Health care, more specifically the public option, has rivaled Iran as the principle media topic of the last week. I wrote about the public option in “Nothing Good Just Happens” below.
The Republicans say there will be no Republican votes for a health care proposal that includes a public option, and many Democrats are acting weak as well. It takes courage to confront a wealthy entrenched interest like the health insurance industry and courage is always in short supply among elected officials.
I want to point out another reason why it is crucial to have a public option.
The insurance companies are acting like any other profit-making entity in a capitalist system. They are trying to maximize profits. It is neither moral nor immoral. It is what profit-making companies do. It is what their shareholders want them to do. If providing good health care coverage makes them the most money that is what they will do. If denying the largest number of claims makes them the most money that is what they will do.
Since making campaign contributions and hiring connected lobbyists helps these companies make money they do this as well. Health insurance companies are huge obstacles to health care reform because under the current system they make a killing…so to speak.
A major goal of health care reform is to cover the uninsured. If there is no public option, the uninsured will get subsidies to buy private health insurance.
Your tax dollars will be going to increase the profits of private health insurance companies.
This will give them more money to contribute to the campaigns of members of Congress who vote for this plan. It is like a kickback. The health insurance industry will have more money to spend on the members of Congress who then will be able to protect the system that gets public money to this corrupt, wasteful industry.
It is a vicious circle. Without a public option we will be rewarding a major part of the problem in our dysfunctional health care system. And since they will be even wealthier it will be even harder to fight them at a later date.
People often think that elected officials have a tendency to do the right thing. In fact that is almost never the case. What elected officials have a tendency to do is what will get them re-elected. The only way that what will get them re-elected coincides with what is the right thing is if the people make it so.
Our members of Congress need to know that a vote against an effective public option will mean that they will lose their job. You have to tell them.
Don’t be shy. They work for you. They need your supervision. Here are the numbers of the Colorado members of Congress. If this gets to you outside of Colorado you can use Vote Smart to the right on this page to find out who represents you and get their phone number.
Senator Bennet: Toll free 866-455-9866
Senator Udall: Toll free 877-768-3255
Rep. Degette: 303-844-4996
Rep. Markey: 202-225-4676
Rep. Lamborn: 202-225-4422
Rep. Perlmutter: 202-225-2645
Rep. Salazar: 202-225-4761
Rep. Coffman: 202-225-7882
Rep. Polis: 202-225-2161
Call all of them.
Tell them that you favor the public option. Ask what their position is on the public option. If the person on the phone can’t tell you, ask them to find out and call you back. Ask if the Congressperson or Senator takes campaign contributions from health insurance companies. If the person on the phone says they don’t know, ask them to find out and call you back.
Don’t accept bullshit. You wouldn’t accept it from another employee. Be polite but persistent. Politicians try to please everyone. I know. I was one.
The person who talks to you may say, “The Senator is still examining the topic.” Or, “The Congressperson is in favor of health care reform that will cover everyone.” These are not answers to the question.
The person who you are talking to will probably do everything possible to avoid admitting that the member takes contributions from health insurance companies.
They may say, “Well I don’t know.” Or, “If he/she does, I’m sure that it doesn’t affect their vote.” Tell them you want to know, and if they need to find out, ask for a call back.
Keep track if they call back. Report how responsive your legislators are by commenting here.
Ask your list to read this post at www.thismatters.com and make these calls as well.
Everyone needs to do this. No one else is looking out for you.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
"If there is no public option, the uninsured will get subsidies to buy private health insurance. Your tax dollars will be going to increase the profits of private health insurance companies."
And this is wrong or inefficient! Our tax dollars go to jet fighter manufacturers, asphalt and highway construction companies, large corporate food providers, private education providers and many other entities which we mostly agree do a better job than the Government.
Private Health Insurance companies are a “corrupt, wasteful industry”. Apparently, in your view, more corrupt and more wasteful than our Federal Government! I think we’d find more examples of government waste in 10 minutes than would ever be found in our whole private insurance system.
We want government to provide health care because they have a great record with our veterans and the VA hospitals? Medicare is a model of efficiency? Amtrak and the US Post office are sterling models of how Government can make ventures profitable?
You think the big bad insurance company won’t listen to your reasons for more health services try Uncle Sam!
My belief is that what ever system that we have to monitor, administer and pay for health care it should favor those who are the best at allocating scarce resources. It is not the best at either denying claims or providing platinum health care.
