Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSingle-Payer Healthcare System Supporters Plan Nationwide Protests
Supporters of a nationwide single-payer healthcare system have called for a national day of action today.
Protests are planned at the offices of health insurance companies in at least nine major cities.
They are expected to include sit-ins and other acts of civil disobedience.
Some local groups are even planning so-called "die-ins," which will involve protestors lying down and playing dead to represent the Americans who die every day because they can't get adequate healthcare.
The demonstrations are being organized by the group Mobilization for Health Care for All.
They are endorsed by such organizations as Code Pink, Physicians for a National Health Program and Progressive Democrats of America.
Mobilization for Health Care for All claims more than a thousand people have already signed up to participate in the protests, including at least 700 who are willing to be arrested for the cause of nationalizing the U.S. healthcare system.
More than 30 people have already been arrested at similar demonstrations earlier this month.
Official protests will be held throughout the day in New York City; Washington, DC; Palm Beach, Florida; Boston; Cleveland; Portland, Oregon; Los Angeles; Reno, Nevada and Phoenix, Arizona.
Meanwhile, debate over healthcare reform legislation continues to rage on Capitol Hill.
Today, lawmakers are expected to meet behind closed doors in an effort to merge a measure passed by the Senate Finance Committee this week with another Senate bill.
Mobilization for Health Care for All is opposing the Finance Committee bill, which does not contain a so-called "public option."
33 Comments so far
Show AllWe need, rather must have, single payer if this nation is going to survive in the world. Sadly, the money interests are winning out and the protesters are getting little or no media coverage of their efforts, for their bill(s) (H.R. 676 and its Senate companion, S. 703) for their trouble.
It looks as if a new tack is needed. So...
How about a double-edged action - one to get media attention for health care and push back at the Wall Street crowd at the same time?
I'm suggesting a "plastic strike". Minimal to no use of credit cards. Go back to paying by cash and check, buy only essentials, use credit cards only for real emergencies, and see how long it takes to make an impression on bank profits (even the economy as a whole). We, at the bottom of the heap have little left to lose; our homes and jobs are either going or gone, health care is becoming less and less available....
I think it's worth a try - they may notice that we're here.
These are all excellent posts on Single-Payer Health care, in particular, the contributions from Canada.
I commend Common Dreams for printing this article on Single-Payer health care when so many other so-called "progressive" online news sources are strictly pushing "public option".
Protesting at insurance companies' corporate offices are effective because they are being inconvenienced. This is the whole idea of a protest. Remember, "if it bleeds, it leads" in news. Congress and Obama can shut themselves off to the people, but the insurance company employees and executives may be able to be reached and made a little uncomfortable.
I also agree that any member of Congress not supporting Single-Payer health care HR676, championed by Dennis Kucinich, should be voted out of office.
Then, in 2012, Obama should be voted out of office and Dennis Kucinich should be supported and elected President.
I think that the ongoing sit-ins and protests at the insurance companies are the only way to get attention toward the Single payer medicare cause, and then only if there is a planned escalation to broader protests as more supporters are drawn to the cause. We are fighting obscene amounts of money spread throughout Congress. I agree with some of the previous comments that this "reform" monster be allowed to die in committee and to elect more progressives in 2010 coupled with more intense protests that will push for single payer passage. Then with that kind of strength in numbers it will be time to take on the banks and other monied corporate interests that control congress while also bringing an end to the wars and illegal occupations and incarcerations. Humanitarians certainly have their work cut out for them. I think it begins with educating the masses; breaking through the corporate msm propaganda.
I wonder: what happens to a country when it loses the capacity to make adjustments--to reform itself? Whatever the congress passes as "health care" reform I fear it will be far less than what's needed, marches, phone calls, etc. notwithstanding. All reform depends on reforming the system.
Bob
If I can add something. Two years ago I had a detached retina. You show see how fast they move on that. I went to my GP at 1PM , was examined by a opthalmologist by 5PM who scheduled me for repair at 8:30AM the following morning. He also chided me for waiting so long see my GP. Yes, you may have to wait a bit for a hip replacement but if your leg is broken you go to the front of the line.
I hope I can make this short. I too am Canadian at 73 years. In 1998 I needed an abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. (look it up) I had been assessed every six months for a number of years and the aneurysm had grown to the point of possible rupture and my surgeon said it was time to operate. Suddenly, I decided that I did not have confidence in this surgeon (fear I guess) so I went to my GP and asked for a new referral. My GP suggested a new surgeon and I felt confident with him. He sent me for another scan and wanted to operate the next month but I had a vacation planned so I asked if we could wait a couple of months. He said that was OK and made the necessary arrangements after warning me of the risk I was taking by waiting. When I got back from vacation I had the operation, spent a week in hospital in a private room because of the seriousness of the operation, went home where a nurse visited regularly for a few weeks to check on progress. I have no idea how much the surgery and hospital cost because only the insurer which is the government gets a bill. What happens to you is up to you and your doctor: the government is only there to pay the bills. I wish you guys the best in your efforts to get single payer insurance.
