my point, that it's possible to come to common ground on this issue, politically, in a way that makes the purpose achievable, and in shortest order.
I think health insurance workers serve some useful administrative functions. I agree about CEOS, and more broadly, shareholders, but I'm also not proposing we stiff even them. Single payer shouldn't affect doctors, nurses, and care-related workers all that much adversely, though some better paid doctors may make less. My sister is a pediatrician who works double time for part time pay, and she is enthusiastic (angrily so) in favor of single payer.
The best ideas are win-win; they don't have to be adversarial if all sides are acting in good faith and reason. Of course, that's too often too much to ask, but I hope you get my drift.
"The Corporate Democratic Party is into snuff politics."
No sh$t! My guess is that politics is not only snuff they are into.
I guarantee you that Massachusetts will be collecting more penalty payments than health insurance payments because the program will not cover the necessities that people really need for the premiums they'll be paying.
It's a joke! ......And so are the Democrats who think they'll get voted into office next time around when people get wind of how they're voting on this critical legislation. What idiots!
rtdrury,
Why do I smell a rat?
"The excessively paid workers all across the healthcare industry"
I don't think they are excessively paid.
I do think that CEOs are. I do think that administrative costs are absurd. Yes, they should be cut.
Do you have a problem with my suggestion?
In general what are talking about?
Are talking about insurance workers? or health care workers?
Quite a difference.
What inefficiencies are you talking in general. Can you clarify?
Well said, rtdrury.
There is a huge political difference between outlawing private health insurers, and converting them gradually to serving a more directly public function.
Universal coverage has to happen immediately. Private insurance is largely an oxymoron. But the two can be dealt with without outlawing private insurers; it can be dealt with by nationalizing them as well, with lots less turmoil.
Mergers and acquisitions happen all the time. Single payer can just be more of the same, at least initially. Very little trauma to the economy otherwise. The rework can happen after the implementation begins, if the useful administrative functions of health care insurers are preserved via eminent domain buyouts.
We don't have to make it political Mission Impossible, to prove some kind of point. I want to see it happen. I think that means finding a way that the largest number of parties can live with. And I think that shareholders of health insurers would go along with a buyout, if they knew their future profits were at risk, and if they didn't have an ideological axe (i.e.,. opposition to socialism) to grind.
"I am someone who is quite appreciative of single payer," Hacker said. "But countervailing that political story, which is certainly a true story, are the political risks of displacing the private insurance of highly paid workers and the fiscal costs of creating the system in one fell swoop."
The excessively paid workers all across the healthcare industry will have to take a pay cut, no doubt, because healthcare currently costs Americans twice what it should.
The resulting 2x healthcare savings will effectively re-distribute wealth back to other segments of society where it belongs, deflating the cost of housing, food, education, etc, and increasing equity across the society, which has clear benefits. The spiritual health of the society will grow. Less bad karma. More good karma. Ask Jesus.
The single payer system need not be created in one fell swoop. The system should be phased in gradually with cost/corruption containment.
We're demanding maximum efficiencies in all industrial sectors, not just healthcare. The energy sector is terribly inefficient, as is military, agriculture, transport, construction, and most other sectors in the United States. Up to 80% of our economic activity is unnecessary, serving only greed.
Let's get this single payer thing through and maybe the revolution will spread.
I think your point is similar to mine, Ronald, with the caveat that the US and Canada are different political environments.
I've looked at the Canadian HCA and its history. But one big difference, politically, is that Canadians are not afraid of the word "socialism." Americans are, big time.
If we are really a nation of "government of, by, and for the people," which is the best definition I know of for democracy, then public ownership should be sought as the highest of purposes, I would think. In a less democratic framework or one that isn't democratic at all, government ownership would be among the worst things imaginable.
I think a large part of Orwell's point in 1984 (and other writings - Orwell was a socialist too) was that ideas can be made very hard to come by if name-calling gets out of hand. Americans can't even say "socialism" in polite company, so fundamentally socialist ideas are simply unthinkable, not even just off the table, much as Orwell's NewSpeak suggested they would be.