There is no moral basis on which a politician can justify voting for legislation that would guarantee a "piece of the action" to private insurance companies, especially when tax dollars are a source of that action. The exploitation of their customers by private companies at present is reprehensible, and their pricing practices have left nearly 50 million people without insurance. If a public option is as bad and inefficient as industry advocates would have us believe, then it should be a walk in the park for the private sector to woo customers into their own coverage in competition against the horrible public option. However, the squealing of the industry and its supporters shows clearly that private carriers know that they cannot compete agains a system that provides services at an affordable cost. That's why they squeal.
well reasoned and well written, Ken. Let's hope that there is groundswell of voices for a real public option
While I believe that singe-payer health care is the only true fix for our broken system, I also think we must urge our congresspeople to support the public option as a start, before it becomes seriously watered down by the congressional process!
KR
Yeah, Bill Koch, those fighter jet manufacturers NEVER have major cost overruns. And the Sterling companies like Blackwater and Halliburton don't overbill for services.
For your information the Social Security System is very efficiently run. And those on medicare are quite happy with it.
The government runs services a whole lot better when they run them as opposed to privatizing them.
I am a 65 year old woman insured under Medicare and Anthem as a secondary provider. Next week I am having surgery. My physician has recommended a 23-hour stay after a 2 hour surgery. Medicare will not cover this 23-hour stay. Anthem follows Medicare. I offered to pay for the stay out of pocket. Out of pocket pay to the facility is not allowed by Medicare!
The physician arranged for a home care medical provider to meet my in my home the same day as surgery. Medicare denied this also. I offered again to pay our of pocket. This is not allowed. this is the element of control by government that most Americans fear. It is right to fear government interference.
Hey Bill;
FYI, the problems at Walter Reed aside, my dad spent his last few weeks in the VA hospital in Denver and his care was exemplary. My stepmother currently has coverage through Tri Care, the VA option and she is really happy with her plan. I know many people who can't afford health insurance, who have been cancelled or denied coverage due to a serious condition (MS, cancer) or who have had their premiums jacked up so high when they got sick that they couldn't afford to pay for it. I own a small business and every year the premium goes up while the coverage goes down. For just myself and my husband, we pay $12,000 per year for insurance, and we aren't even sick. Most of my employees opt out of the plan because even with us paying 50% of the premium, they can't afford the coverage. And what about losing your job. If you lose your job, you lose your coverage - oh wait, COBRA is an option at $800 per month; a real bargain, especially when you are unemployed. The current system is bullshit and has to change. If you don't want the public option, then keep paying your private provider. Thank you Ken for your insightful comments on this issue
It's a good thing when official are willing to comment, and receive comments, all that do, should be commended
Gee, I guess what's wrong with the public option is that too many would choose it, making it difficult for private health insurance to compete. So, in order to save competition we must destroy it.
We do not now have a free market in health insurance; we have an oligopoly. A few giant companies control the market and do pretty much as they please in setting rates and terms. If the market were truly free and competitive, premiums could not have increased at the rates we've seen.
"Insurance" is, of course, a bad model for the financing of health care. What makes insurance work for accidents & fires is that there are fewer people who prove to need it than buy insurance. Unlike those, everyone will eventually experience the need for lots of health care. (And, health insurance guarantees health no more than life insurance ensures life.) So long as we pretend that the insurance model works, we're locked into a mindset that prevents rationality.
test
(This post is from Jeanne Phillips) I don't know how to add a post to your blog, will ask a youth and do that next time. Here let me thank you for your efforts, most immediately for the Health Care comments. It is so frustrating to see comments like the Medicare patient's complaints about what Medicare doesn't cover as if someone else does and will if only government stays out of it.
Medicare saved my life and kept me out of debtor's prison. It helps even more if one can afford a medigap policy and it helps even more if that policy is through a nonprofit HMO. I wish someone would write up a thorough study of Denver's Kaiser Permante (a lot better than California's) where the thorough, extensive, fast, cutting edge care is amazing. From prevention to education to fast access to care and no hanging around in waiting rooms, to electronic records, routine measures by techs of vital signs (and of organ functioning in specialty clinics), after hours and urgent care available on weekends, on and on...... care far more thorough and encompassing and convenient and team-coordinated than I ever had from excellent physicians in private practice, who simply cannot individually do the same things. The doctors control the care, units make decisions about how to use their budget, and no stockholders are clamoring for more profits.
