Home

Dem Platform Fight Leads Guaranteed Healthcare Update

Posted by Shum Preston on August 1, 2008 - 12:41pm

In today’s roundup from the movement for guaranteed healthcare, Progressive Democrats of America lead the charge to put real healthcare reform in the Democratic platform, a Hawaii activist reports on single-payer organizing at Obama platform meetings, a Massachusetts RN warns that the healthcare mess in their state was created when “moderates” cut a deal to protect insurance profits, and Senatorial candidate Jeff Merkley endorses HR 676…though he also endorses the terrible Wyden bill, from his future fellow Oregon Senator.
 
Oh and health insurers keep laughing to the bank, with Aetna reporting another few hundred million in profit. 

It’s all below! 


 



Delegates from 30 states so far are supporting the Democratic party platform for guaranteed healthcare, and there’s more to come.  Congressman John Conyers, a certified healthcare hero and single-payer trailblazer, is the first signer.

Norman Solomon writes about the efforts, which are being led by Progressive Democrats of America, who testified today before the platform committee.

The statement urges the convention to adopt a platform plank to "guarantee accessible health care for all" in the United States, to "create a single standard of high quality, comprehensive, and preventive health care for all" -- and to "eliminate financial barriers that prevent families and individuals from obtaining the medically necessary care they need."

Elsewhere, a Hawaii activist went to one platform meeting and found widespread support for single-payer healthcare.

Also, you might recall, a few years ago Mitt Romney came up with a terrible plan in Massachusetts that masqueraded as healthcare reform, while in reality serving to sell insurance products.  Sandi Eaton, RN, from the Mass Nurses Association updates us on the Bay State's problems:

Massachusetts pays the most in the nation for its health care, and yet it’s plagued by an ongoing crisis of access, affordability, and quality….If Massachusetts is a model, it’s a model ofwhat not to do.

The problem was that the assembly was not allowed to consider Canadian-style single-payer health care—which would eliminate private insurance companies—as an option. It was off the table.

So a new bureaucracy was established, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Board, with broad powers to set rates, approve cut-rate private policies, and define affordability.  Subsidies are offered on a sliding scale for those earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty line (about $63,000 for a family of four). Those earning below the line are covered free.

The tangle of private insurance companies, with their expensive bureaucracies and profits, remains in place.

Other than the hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget subsidizing insurance corporations, how’s that working out?

For many, paying for health care without the threat of bankruptcy or giving up other necessities of life remains impossible. Governments and many employers are staggering, too. Rising costs for public employees’ and retirees’ health insurance has led to round after round of service cutbacks, affecting every resident who uses public services. Attempts at cost-shifting have provoked strikes by teachers and turnovers in city halls.

We should at all costs avoid this mistake on the federal level.  Remember: do no harm.

Up in Oregon, Dem Senatorial candidate Jeff Merkley (shout out to his nurse wife!) has endorsed HR 676.  Go Jeff.  Unfortunately he’s also endorsed the so-called Wyden bill, which is just terrible, but I guess I can’t blame him for rooting for helping out his home state buddy.

And in case you’re wondering why insurance corporations want to keep our current healthcare system…Aetna’s second-quarter profits rose to $480.5 million.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dead-broke and or just plain dead at the alter

Submitted by lucretiamott on August 2, 2008 - 6:36am.

Thanks Shum and especially Sandi from MNA for her update on her state's failed experiment with providing the state's un-insured with actual health care. The plan, approved several years ago under Republican Govenator and failed presidential Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, sounded a lot like the proposal that went down in flames in January under our Republican Govenator Schwarzennager. These plans are failures because they subsidize private insurance corporations by opening up the state pocket book (budget) to their direct control. The state through a nice sounding "connector board" that basically "connects" patients to private insurance plans is in effect selling private, health insurance at the state expense.

Like a private dating service using the public's money to make the first date with no over-sight if the relationship turns sour, these proposals keep the insurance corporations in charge and the patient is eventually, dumped and left dead broke at the alter when they cannot afford the rising costs of their care. This is public welfare program for private insurance corporations at the expense of the state's public health system that is being left high and dry by cuts and more cuts to state programs as money is funneled into private plans.

Insurance corporations, like the big oil companies, are picking the pockets of the public. It is time that we send a message to our so-called representatives that the state budget is not for sale and not a welfare check to insurance corporations nor oil companies who are laughing all the way to the bank with the profits at the public's expense.

HR 676 and SB 840 provide the best frame-work to restore real health care for all . It is time to stop subsidizing well-fare to corporations who eventually leave us dead broke, or just plain dead at the alter.

»

I've got news for you...

Submitted by Paul (not verified) on August 2, 2008 - 5:51pm.

When you actually have Medicare, you are creating profit for insurance companies. Who do you think administers all the claims and cuts the checks to doctors for people with Medicare? Think its a federal employee? think again... Medicare contracts out those functions to private insurers and administrators. So this communist manifesto about evil profit making corporations is a weak attempt to rile up people's emotions with little ground to stand on. enough already.

how is it corporate welfare to pay for a service that is being rendered? Welfare is charitable.. i.e. getting something for nothing.... these insurance companies are providing a service to people. if they don't like the service then go somewhere else!! Call it anything but welfare.

And how you can say that the legislature wasn't allowed to consider a single payer system? that's ridiculous. They are free to craft any legislation they want and try to make it progress to a vote. Is it possible they might have thought it was a bad idea?

»

Red baiting on the list and fear mongering

Submitted by lucretiamott on August 3, 2008 - 6:11am.

