HR 676 Could Provide the Solution to the Expanding Health Care Crisis in America
Single payer, universal health care is the answer to the debacle that is US health care: the only system among developed countries based on private, for big profit insurance companies that refuse to cover those with pre-existing conditions without charging an arm and a leg, and charging almost unaffordable prices for coverage; the more expensive and the least effective health coverage in all the industrial nations.
(Although, at the rate the US is going, it may no longer be an industrial, manufacturing country.)
Those who are covered through their employer, the most common health care coverage vehicle for the middle class, have seen their premiums and deductibles increase every year and more employers opting out of providing health care. (See here and here.)
I've written about this so many times; just plug in HR 676 on the Quick search menu, for example.
Here is another voice, Mike Dennison a reporter at the Billings Gazette via CommonDreams.org. Here are some excerpts:
"It's called a single-payer health plan, where the government collects taxes to finance national health insurance. The government, which is the "single payer," covers all citizens and pays the bills when they visit private (or public) doctors, hospitals and other facilities for medical care.
"All would have basic coverage, regardless of whether they have a job, or where they work. