Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Traveling Forum on Healthcare Visits Vt.
Patrick, Douglas co-host, back effort
BURLINGTON, Vt. - A retiree from Concord, N.H., spoke of the agony of having to beg a foundation for money to help her afford the drug she needs to stay alive.
Governors Jim Douglas of Vermont and Deval Patrick of Massachusetts led a healthcare forum yesterday at the University of Vermont in Burlington. (Toby Talbot/ Associated Press) The head of a Cape Cod medical supply company wanted to know how much emphasis the Obama administration would place on home healthcare.
A nurse recounted the successes of a program in Vermont that helps patients with chronic diseases take better care of themselves by exercising, getting the right medications, and eating properly.
"I think there should be more of me," Mitya Schoppe, a chronic care coordinator in Lyndon, Vt., said with a laugh.
The White House, seeking to engender political support for a healthcare overhaul later this year, brought its traveling health policy forum to New England yesterday. Governor Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican, and Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a Democrat, co-hosted a forum with about 400 people on the frontlines of healthcare about how to make sweeping changes to the existing system.
The free-flowing and often passionate conversation, which lasted two hours, was far more detailed and lively than the relatively formal one held at the White House earlier this month. The doctors, patients, business people, and government officials repeatedly emphasized similar themes: the need to prevent and manage chronic disease better, attract more primary care doctors, simplify bureaucracy, and find a way to get everyone access to treatment at an affordable price.
But the point of the forum was not so much to give the White House a pipeline for new ideas - though President Obama's staff has been studying the Vermont and Massachusetts health systems closely. Rather, the goal was to help set the stage politically for what Obama has promised: to make significant changes to the existing healthcare system.
Yesterday's forum allowed two governors from opposing parties - both Obama allies in charge of states that have undertaken bold experiments in healthcare - to act as cheerleaders for the White House effort.
"The time is now," Patrick said at the end of the forum. "The movement is happening."
"I believe by working together we can accomplish a goal that's . . . an economic and fiscal imperative for the future of our country," Douglas said.
After the forum, Nancy-Ann DeParle, the point person for healthcare reform at the White House, said the two governors' participation served a significant political goal.
"There has to be support for the direction our leaders are trying to take us," she said. "You have two governors here who have figured that out."
The Obama administration is also trying to project a sense that it is aggressively soliciting public opinion as part of an "open, inclusive, and transparent process," as White House aides put it - even though, for the moment at least, the bills being written in Washington are being assembled privately by congressional leaders.
The Obama White House is trying to collect public feedback in a more organized and consolidated way than the Clinton administration did 15 years ago, when Hillary Rodham Clinton drew criticism for the amount of time she spent in sessions across the country. Late last year, as he was preparing to take office, Obama invited volunteers to hold community discussions about healthcare and created a website to invite further comment. The White House is asking for additional feedback through www.healthreform.gov.
Yesterday, presaging what is likely to be a sharp debate within the Democratic Party in the coming months, a good share of the crowd in this liberal state - as well as about 200 protesters outside - enthusiastically cheered for Canadian-style government-run healthcare, or at least an option to buy into a public insurance plan like Medicare.
Obama has said it is not politically feasible to get rid of private insurers, but in his campaign he proposed letting people choose to buy into a public insurance option - something insurers view as potentially fatal to their business.
Deborah Richter, a Vermont physician and advocate of a Medicare-for-all style system, said the country can no longer afford to squander precious healthcare dollars on administrative hassles associated with private insurance. If everyone is "deemed worthy" of insurance, then the government should come up with a single benefits package for everyone. "Why would we even need private insurance?" she said.
Patrick, serving as referee, gently suggested that the landmark 2006 Massachusetts healthcare law might offer a different route to the same goal.
"In Massachusetts, the only debate we used to have, for decades, . . . was: 'What's a perfect solution?' And if we can't get to that, nothing is worth trying," Patrick said.
Massachusetts eventually settled on a kind of hybrid solution that has expanded existing public programs and uses a combination of market reforms, regulations, and subsidies to help lower-income people afford private insurance.
DeParle asked how many people at the forum were uninsured. Only a couple of people raised their hands. The problem with a Medicare-for-all style system, she said, is that most people already have insurance and they just want it to cost less - but they're basically satisfied.
"They're worried about a disruption, they're worried about a big change," she said.
- Posted in
19 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://www.SinglePayerAction.org
Single payer, national health insurance is the only thing that will work and insure that every person has at least some coverage. If the sulpher breath of the insurance companies is not totally and permanently removed from the equation, no real change is possible. The photo above, however, doesn't inspire confidence. The white Republican in the red tie and the black Democrat in the blue tie. Why do I feel like I'm caught in an amBush?
Single Payer Universal Care is not "on the table".
"Obama has said it is not politically feasible to get rid of private insurers..."
It's socially feasible, but that does not count!
This is just propaganda to make folks happy about the measly crumbs they might be getting.
"DeParle asked how many people at the forum were uninsured. Only a couple of people raised their hands. The problem with a Medicare-for-all style system, she said, is that most people already have insurance and they just want it to cost less - but they're basically satisfied."