As a Canadian on this list, I can only shake my head in disgust - why do you have to go through all this? All industrialized nations in the world to the best of my knowledge have a national health-plan that covers everybody. My wife of thirty just passed away from cancer. She had been given several MRI tests, Cat-scans, ultrasounds, and a countles number of cemotherapy sessions. Durign her final days, she had to take painkillers, such as oxicodin and later morphene. Also during the last days professional nurses checked her daily. We were supplied with homemakers for a few hours every week while I had to leave the house for a few hours. It all did NOT cost a penny (Except preparation of medication @$4.00 each) and there was NO waiting - when the oncologist ordered an MRI test, I could take her to the hospital the next day. Could we have afforded this in the U.S.? Of course not or the premiums would have killed us before that. Friends, don't believe the fear-mongering by your private insurers about the Canadian, nationlist system!
Why do we have to go through this? Because sickness care is more profitable than health care, and profits are more important than people down here.
We haven't been able to address the issues of care down here, we've been stuck arguing about the financial aspects of the medical insurance companies. Reform efforts have a long way to go before they can break the grip of the medical industrial complex.
Thank you for your contribution and please urge other Canadians to do the same. Our Congress would have us believe that Canadians die before ever seeing a doctor, but they fail to mention the number in the U.S. who die because of lack of affordable insurance. My sincere condolances on the loss of your wife. It must have been difficult to post your answer, but it was an inspirational post and deeply appreciated.
when? where?
Maybe if the United States caught up with other progressive countries with regards to health care the insurance companies would be out of business, thousands of jobs lost, and would leave all of those people without work, BUT they would still have health care, not like the unemployed today who have lost their insurance along with their jobs. The American people want single payer insurance reform. What is it that Congress does not understand about that one simple fact? What don't they get?
They won't get the millions of dollars in their campaign coffers that they have grown so fond of. Adequate health care must be provided for every man, woman and child in this country regardless of color, race, creed , sexual orientation or prexisting condition. Nothing else is aceptable! Our Congress has played their last hand. The chips are down and this bill will go to the highest bidder and unfortunately it isn't us. We know how and why we will not get what we want. The next election is going to see the majority of Senators and Congress men and women working for the insurance companies or their lobbying firms.
At this point we should kill whatever health care proposals are now in congress. Then...
* Support a bill to allow corporations or individuals to opt into Medicare. That's a true public option.
* Provide up to a 100% subsidy to individuals who are uninsured or underinsured
* Work to pass HR676 and SB703 single-payer
I'm sure that some of you will prefer anything to nothing, but I feel just the opposite. I think a bad bill is worse than no bill at all. At least for the moment. What we are now seeing are bills that mandate coverage... a gigantic transfer of wealth to the insurance companies eclipsed only by the 2003 Medicare Drug bill.
Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
I agree with you totally, Mr. Lohman. A bad bill means we're stuck with a bad bill for God only knows how long. What is the point? Better to kill this bad bill and refuse anything short of what we know will work for everyone. As it is, we are paying now for the uninsured, anyway. Why not do the right, sensible, and humane thing? That is to cut out all the useless pencil pushers and unqualified "deciders," which would mean we could better afford to insure all.
Right on, Jack. Good post.
MichaelC
I agree and we need to let it be known we want the opportunity to return to the issue after the 2010 elections. We want time to oust all the politicians who work for Corporate America at the expense of the general public. We need to let them know that if we see them taking money from the health care industry it will just work against them.
I know why the insurance companies and the Congressmen they bought hate the public option. It's greed and fear. What I do not understand is why the ordinary person could possibly oppose the public option. Obviously, they are being influenced by the manifold lies and misdirections deliberately spread by insurance companies. BUT, simple common sense should reveal that every year every person (except Congressmen) could lose their health insurance either by losing their jobs, it becoming too expensive or the insurance carrier simply choosing to cut them off for some reason. After that, the average person is just one health emergency away from bankruptcy. We desperately need the public option, not the fake “reform” now before the Senate.
No reform, no bill.
We need 1 Million folks in DC. Not blocking people from trying to get to and from work. Get off your ass! See you there!!!