So my vote is for Medicare introduced over a period of years for every single citizen, maybe working back from 65 and up from birth. Since insurance stock holders cannot apparently be left hanging out to dry, nor their highly paid executives (though there are tempting examples of that happening these days), they could continue to provide Medigap coverage with specified levels of coverage as is the case now, competing on cost and quality. Some incentives for doctors to organize into teams large enough to afford scope and depth of care should be included, and the benefits of nonprofit HMOs should be rewarded with added support. For folks who lack the funds for medigap coverage, some public help could be provided for that, geared to income.
Ending the ceiling on social security taxes would go far in paying for all this, and would restore at least some of the progressive nature of our tax system. Heavy income taxes for the highest 2% would make possible some of the nursing home care that Medicaide is now pressed to provide.
Since the best plan will never happen, I will make those calls for a public option. But I would rather see no change than a "reform" that trades some improvement for a lot of worse features. To pass junk just because O'Bama and the Dems need a win is abhorrent.
Thanks for your emails and blog and continued public spirited efforts. You and Andrew should have been made our Senators, as polls indicated, and I hope next voting time we can do something about that.
Jeanne Phillips
I guess when push comes to shove I really favor a single-payer plan. I want the controlling, looking-out-for-their-bottom-line-but-often-not-for-their-policyholders, private health insurance companies to be gone. I reacently read a well-written letter to the editors in the Denver Post from someone from Canada. She gave many lucid reasons for a single-payer system. I know we could never get it passed. The President knows that, too. But it still might be our best solution.
If it is so important to keep the insurance companies working and stock holders making money, why not turn the insurance companies into public utilities and regulate them like the electric companies. The could be guaranteed a profit margin, and there would be regulations about what they supplied and how they operated. Their efficiency and ability to offer extras would be the factors that would attract more customers.
The best option is for HR676, Expanded Medicare for All, or universal single-payer health care, in Congress now and signed on by about 80 representatives. Call Representative Betsy Markey and ask her why she has not signed on. Google HR676 and you will find it also covers mental health, dental, vision, and long-term care. We already know Medicare has administrative fees of 2-3% whereas insurance companies take about 30% of our health care dollars.
This would eliminate employers' needing Workmen's Compensation along with prohibitive employee health cost, would eliminate need for the medical rider on auto insurance, need for lawsuits to cover possible future health costs, and reduce homelessness caused by people with mental health problems which go untreated and land in jails which are very expensive and do not treat as an illness with medical follow-up.
Also, if the Democrats would use the 51 votes instead of wanting 60 votes, Al Franken might be seated because the Coleman holdout would not be such a deal-breaker.
Reading all of the beforewritten, completely qualifies the solution of eliminating "income" tax and replacing it with an "Equitable Consumption" tax.
Every rant, concern, speculation, threat, fear of unknown the writers express, can be resolved with a tax overhaul.
Not one good thing is born out of "income" tax. It is the main tool used by bad Republicans, Democrats and Socialists - to maintain their choking control over you.
With an equitable consumption tax, everyone - - hookers, illegal immigrants, tourists, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists et al, would equally contribute to the rebuilding of a healthy America.
The split can be easily made at the cash-register, yet never make the retailer a tax collector.
State would collect ALL tax; each state would have their own independent "to the feds" percentage agreement; feds would have to re-calibrate and go back to the original way America structured federal > DEFENSE, HIGHWAY/SKYWAYS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE!
Federal must get the hell out of states rights...which include - of course-education/welfare/medical.
Until this is done, the socialists will absolutely make their final immersion into America, and America will become nothing more than a mirror image of Chavez, Putin, Castro type regimes.
Those who refuse to free us from "income" tax, be assured they can be identifed as socialists in want of these evil types of regimes.
Those who agressively get with an equitable consumption tax, be assured they're good Democrats and Republicans with backbones. Statesmen and women who "sincerely" have your best interest in mind!
Get these two groups sorted out and then support the Democrats and Republicans with backbone!!!!
Hello, voters--
In the 1970s I lived for 5 years in France and had a baby there. My brother-in-law and his wife were a doctor & nurse. We saw "socialized" medicine up close and personal during that time--and had many family arguments about it. Then, as now, my husband and I found it to be cheap, comprehensive, simple, and not burdensome to the medical professionals (much less paperwork). In spite of his initial resistance, my bro-in-law has been one of the wealthiest and most respected people in his town, has lived a fine life, raised 4 kids, taken long vacations, and has--now!--nothing to complain about under the single-payer system. Folks who are scared of socialized systems are listening only to the horror stories that pepper every system on earth--even the one we have now, which leaves people uncovered & sick and gives us lower quality care across the board than more enlightened nations. All systems are imperfect, but under the single payer system, exploitation and profit are not the over-riding goals. Furthermore, since all of us who are insured are paying huge sums for it, I don't understand the panic about the famous trillion: I'd rather pay taxes for full SP coverage than insurance premiums for almost no coverage... I am Linda from Longmont.