We're afraid of what we might become if we entertain a broader range of ideas, I would suggest, because we don't know what we are. And that's why there should be a broader message, one that revisits what we are, but from a different perspective - a socialist perspective. And, I think, if done honestly and clearly, lots of people will see things like Adele does, and the politics will become a lot easier.
Example: Jesus Christ was a socialist; that's why I'm a socialist. He hated capitalism. If socialism is a bad thing, then so is REAL Christianity.
Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg told the conference that one recent poll of likely voters showed that 52 percent want a Canadian-style single payer system. And fully 70 percent of Democratic primary voters want such a system.
The " secret " of the Canadian system was not waiting for everyone especially the federal government to agree on "How to tell the Aetnas and the Blue Crosses to get lost " We did it one province at a time.Send a delegate to Regina Saskatchewan or Ottawa Ontario and ask for a copy of the Health Care Act. Sometimes I think you guys would argue about " How many angels can dance on the head os a pin.
Adele,
I appreciate your comments. I have no practical problem with Medicare; the issue is political.
I've been a socialist for most of my adult life. I think about things in terms of socialism first, not capitalism first. This is too small a forum for me to get started.
From a socialist's perspective, it sometimes amuses me, and sometimes angers me, to see what capitalists thinkers do with things that are inherently socialism. I think HR676 is an example of that, frankly, and I think it could be better, but believe me, unless it gets improved, I'll still support it. HR676 is cutting with a dull axe, and is all or nothing in ways it need not be. The end is admirable, but the means will not be politically acceptable; it would be naive to think otherwise.
I tell people sometimes that capitalism in the US died in 1929; what we now have is more socialist than people might want to admit, and it works more because of that socialism than people might want to admit. Start with the bastion of American "capitalism" - the Federal Reserve system, and you're staring socialism right in the eye. It ain't just the USPS and Medicare/Medicaid (electric coops are another example, of course).
Whenever an economic sector has to rely on insurance to continue to exist, it's an incontrovertible indication that free market forces have failed it. That's the case for health care, and the rest of the world knows that.
As for eminent domain, I've also been pushing for nationalizing the domestic oil companies, so that their profits can be redirected to modernizing refineries and finding renewable non-polluting alternatives, things they'd never do themselves if only motivated by private profit. More generally, it's clear that unaccountable private entities, if of the scope and scale of government, are best made accountable, which means publicly owned. The way generally to deal with oligopoly corporatism is to make it democratically accountable, and the line is very fine, but the point is to move motives from profit to public interest, via true democratization, which means public ownership and then democratic control. That's socialism, to me. And eminent domain, which was prescribed in the US Constitution, has been used for similar purposes since this nation was formed, on all levels.
"The individual must get health insurance or the individual is violating the law."
Well that sucks. I was pretty content with my lack of health insurance after I quit my corporate job and became self-employed.
Now what are they going to do, arrest me if I show up in the emergency room? Let's not only provide a shit system, but let's criminalize all the people who refuse to pay thousands of dollars to the insurance corps that own the system. The same insurance corps that provide NO SERVICE whatsoever to the American people, taking 31% of all money spent on health-care.
I feel like our government is run by the mafia... 'Just when I thought I was out, they PULL ME BACK IN.'
Are we going to let corporate Dems that rule the party decide our healthcare issues? Gravel would bypass Dems and Reps to "let the people decide" by making us the lawmakers.
JohnOneOne:
You wrote: "Single payer is not simply Medicare for all...Calling it that makes it an easy target." I'm puzzled. Have you ever spoken to anyone on Medicare who thinks it doesn't work well? It's a godsend for most people over 65. (Of course I'm not referring to Bush's idiotic drug "benefit," just Medicare itself.)
However, I liked your frank statement: "Insurance is socialism. In whatever form it exists, public or private. That should be part of the message..." It reminds me that democratic socialism has at least two very good ideas (and a lot of unworkable ones). They both have to do with life-and-death matters:
(1) Guaranteed Medical Insurance for all citizens and legal residents, paid for by a steeply graduated tax on earned and unearned income on individuals, and a dedicated tax on corporations, with non-profit hospitals and clinics, and private practice physicians; and
(2) Power Cooperatives: People can die without electricity in extreme hot or cold weather. Cooperatives' ratepayers are also the owners, so the power costs are low (no stockholders draining off money). The same arrangement should hold true for heating oil and natural gas -- cooperatives to cut costs and keep poor people alive in winter.