BS, BS, BS...
At least 50 million un-insured or under-insured, with more losing insurance everyday as their jobs evaporate. Many being denied treatment or treated like guinea pigs as the big pharma industry pushes it's "ludes". At least 50% of all personal bankruptcies are because of medical bills after a serious accident or illness, and many had "insurance".
"They're worried about a disruption, they're worried about a big change," DeParle said.
Get your head out of your ivory tower, you twit.
Hey folks, DeParle is the WH propagandist, er, um 'point-person', for healthcare "reform". With a statement like that, how much reform is going to happen? NONE
Most Americans, including doctors and medical associations...pretty much everyone but an insurance agent, wants radical change in the healthcare system. That change is to single payer, universal coverage. That would be the politically prudent choice, if the people actually mattered politically, which we don't. Not in a kleptocracy.
peace
You certainly are taking a chance with your current system. Should you fall prey to grave illness you will find out, and in short order, how little coverage you actually have, and I dont care with whom you are insured.
You seem to ignore the fifty percent of bankruptcies that are directly related to health issues, you further fail to note, it would seem, the numerous instances of denials of service, both diagnostic and treatment related, that exists under our current, inefficient and expensive system.
Lastly and maybe most importantly please consider the forty five million of us without any care at all, eleven million of them children. You and I are paying for that omission.
good comment--I was going to make a similar comment about DeParle but you pretty much covered it--and the fact that this article simply regurgitates a lot of propaganda.
You notice how this article mentions Massachusetts:
"Massachusetts eventually settled on a kind of hybrid solution that has expanded existing public programs and uses a combination of market reforms, regulations, and subsidies to help lower-income people afford private insurance."
But leaves out the fact that according to a PNHP that system "is in fact faltering badly and should not be held up as a national model for reform..."
One other observation regarding what Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said--or didn't say referring to that same plan:
"Patrick, serving as referee, gently suggested that the landmark 2006 Massachusetts healthcare law might offer a different route to the same goal."
Patrick knows damn well this plan in not the route to take. The fact that he doesn't admit so here is just another example of the insidious way the profit-motive of big corporations combined with Obama charisma corrupts and co-opts everyone.
Massachusetts Is No Model for National Health Care Reform
Public Interest Groups Urge Sen. Kennedy to Introduce Single Payer Legislation
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/02/18-21
Here is what they don't want you to know.
Health insurance companies own hospitals, doctors clinics and nursing homes!
The insurance industry is blackmailing the country because they also own the medical infrastructure!
http://www.gohealthinsurance.com/insurance/carriers/Humana
That's just one example.
Who owns the hospitals in your area?
Now that corporations are down and out and begging, it is a good time to get single payer passed. When Al Franken gets past the Republican appointed justices and if we can get Conyer's bill through the conservative Democrat blue dog bastards, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate might get it passed. Obama will sign it.
There seems to be a general consensus that there are but two options...... single payer Canadian style health care, or or bankrupt private insurance system that milks vast sums of money out of people and fights to prevent deliver of service, then orphans those who have paid in for a lifetime because they are too costly to cover. The truth is that there is a third option, and probably the best option. The larger a system is the more unwieldy it is, and the lest responsive it is as we see in banking and in industry...... There truth of the statement "crime wouldn't pay if the government ran it" is indisputable. Government operation of the health care system is not the answer.. nor is commercial insurance and for profit health care. The obvious answer.... the one nobody seems to be talking about is the coop..... I give you the "Health Care Union". The Health Care Union is to the health care industry what the credit union is to banking. You join the health care union of your choice... or the only local one... whatever... You are a member, and an owner, and the heath care union owns and operates a clinic or several, but the size is restricted. The health care union charges you a monthly premium as a member, and the health care union hires medical personnel, and provides service to members. The health care union cooperates with an association of local and national health care unions to own and operate hospital(s), and specialty centers of various descriptions cooperatively, and perhaps even medical schools and such. Health care unions have "roaming agreements" just like cell phone providers allowing you treatment when you travel, and in addition they participate in a common fund that is to be used for various crisis situations such as a bail out in time of disaster when their resources are stretched beyond their ability to cover them. The government is involved only to the extent of subsidizing low income people, and providing back up for the system, and monitoring finance and operation. There is no billing other than your monthly premium which may be deducted from your paycheck along with your SS, and forwarded to the health care union of your choice, and a nominal office call fee which is paid at the desk. The health care union requires annual physical check ups for all members, or the premium goes up..... You get your physical notice, and if you do not respond within a specified time, you find yourself paying a higher fee. They also offer kickbacks to members for good health habits.... non-smoking, evidence of weight control and exercise, etc..... The object of the health care union is to keep you healthy.... and keep costs down by providing prompt preventative care and proper treatment.
Howard
I have been saying this...I thought I was the only one!