Sometimes the simplest aspects are the most jarring. Without a public option, then the tax cuts and subsidies will be going to "for-profit" private insurance companies. The same companies that have done nothing to fix the mess they've created.
Watch the documentary "Sicko" and then decide if we really want the for-profit insurance companies to continue making medical decisions for everyone.
thx
-frank from Denver
An issue that arises for those who have health care coverage (aka insurance) is if they can afford actual health care costs. What is often common in coverage currently is the insured having a high deductible that must be met before the insurer pays out any monies. Currently, I've been exploring individual policies as my COBRA option expires in a few months. One option I've found is $318 for a monthly premium on a policy that has a $5000 deductible requirement. This means I must pay out over $8600 in a year before the insurer pays anything (except for certain preventive care exams/tests). To me, this does not mean "good health care coverage" as after paying the monthly premium, I cannot afford to pay for an office visit and required follow-up. So while I have health care coverage, I may not have health care.
It is critical to focus on the role of corporate interests in the healthcare debate. Please see "Swiftboating healthcare" and "Follow the money" on the homepage of the World Business Academy: www.worldbusiness.org
If a patient under a new Obama Plan wishes to use organic supplements, or acupuncture or chiropractics, but has to have emergency surgery or supervision by a medical doctor for some reason, and the doctor must of necessity know of their self-medications, would they be required to require the patient to come under their supervision for the other treatments, require the patient to take synthetics rather than prescription organics or supplements, require this and deny that that the patient may have self medicated with in the past, as a demand to be in the system at all? If the patient refuses to agree, would they then be fined and denied emergency services, or given them at a premium add-on?
Since Plan B for many persons (self-doctoring) has been Plan A for a long time, will this type of medical plan intrude on that?
I pay over $4,300 a year for an individual plan with a $2,500 deductible. Prior to last year, I got ZERO benefits until I met the deductible, meaning over $6,000 out of pocket PER YEAR before I saw a penny of benefits.
Anthem must have seen the writing on the wall, because they came up with a new plan, same deductible, that provides basic preventive screenings at no charge in network. So now I get back about $500 in benefits for my "investment".
And because this is an HDHP HSA account, I now have the burden of documenting all my medical expenses and deposits, and the constant hassle of moving money in and out of a health savings account.
Every year my premiums go up 13 - 17%. I take no meds and receive no treatments of any kind, so I should be in lower rate class. This is a joke.
People who are self-employed pay for their own health care. Instead of investing in my small business, I'm lining the pockets of an insurance company. Their latest grab was to charge insureds $5.00 per monthly statement; fortunately rescinded, but not before statements were mailed to customers.
People who are employed are in for a wake up call if they leave their employer and try to get insurance on the open market. COBRA and HIPAA are short term band aids. If you don't find another employer to insure you, because of retirement, self-employment or failure to find a new job, you will be forced to go through underwriting, and the insurance company will either deny coverage or try to exclude your pre-existing conditions. They LOVE these "touch points" that require you to go through underwriting, because it gives them another opportunity to weed out people who actually need and use their benefits.
Colorado's health insurance plan for people who cannot purchase insurance on the open market is very expensive. This is exactly what the insurance companies wanted.
The fastest way to solve the health care problem would be to remove the ample health care benefits enjoyed by our legislative representatives. This would stop the posturing and focus them on fixing the problem.
I suggest that every member of Congress voluntarily give up his or her health care benefits until every person in the U.S. is able to get affordable health insurance. After all, we are all paying for those benefits.
I vote for Lisa's proposal! Oh yeah, we voters have no say in whether or not our legislators have luxurious health care plans and coverage.
It seemes Conservats are trying to frame their opposition to us commoners having health care-- to cost.
Another blogger said she would rather pay policy premiums to the government rather than a for-profit insurance company. Me too.
3-5% for administrative costs beats 30% for corporate run insurance any day.
At the heart of a democracy is choice. So keep your private health insurance if you like what it gives you - and respect the rest of us choosing what works best for us -- a public option.