Ironically, many rural areas of America have had electric cooperatives for years, and one of the Kennedys runs a heating oil co-op here in the Northeast. But medical insurance guaranteed to everyone is only available in Medicare, for the elderly and the disabled. I'm with the "socialists" on this one.
In addition, universal health care is presented as radical -
it's not.
SUPPORT KUCINICH!
He is the only one who has the guts to speak against his party lines in favor of the people. Whether its war or healthcare, Kucinich has a stance which will benefit everybody in this country and around the world. Too bad he will be sidelined because ignorant Americans like being a**rap*ed by their leaders.
I heard somebody call him Radical! haha We're so used to people stealing from us that it seems radical when someone puts up a fight for us.
Thank you, Rebel.
Here are some more things to act on to support single payer healthcare reform:
Watch for the dates and place for a National march and an Interfaith Meeting to push for passage of single payer, H.R. 676.
Check to be sure your member of Congress is an endorser of H.R. 676. Read the bill and check the co-sponsors – 69 as of yesterday. http://www.healthcare-now.org/resources/hr676.htm#cosponsors. Call your Congress Member if he/she is not on the list. Call on Chairman Rangel and Speaker Pelosi to hold hearings on H.R. 676 now. FREE CALLS TO CONGRESS 1-866-338-1015
Take ACTION now!
Capital and working people have nothing in common.
Let's stand up as working people and demand to be paid back for all that we have given.
Single payer is not simply Medicare for all.
I chafe whenever I read that description. Calling it that makes it an easy target.
Single payer can take other forms, many of which evolve away from health insurers instead of just eliminating them.
Nationalizing the health insurers, via eminent domain, is one approach. They become federal contractors, just like defense contractors. They just no longer profit just a few wealthy shareholders. No useful administrators would have to lose their jobs, as least not immediately, though eventually, the entire health insurance industry should be largely superfluous.
Medicare for all who are now uninsured (like me) - sure, let's do that. But single payer allows for not changing what everyone else already has, if what they have is brought under single payer via eminent domain.
Insurance is socialism. In whatever form it exists, public or private. That should be part of the message, not something not talked about. Single payer isn't mechanically much different from private pools; it's just that profit isn't skimmed off, nor would it motivate policy. Private insurers are not accountable to those insured; public insurer(s) would be. And where insurance such as this is concerned, the biggest pool is a universal pool, even if it's managed as subpools (e.g., one subpool per current insurance provider). The differences aren't simply black to white, they can be dealt with incrementally, and should be so, as more practical experience with single payer, and thus more understanding of the possibilities and problems, is accumulated.
"we should have a war with the rich"
It looks more and more that this country is heading in this direction.
It is common situation when people wonder whether reforms
are possible (e.g. Russia in the 19th century, and again
the Soviet Union in the 20th century) or not.
It doesn't look that reforms are possible in this country - it might be too late. The population is too enslaved, brainwashed and passive, and the rich are too rich, arrogant and selfish. Usually, the result of such circumstances is
veeery exciting; to exciting for me, but sometimes nothing can be done.
Kathy
The link http://nationalinitiative.us/ is great!!! Thank you SO much. I registered and voted. Power to the PEOPLE!
For everyone else here, please go to this site, vote, and then e-mail everyone you know to do the same. PLEASE. This is truely important as a step to take back our government for the PEOPLE.
Big donors provide the money to win most elections, and the high paying private sector jobs in case their politician loses and goes through the revolving door. The vast majority of politicians in both major parties place their self-interest above the common interest. As long as there are not equal dollars and equal TV time for all candidates the big donors will continue to buy the legislation they want. The people who can legislate change in campaign finance are the people who currently benefit from the existing perverse system. I don't see any way to change that. I wish that somebody else does. Until then we have the best legislation that big money can buy.
we should have a war with the rich. there are many ways of killing your enemy. take away their extreme wealth and they're dead. another way is to make it so noone can give money to their representative or senator or president. it comes out of a pool from tax dollars. make it a crime to give to them or their party. penalty of death. due to the end results of a system called TRICKle down economics, where the rich eat the cake and the rest of us eat the crumbs, children with lower iqs, poor health, no future, whoever causes that sort of reality deserves death. when the rich buy our "leaders" they get more money and we get ruined lives. capitalism has always been a lie.