First off anyone who is suggesting that the government would be running the health care indusry is pushing scare tactics. The government would only collect data and furnish payments for medical services deemed necessary by you and your doctor. I don't see anything wrong with that. At present, I am told I have the best insurance policy in the county and maybe even the state. I still have to pay a co-pay to walk in the door, pay any costs that are above what insurance corp wants to pay. I have a multi-tiered drug cost scedule with the highest priced drugs requiring the largest percentage co-pay. Even with this superior insurance,I fear bankrunptcy if I would come down with a serious chronic condtion or be involved in a serious accident. This is assuming I keep this job in this current depression. I also have to see only the insurance company approved doctors. I have been directed to some real piss poor doctors in this way while the ones I liked I could no longer see. Universal single payer is the only solution that makes long term sense. Insurance companies are like toll bridges, they only collect money and do nothing to help you get across the bridge and in many cases do everything they can to keep the $$ and still not let you cross. Insurance company = Vampire and their business products are neither desired nor required.
tnmoderate
Universal Single payer would save you money by not having to pay for private insurance premiums anymore. In a trickle down world like many righties like to envision, the savings that are realised by your employer should trickle it's way into your paycheck as higher wages. These higer wages should more than offset the taxes needed to pay for health care. Also, once universal single payer is in place the FICA cap could be lifted so the wealthy can start to pay thier fair share too. And lastly, a healthy society is of direct benefit to you. As "Moses" put it. Sick slaves make few bricks, dead slaves make none. A healthy society would make workers more productive, use less sick days, be easier to train etc. Please stop defending the greed of the American health insurance industry and get on board to help your brothers and sisters who are suffering terribly in the richest country in the world for want of medical care.
Many many people are insured but still can't get health care. There are insurance policies that actually cost more in premiums than they might pay out (according to the policy) - some have caps as low a $1,200 annually. Having insurance does not assure access to health care.
The programs being considered at the moment are bailouts for economically troubled insurance companies. AHIP insists that purchase of health insurance be mandated, but refuses to allow consideration of a public plan as an option. As companies that provide some form of insurance as an employee benefit become financially squeezed or bankrupt, and an increasing number of people can't afford insurance, the insurers are pushing for bailout, under a different banner.
It is totally absurd to insist on retaining for-profit insurance companies. They
are the problem. They are the reason the U.S.pays so much more in medical costs than other industrialized nations, and gets so much less in return. We don't need to provide them with profits and money for lobbying to increase those profits.
H.R. 676 is government-funded, privately delivered health care. People would have their choice of doctors; treatment would be decided between the doctor and patient without insurance company interference; pre-existing conditions would be a thing of the past. It is fair, cost-effective, simple and efficient.
It's time to stop the political posturing and pretense and adopt H.R. 676.
One more thing.... Universal single payer would also get rid of the ridiculous and cruel lifetime caps.
I know a girl that is undergong treatment for a particularly nasty brain cancer. She is expected to survive, but her lifetime cap is almost completely gone. If she gets sick again, the insurance company just wants her to report to the gutter in a quiet and orderly manner to die.
Private health insurance is a criminal enterprise masquerading as a legitimate business.
Its all symptoms of the elites' class war aggression against the people. When will the hunted become the hunter?
"The problem with a Medicare-for-all style system, she said, is that most people already have insurance and they just want it to cost less - but they're basically satisfied."
Who's satisfied? Uh Huh! We're also satisfied with the military, finance, and energy catastrophes! 100 million USans went to the voting booths to vote for elite candidates who are elected only to put lies in the USans mouths! DeParle has 100 million spoonfuls of lies! Open up, USans, and get your medicine from Dr. DeParle!
"There Are No Alternatives!!"
peacekeepertwo- Here is another angle to this debate. I live in the State of Oregon, on the Local news they had a story about problems with AIG in this state. while they were looking up Complaints against AIG in the State,they found one of the Health Insurance Company's that is part of AIG, was refusing to pay Doctor Bills Forcing Clients to take legal Action Against that Company. My Point is Private Insurance Companies, can no longer make Profit from Health Care.
I agree Single Payer seems like the only way to go and that is what I am pushing for. But Obama's comment about lack of political feasibility is also correct. We can't get a single Senator to sign on to Kuchinic's Single Payer Plan in the House. Corporate America, media, and the Heath Ins. Industry are succesfully keeping Single Payer off the table. So we have to keep PUSHING Obama to do the right thing. The public option can not be removed from the equation though the Insurance Companies have drawn their line in the sand against it. It will be continued to be talked about as though it is really happening, but the public option will be Medicaid, a second tier for the poor. We must be allowed to chose the Public Option - but not an option that puts my money into for profit health insurance companies, only into the federal government to pay my providers, i.e. Medicare.
Some other countries that have healthcare for all, retain health insurance companies - but they are not for profit, and all the countries have stringent price controls.
No, if you think you should have Single Payer, show up at one of these few "public input meetings". Only five in the whole country, and very scripted. Find an organization fighting for Single Payer and join them in solidarity. If we are there by the thousands, they have to listen, even if "single payer" is not on the table. Two have happened, three to go. Come April 6 -Los Angeles. Your life depends on it.
Sorry, in my last comment I said Kucinic's Single Payer House Bill. I meant Conyers.