Wow...I just called Senator Bennet's office and got treated very curtly; could say I got pretty close to being hung up on actually. At the end of the conversation I tried to ask for the gentleman's name with whom I was speaking but before I could...click...he had hung up. Regarding my questions, the most interesting to me was that his office has no information on whether or not he took contributions from health insurance companies. I would have to go look on his website at http://www.bennettforcolorado.com Haven't done that yet; wanted to write this down while it was as fresh as possible. When I told the gentleman why the public option was so personally important to me, I wondered whether or not I was being heard. At least I did my part I guess. Still I "felt" blown off. Not a great experience overall, that's for sure!
I have already sent emails to Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet to urge them to co-sponsor S. 703, a bill introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, to establish a single-payer health care system that is far superior to the “public option” now being promoted by Obama, who previously expressed his support for a single-payer system. Before I learned about the existence of S. 703, I had sent e-mails to both senators urging them to support a single-payer system. Michael Bennet wrote back to me and mentioned H.R. 676, a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by John Conyers with at least 53 co-sponsors, but he did not acknowledge the existence of S. 703. I soon learned about S. 703 and the fact that it has no co-sponsors. Although I don’t believe that Senator Bennet was being honest with me in his email, he at least sent me an email addressing the issue that I had written to him about, which is more than I can say for Mark Udall, who ignored me entirely, apparently not wanting to acknowledge any proposal for a single-payer system.
The insurance industry, of course, will oppose any attempt to disrupt the nice monopoly they have over health care in the United States. We are told by advocates of the so-called free market that competition will bring prices down, but it should be obvious to anyone who can think that this has not happened in the health care industry. The single-payer system is not socialized medicine. A true single-payer system would never restrict a patient’s choice of doctor, hospital, or treatment and would eliminate much of the paperwork and bureaucracy that is now part of the private health care system. Health care would be paid for with public money but would cost less than our current lack of a system. The public option now being touted by what we are supposed to believe is the left wing of the Democratic Party would create more paperwork for the government because bureaucrats would have to administer it along with private insurance plans.
Although the public option idea is inferior to single-payer, it is probably much better than what we have now, a health care system based on profit that denies health care to not only those without health insurance, such as myself, but many people who have extremely expensive insurance, either paid for by their employers or by themselves. Since it is usually cheaper for people to pay their health care costs than it is to buy insurance, why does anyone outside of the insurance industry believe insurance is a good thing?
I liked Ken's observation of what corporations do: "make a profit for stockholders". That is the best argument for why the fire Dept isn't privatized, or schools are not totally privatized, or why health insurance shouldn't be privatized. Currently 1/3 of our health care dollar has nothing to do with delivering healthcare; it is spent on profits, administration, and overhead created by the multiple payer insurance companies. That wasted 1/3 of our healthcare dollar would be more than adequate to fund an expanded and improved medicare for all. I don't agree with those who say this can't be done. If the people don't listen to the spin put out by insurance companies and corporate media and take some time to understand what "Single Payer" is they would as Ken suggests be demanding it from their political representatives.
The Lewan Group has indicated that "Single Payer" would save our little state $1.4 billion while giving coverage to all residents of Colorado. They acknowledge that this would cost about an 8% tax increase. For an average income of $50,000/ year that cost would be $4,000, or about half the cost of the average insurance premium. Wow, such a deal!
Already 60% of Americans agree that a "Single Payer" is the greatest deal since poker was invented. So don't let those who profit from the current broken healthcare non-system, and their bought and paid for politico chums tell you "Single Payer" isn't feasible, or let them take it off the table.
Cheers, Bob C.
Why should we have to call and ask our legislators which special interest groups are supporting them? In this internet age, there should be a web site where this information is posted for all to see in a timely manner. Transparency is the key to an honest democratic process.
As a free-lance writer, I work with a lot of clients, and some of them are in the healthcare field. Even they admit that the current system doesn't work because it's all about increasing insurance companies' profits.
As a self-employed person, I am only able to afford a health policy with a 10K deductible, which means I pay EVERYTHING out of pocket. All my preventitive care comes out of pocket. All my prescriptions come out of pocket. All my blood tests come out of profit.
Somehow, the money I'm spending each month on my premium is supposed to help me feel secure in case of a future health catastrophe. But instead, it just makes me mad because that money is not available to me for me to use for anything.
I believe a public option policy is important for people like me or people without any insurance. Other folks working as employees of high-tech jobs can keep the policies they have with their HMOs and PPOs. But the rest of us need something else.
When it comes down to a choice between having NO healthcare policy and having a goverment issued policy, I'll happily take the government issued one!
Martha
P.S. And as other have said, socialized medicine is not some kind of hellish alternative. It's certainly better than what I have now!
Post a Comment