Required reading for those who demanded Nader's head for refusing to step aside so that vermin like Wyden, Biden, Lieberman(Saint Al's running mate in 2000) could save us.
Granted, nothing could be worse than the neo-cons. But when one's only claim to fame is that one is not quite as bad as a bunch of pathological war criminals, while being owned by the same interests who own the war criminals, then perhaps the system has finally stalled out and it is only a matter of time before it crashes to earth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was Ralph Nader's point a long time ago.
Wyden is a two-faced lying corporate shill. I don't like to call people names, but when he says he's here to defend the defenseless and then surrounds himself with corporate CEOs and defends THEM! Too much!
When he refused to campaign for Bradley for the US Senate because he wouldn't campaign for anyone running against his "friend Gordon Smith" I thought he's in the wrong party. Gordon Smith! The born-again moderate once every 6 years!
I worked hard to pass Health Care for All Oregon and it was polling high so the insurers rushed in and poured a fortune into the fight and won. They didn't show up until it looked like it would pass. I talked with a Portland pollster who told me money will always win. I hope he's wrong, and there is a way we can do something about it.
Check out this link: http://nationalinitiative.us/
And go to Commondreams and read this article:
Ralph Nader:
Let the People Make the Laws
I did that, I've registered, voted Yes for the initiative, made a donation, and will volunteer my time to make this work. I've seen the problems with the initiative law in Oregon. Big money has helped make a mess of this state. But the people are catching on and getting more wary. This federal initiative, however, bans any participation except by "natural persons". People say "What can we do?" Well, here's something we can do. We need a revolution. Here it is. Let's go for it. Let's take our country back. Ralph says only citizen participation will do it. Here's our opportunity. And this is definitely the time.
I just realized that national health care is presented as
a progressive issue. When did it become a progressive issue again?
It was a progressive issue in the 19th century (if i am correct, Bismarck was dealing with it);
in the 20th century it stopped being a progressive issue -
country after country was introducing it; Roosevelt planned etc.
Why is it a progressive issue in 2007?
Kucinich does appear to be the one and only hope - although we would need to elect hundreds of other like minded people to accomplish any "democratic" change.
I really appreciate the single sentence direct statements in the article:
"The individual must get health insurance or the individual is violating the law." Hmmm...
So by representative government mandate - citizens are criminalized for not purchasing corporate products.
"As opposed to single payer."
"Which says to the health insurance companies – get out."
If we represented ourselves in a direct democracy, I wonder what the people would choose?
Kucinich supports single payer and we need to support him. We don't need a stinking corporate syncophant in the White House!
I am ashamed of "my" senator here in Oregon. Wyden has been in corporate pockets for a long time, and has got to go. Easier said than done, however.
Elohi Gadugi Journal
Bastards, crooks, thieves and murderers.
David Sirota points out in his book ("Hostile") that 60-70% percent of Americans support national health care.
I once witnessed something interesting.
Sirota participated in a panel on the destruction of the
middle class. He mentioned the numbers above.
Half an hour later, one of the participants when asked: "What to do?" boldly suggested: "Medicare for children."
Poor retard-d Harvard professor doesn't know that children need both health care and parents.
I said it before, and repeat: "I am not going to vote for anyone so retard-d that he/she can't pronounce in 2007 (!) "universal health care," and I am taking with me as many people as possible.
And by the way, single payer should be a boon to the US economy, especially in those industries that have international competition.
The cost of doing business will decrease, possibly dramatically.
The current implicit incentive and trend to hire younger and thus healthier but also less experienced workers will be mitigated, and that should also help.
And so on.
Things like this should also be part of the message, but I haven't been hearing anyone present any of it. It really shouldn't be hard to argue the merits of single payer, but no one is doing it.
Don't call it Medicare for all. That isn't true, and it doesn't help.