As an U.S. citizen I want to know our elected officials are legislating policies that honor the PEOPLE of our country and respect those of others. Honoring our people by protecting us from predatory institutions like insurance companies, finance corporations, domestic enemies who are bent on stealing our well being and happiness to enrich their bottom lines. WE vote these characters into office for this, and then some turn around and take the bribes (campaign funds) and work against our best interests. It's time for an overhaul for most of them and their priviledged attitudes that make policies against populations, worldwide...the enslavement of the human race to enrich the greedy must end, so life on this planet can be enjoyed as our creator intended...with respect and kindness, empathy and community.
I just hope they've studied George Lakoff about messaging. For-Profit healthcare is nothing more than ambulance-chasing in disguise. I hope they get this simple and understandable message out.
What's the disguise, now?
Here's a thought...and I'd like to know what others think about this idea....
If we have single payer, which in principle I'm totally in favor of, this will irradiate the insurance companies....which I'm also very, in principle, in favor of. But here's the thing....if we get a piece of legislation passed that has a public option, or even if it doesn't, but it does have the other provisions that are included in Max Baucus's bill, such as not allowing insurance companies to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, gender, cutting off benefits when people switch jobs, etc, etc....then it's going to put the crunch on the insurance companies because one thing still remains and that is the fact that Americans are sick. Diseases like Breast cancer, prostate cancer, coronary heart disease, colon cancer, diabetes, etc are all pretty much exclusive to "western" cultures and it's all mostly due to our horrible "western" dietary tendencies. Our dietary tendencies are shaped by what we can and can't afford and since crap food (fast food, high fructose corn syrup, highly processed foods) are all subsidized by the gov, that's what is cheapest and that's what people buy when they're on a budget...and it's killing us. (Read Michael Pollan's book In Defense Of Food...a must read for this discussion) SO...if we are still eating the way we are and getting sick as a result, then the insurance companies are still going to have to pay for us to get better, assuming we have coverage. This is going to catch up with them and they're going to realize that Americans being healthy is much more profitable than Americans being sick...at which point, ideally, they'd step into the legislative fight to get the subsidies for CRAP food stripped and have them given to organic farmers, etc. Considering the fight to end subsidies for crap food is going to make the health insurance reform fight look like a walk in the park, wouldn't it be good to have the health insurance companies on our side when the time comes to take on Big Ag and Factory Farmed Foods, I.E. Crap Food Inc.?
Does this make sense? This is, of course, assuming that Washington would have the guts to even think about taking on Crap Food Inc....which is probably a pipe dream to begin with. But if they had the pressure from the health insurance industry pushing them to do so.....?
I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this.
In the first place, Pearl, I for one have trouble understanding why anyone would be in favor of insurance companies in the matter of health care when their very purpose is to make profit on the people they insure. Insurance companies produce nothing, add nothing to the health of the insured, have a great deal of power in literal life and death decisions, and they have a lot to do with keeping costs down even if it means the loss of human lives. In a democracy it is shameful that anyone is allowed to profit through the potential misfortunes and illnesses of others.
Insuring a family's health is not the same as insuring the family car.
It's true that many health problems are brought on by unwise choices pertaining to what people put into their bodies. When we got serious about the genuine health consequences of smoking, we moved mountains. Anyone who decides to smoke today cannot say they didn't know better. As a retired Florida public school tutor, I think children had a really powerful influence over their parents' and grandparents' decisions to quit smoking. Children In Florida schools were very involved in environmental issues, also. They crusaded for the effort to save the almost extinct Florida panther and to stop the injuries and deaths of the gentle manitee by careless speed boats. I used to look at the dismal food served in the school cafeteria and think what a great opportunity wasted to teach good nutrition and food habits to children. (As an aside, there was a discussion on the subject of school lunches during the Reagan Administration when the question arose as to whether or not ketchup could be considered a vegetable. This was at a time when we were seeing children bused in from the poor section of town coming to school without breakfasts and knowing they got very little to eat when they returned home.)
But there's more than poor food choices involved in the rising cancer rate in America. Cancer has more than one cause, some contributions, for example, may be psychological in nature such as extreme stress, depression and grief. Others are known to be environmental. My nephew, a career chemist, never smoked, drank alcohol, used drugs, ate fast foods, drank soft drinks or indulged in junk foods of any kind, and yet he became a cancer survivor. Cancer was extremely rare among the Japanese in pre WWII times, but there was a surge later after the bombs were dropped on two major cities. A Japanese college exchange student from Japan lived in my home for two years during which time I got to know several of her college friends. All of these girls were born in Japan in the years immediately after the end of WWII. They all returned to Japan. Four of them died of cancer while still fairly young as did both of my Japanese friend's parents.
