healthcare can become a civil right if you let your officials hear from you
Dave
A dear friend of mine has expressed something similar as you've written below. He laments and grieves how the dems caved and didn't get universal health care when they last controlled WH and congress. I hope dems learn and don't repeat history; otherwise, the party will get that taint again (and not likely to ever escape that double whammy).
I know a former KC financial exec now working on Bay St. in Toronto (their Wall St.) who raves about Canada's (however imperfect) systems and social justice policies. I also know three Canadian execs now working in America. Sad commentary: Two of those execs still choose to maintain their healthcare in Canada (with supplemental policy of emergency services here and Air Ambulance back to Canada). Third exec would do the same if it wasn't for policy through spouse.
Most other civilized nations seem to get the obvious importance of cradle to grave health care (as they seem to muster the sense of togetherness, and agree w/ Moore's "Sicko" point that medical services should be in the same ball park as libraries, fire houses, police protection...). It's sad to think how the insurance lobby can get away with decades of abuses in America that they're forced to greater accountability and civility in Canada.
Health care for all should be a civil right.
Our nation's other problems would have profound positive consequence (impact on day to day lives and on families, top source of foreclosures and bankruptcies is medical, kids paying attention in school from no distraction or reduced resources from dollars going to their or their parents' medical matters, vets and shamefully neglected returning soldiers, job loss/transitions would be less traumatic, like ALL other nations needing less prisons if some of those prisoners/individuals got the services and meds they needed, taking care of the environment so there’ll be less cost and health complications... insert a near infinite list here).
In any direction you take it, healthcare is that crucial a domino. Consider six degrees of separation. Can you think of one thing that isn’t or wouldn’t be substantially impacted in some way or other by healthcare?
Consider that stressed/trapped/injured animals are the most dangerous. Imagine the creativity/freedom/productivity of a population that can do a coast to coast sigh of relief if they knew that they had the care and protection of preventative and medical services. In context of the billions per annum spent on Iraq in reaction to losing lives at (and since) Ground Zero (or rather for Bush’s willingness to seize the opportunity for oil and defense lobbyists), we need daily protection from the healthcare Ground Zero that claims millions of lives each and every year before and since 9/11.
Healthcare rightly should be top priority (close or tied with capital campaign reform --with healthcare reform being an obvious case in point of how profoundly K Street and campaign financing has deeply impacted the quality of life and history of America).
Let ‘em all know what you think: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml. Consider telling them that no matter how much you may have agreed with or appreciated them for other issues, that you’ve decided that you will hold them especially accountable at the polling booth for healthcare and campaign finance reforms. To ignore this majority opportunity would be highly irresponsible. It’s time for EVERYONE to have faith, speak with a collective thunder, and do the right thing.
Dave
PS Check out the Oreo cartoon to get the neat “cookie perspective” of how our healthcare, education, treatment of seniors in their retirement... would be the envy of the world (rather than the repeated shameful lapses/disregard/avoidance). Don’t hesitate to forward the cartoon/emails/activism to your friends and politicians. We’re in it together.
http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/
http://www.truemajority.org/ (regularly has other insurance and healthcare related links and activism that you can add your voice to)
________________________________________________________________________
FW: GKCDFA IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
-----Original Message-----
From: GKC...@googlegroups.com [mailto:GKC...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Anne
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:52 AM
To: Greater Kansas City Democracy For America
Subject: GKCDFA Re: IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
Very sad to see single payer slammed by a 'progressive' group. And
because they are afraid of the commercials that will be aired by the
insurance companies.
Sad and lame.
The reality is that any health care reform will likely cost me more
money since my employer pays my premiums and I only pay for doctor's
visits and prescriptions, etc. So any tax increase to pay for health
care reform will be an additional expense. And I know a lot of people
in my situation.
So personally, this is about doing what is morally right. I am willing
to pay for health care for my fellow citizens. It's what citizens do
in a country that cares for its least as well as its most capable.
Single payer is the most fair system we can adopt. Caving in to the
insurance companies is sad. And this points out why Democrats lose on
so many big issues. The right wing knows they will eventually cave. Is
anyone else as tired of this as I am?
Anne
From: GKC...@googlegroups.com [mailto:GKC...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of PS
Sent: Monday, June 08,
2009 12:51 PM
To: gkc...@googlegroups.com; df...@googlegroups.com
Subject: GKCDFA IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
By Bernie Horn
June 8, 2009 - 10:23am ET
The Deadly Results Of Right-Wing Extremism
June 02, 2009
We’ll Win Health Care in 2009 with a Strong, Coordinated, Progressive Movement
by Bernie Horn
June 01, 2009
Also Worth Reading
The Unfairness In Privatization—A Small Example
by Bernie Horn | June 04, 2009
Bernanke Is Sending the Wrong Message
by Bernie Horn | June 04, 2009
States Are On the Frontlines In Dealing With the Recession
by Bernie Horn | June 02, 2009
Why Can’t Workers Have a Free Choice?
by Bernie Horn | June 02, 2009
more»
The question most frequently asked by progressive activists at last week’s America’s Future Now conference was this: We hear Obama and congressional Democrats talking about a public health insurance option, but why aren’t they talking about a single-payer system like H.R. 676 sponsored by Rep. John Conyers? Why is single-payer “off the table”?