Stooping to desperate measures like using the words "communist manifesto"
is a sure sign that despite the rational arguments given on the list upon why the Massachusetts plan failed and why allowing insurance corporations to continue to control health care un-abated are using the lowest common denominator themselves by red-baiting. Medicare shouldn't be privitized in the first place and those on this list who support single-payer aren't supporting a "communist manifesto" plan. That's plain ridiculous. It is this kinda of fear mongering and pandering clap-trap that ignores the problems caused by decision making based on making profit by insurance corporations. In the state of California, single-payer, SB 840 was defeated by the signature of our Republican governor after a majority of our legislature passed it. It is on the way again. The public's opinion has shifted on SB 840 and it is going in its favor. Our state health committee rejected a giant Massachusetts plan in January 08 despite a lot of arm twisting by the Governor. It went down in flames by a huge margin.

It is corporate welfare when the business of our state government is set up to be a cash register for the benefit of private companies who then turn around, make a huge profit on the backs of patients, services not rendered. I do agree that insurance corporations do do a service in general. They make a huge profit on our pain and suffering. It is fine when you are well and don't need a doctor. The problem arises when you become sick.

Stop the red baiting.

»

Stop the rhetoric

Submitted by Paul (not verified) on August 4, 2008 - 10:04pm.

I'm only commenting about the stupid rhetoric of the original post and now your comments. To paint making profit as an evil endeavor is socialist crap. Do you work only to pay your expenses? Or do you actually try to improve your financial security and make a profit?

it is not corporate welfare. cash register???? can you please temper your comments with a reasonable analysis. profit margins in the insurance industry are 5-15%. Don't take the horror stories of a few, which are partly caused by bad insurance policies and partly caused by simple frustration with not getting what you want (Hello baby-boomer "me" generation.. I'm talking to you...) and try to use that as a basis to completely destroy an entire industry which is filled with innovative people trying to improve health in America.

when you think unionized government agencies will serve their customers better than motivated private individuals you are very wrong and this has been proven time and time again. do you have any compliants with the post office, TSA, American automotive companies?

»

Somewhere out there, is a cold war bomb shelter...

Submitted by DeAnn McEwen RN on August 4, 2008 - 12:44am.

that's missing an occupant. Communist Manifesto? C'mon Paul, last time you attempted a high jack of this blog, wasn't it the Socialism boogey man you hauled out from behind the iron curtain?

The terms "socialist" and "communist" have been defined in a variety of ways. When reading them it is important to know what the writer means by them. What do you mean, Paul?

To Karl Marx socialism was a more comprehensive term, and communism was an advanced stage of socialism. Socialism prepares the way to a Communist society by nationalizing the means of production, (mines, factories, and farms, for instance), and putting them under the control of the people Marx viewed as the producers of wealth: the workers. Good idea? But, I digress.

I believe we were trying to discuss health care; specifically the benefits of a single-payer system. Publicly financed, privately and publicly delivered, based on medical need--as a public service. Outsourcing administrative services? So what! MediCare is a public program, with public accountability that operates with only a 3 or 4 percent overhead, depending on which study you read. That's still significantly more efficient and cost effective than the insurers by a long shot.

However, I have to admit that you're right about the insurance companies providing a service---actually, the proper term is not "service." By law, insurers have a "fiduciary duty" to maximize their profits in the interest of their share holders. There's no added value for patients to have middle man insurance bureaucrats interfere with their treatment by skimming off money for shareholders, marketing, and exhorbitant executive bonuses.

Getting something for nothing? Corporate welfare? Then, what do you call raking in premiums and rescinding policies, denying payment for services provided after the fact, and routinely denying legitimate claims as a manner of achieving those profits? Most public interest law attorneys like LA's City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo call it fraud.

Vulnerable, sick, and injured patients aren't in a position to go shopping for health care whether they have had their insurance rescinded, or whether they were ever able to afford the purchase of insurance in the first place. How depraved and hard-hearted can a person be to hurl such an epithet: "if you don't like the service here, go somewhere else."

"We commit ourselves to any wrong or degradation or injury when we do not protest against it." Lillian Wald,(1867-1940), American Social Reformer/Founder Public Health Nursing

»

You're wrong

Submitted by Paul (not verified) on August 4, 2008 - 10:25pm.

let me try to address your scattershot comment.

I'm not highjacking anything. The posts invited comments, so I commented. I'm well out-commented by those favoring single payer systems. why do you call me a hijacker?

There is more to Socialism and Communism than Karl Marx. He was but one of many contributors to an idea.

The idea to use our government take from the wealthy and distribute to the non-wealthy is what I'm talking about. Good idea? subject of much debate.

Don't say 'efficiency' with such enthusiasm, because in this case, efficiency comes at a cost. Picture an 'efficient' grocery store... would you have five different kinds of apples available? probabaly not... I see about 10 kinds of spaghetti sauce in the grocery store... is that bad or good? It's certainly different from europe or australia...

Again, i aruge that having a 'middle man' actually adds value... a single payer system still has a middle man... just a single one. when you have middle mean compete for business then you'll get a choice of good a bad ones. With only one.. you just get what they feel like.

And 3-4% administrative cost is not comparable since medicare insures much more costly people. Adjusted for age/severity, the medicare administrative ratio is not nearly as good as you quote. and of course they simply just define what they want and let the private sector figure out how to administer it (so the private sector innovates while the federal staff remains lean). Medicare is also not subject to premium tax, as private insurance is. There are SO MANY ways that comparing the Medicare administrative costs is not comparable.. but such subtle, important details get lost in the general discussion.

I agree that when you don't have employer coverage and you are sick then it is too hard to obtain coverage. That we agree on... but a single payer system is not the only solution.

»