We continue to treat our environment very badly--at least as badly as we do our bodies. I think it's much easier to educate young minds who are in school to prepare them to make wise choices later. They will help to influence their parents' choices, also. It's much better to have this knowledge when young than to wait until habits are set and so are minds. You are to be commended for drawing attention to the need to educate people on the matter of nutrition as it relates to health and health care. I think we are already beginning to see an effort to awaken people to the folly of neglecting their physical health while the environmental activists are working hard to call our attention to environmental health. We all need to do more.
Nope. Single payer. Only. No compromise. If we keep the insurance companies, they will continue to own our health care [sick care, actually]. Out with them. Single payer. Those bahstids have made enough money to retire on three times over. And as someone else here says - if workers lose their jobs, they won't lose their health care. It is way past time we joined the rest of the civilized world and made health care a right. This country ranks fiftieth in life expectancy, behind every country in Europe and most of those in Asia. We rank about 40th in Infant Mortality Rate. These are not stats from some left wing crazies. Go to the CIA World Fact Book, or look in their World population data sheets. We rank way down in all health stats. All of them. Except for one statistic. Cost per capita, since ours is more than double the rest of the civilized world COMBINED.
MichaelC
Pearl of Earl, in specific response to your question, although premiums cannot be raised due to gender, preexisting conditions, etc., I do not believe the Baucus bill sets a cap on premiums in general. There are a few instances of privately-run, universal healthcare systems in the industrialized world, but they have premium caps: insurers compete based on services only. The reason for the public option is to provide competition for the private insurance companies to keep prices down absent a cap. Private universal systems with caps work reasonably well - an example is Switzerland - but they still don't get the dramatic % of GDP cost results of true single-payer systems. While the US spends about 15% of GDP on healthcare, the Swiss are next in line with 11%. Single payer systems such as Britain and Taiwan run at about the 6-8% range. Taiwan is an interesting example since it was recently enacted - they put all options on the table and picked the one that gave their citizens best value for money.
Its why we won't get single-payer and can't have free healthcare here. The system as a whole is designed around human bodies--as commodities. The major contradiction here is that government would in charge of maintaining the health of the citizenry, while at the same time it and its corporate partners are also in the business of making us fat, sick or injured--e.g. bad food (controlled by Big Ag, P&G, chemical companies, etc.), war, (MIC), crime (Big Legal-commercial prisons, legal system, etc.), Big Telco (no opposition in the media, cell phone companies--injuries and death because of talking, texting while driving). On and on.
In short, we aren't human beings to these people, we are commodities. The government can't afford to keep us "well" by making us sick and injuring & killing us at the same time.
We really are just cattle to them.
American Capitalism: its a sick joke.
I thought of something along these lines upon awakening this morning. What if everyone started taking better care of themselves; started eating more healthy, quit smoking, began to moderate their drinking of alcohol, began some sort of stress management, etc.? Then we wouldn't be using the healthcare providers, saving the insurance companies millions of dollars. Then it hit me; Fuck the insurance companies. I don't want to save them millions of dollars, I want them gone!! If having insurance is mandatory, they still win! I have paid for insurance most of my life, and my family and I have seldom used it. We already enjoy good health, but my premiums are the same as everyone else, which is how insurance works. It is a legal Ponzi scheme. The only one's who suffer from the populace having good health is the healthcare profession. If we stay sick, healthcare and insurance(through increased premiums/denial of coverage)prosper. If we have good health, we and insurance prosper. The common denominator of prosperity in both equations is the insurance co. Fuck that! HR 676 will provide healthcare, and wellness counselling and rid this country of the parasite of the health insurance industry.
PoEO: You're attributing WAY too much rationality to the people who run the insurance companies. Do you really think they would think this through?
Besides, the CEOs of insurance companies together with the CEOs of the food and ag industries, along with the CEOs of many other industries, constitute a Brotherhood of Thieves. These CEOs feel considerable allegiance to the Brotherhood of Thieves, and only in dire circumstances, like, say, a threat to their stock options, would these CEOs actually turn against each other.
Actuaries crunch #'s and handle statistical inferences just fine, thank you. But externalizing problems costs insurance companies less than resolving them.
They'll raise the rates and invest in Dunkin' Donuts.
While I support these folks, the corporate media will cover only the teabagging counter-protestors.
q
they have to be careful [-- they might be branded Terrorists by the FBI and CIA and "HOMELAND SECURITY"....
and prisons are waiting for PRofit out of their bodies incarcerated and turned into "responsible PAYING inmates" working for slave wages .....to "enhance the economic recovery".........
Maybe if they bring teabags with them, the police will leave them alone?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Don't you mean teabags, assault rifles and Glenn Beck T-shirts?