Let’s begin with an obvious truth, stated here by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman:
The alternative [to the Democrats’ public-private health care plan] would be single-payer, aka Medicare for all: a payroll tax on everyone, and a government insurance program for everyone. Wouldn’t that be simpler, easier to administer, and more efficient? Yes, it would.
Single-payer is the cheapest and simplest approach. So why aren’t Obama and the Democrats pushing it?
Some say it’s because the Democrats don’t want to offend the for-profit health care industry—that Democrats in Congress have taken too many campaign contributions from insurers. As Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues:
Single-payer is simply considered not realistic for a politician. The medical industrial complex just won’t permit it.
Well, it’s certainly true that health care executives, lobbyists, and their hundreds of thousands of employees don’t want to be put out of work. They would all fight their hardest against single-payer. But that’s really not the main reason why Democrats are avoiding such legislation.
Some say it’s because we can’t convince moderate members of Congress to vote for single-payer legislation within the next few months. Darcy Burner, executive director of the Progressive Caucus Foundation, published an important diary on Daily Kos urging progressives to stop “attacking progressives [who are] fighting for a public option” because:
There are not 218 votes for single payer in the House. Single-payer cannot happen in this environment right now, regardless of how passionately its advocates want it.
Darcy, the Progressive Caucus, and everyone on Capitol Hill know this is so. But again, that’s really not the main reason why Democrats focused on a hybrid plan a few years ago.
The main reason is—American voters are scared to death of single-payer.
Even though I’m sitting in a quiet room writing this, I can hear some of you objecting loudly! Friends, we are on the same side. We all know that health care should be recognized as a human right. We all know it is a national shame that more than 50 million Americans are uninsured, and 25 million more are underinsured. We all know that even Americans with insurance are struggling with soaring health care costs, and that insurance and drug companies are putting profits before people. We all know that we need to change the system.
But we progressives are not the ones who need to be convinced. In any great national political debate, there are partisans on our side and partisans against us. To achieve victory, we have to persuade people in the middle—and they don’t know what we know about health care.
Consider three central facts:
· Nearly all persuadable voters—those who don’t automatically side with or against us—have health insurance. (In fact, about 94 percent of voters are insured. The uninsured, unfortunately, don’t tend to vote.)
· About 3/4ths of insured Americans are satisfied with their health insurance.
· When Americans hear about a health care proposal, they immediately think “how is it going to affect me and my family.” That’s their overarching, overwhelming concern.
That means when average American voters consider a new health care policy, their paramount concern is that the policy allows them to keep the health insurance they have. Union members—who usually can be counted on to support progressive policy—are among the most adamant that they be permitted to keep their health insurance. Why? Because unions tend to negotiate better insurance for their members than the rest of us have!
No matter how good a single-payer system might be in theory, these voters are easily turned against any plan that they think might force them off their current health insurance. That’s what the 1994 “Harry and Louise” ads were all about—claiming that the Clinton plan would force Americans to “pick from a few health care plans designed by government bureaucrats.” The Harry and Louise ads thoroughly scared voters—and that’s why they were so effective.
How do we know this? Over the past two years, progressive groups have conducted an unprecedented amount of public opinion research about universal health care. Usually it’s the conservatives who have all the polling data. This time, our side has the upper hand. In fact, I believe progressive advocates have more polling, focus group, and “dial group” research on this than on any issue in history. That research shows that, even if a single-payer proposal starts out with a majority of Americans in support, it won’t hold majority support after the insurance industry clobbers it with ads.
When voters hear this debate, they already have preconceptions and stereotypes in their heads. A proposal that’s anything like single-payer makes them see negative images—long lines, surly bureaucrats, and denial of services. It will take years to “educate” voters that single-payer wouldn’t do that. And we don’t have years—if we fail to pass health care reform this year, the opportunity may not present itself again for a generation.
The bottom line is that in order to get persuadable voters on our side, our health care plan must give everyone the choice to keep their private health insurance if they want to. If voters think we’re giving them the Canadian or British health system, we lose—that’s why Obama talks about creating a “uniquely American solution.” And we also lose if voters think we’re offering “Medicare for All”—the phrase has been thoroughly tested and it just doesn’t work.
That brings us to the idea of a public health insurance option. If you support single-payer, the very best thing you can do is fight like hell for the public option. Just as Americans overwhelmingly want the choice to keep their existing private insurance, they also overwhelmingly want the option to enroll in a government-sponsored insurance plan.
Single-payer describes a financing system. It’s the most efficient system. But the important goal isn’t financing, it’s coverage for every American. A couple of years ago, Paul Krugman concluded that:
In an ideal world, I’d be a single-payer guy. But I see the chance of getting universal care, imperfect but fixable, just a couple of years from now. And I want to grab that chance.
I agree with the Nobel Prize-winner.
DEAR READERS: I want to hear your response about single-payer versus the public health insurance option. Please weigh in by clicking "discuss" and posting a comment, or you can email me at bh...@ourfuture.org. And if you're for the public option, please sign Gov. Howard Dean's petition at Stand With Dr. Dean.
The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.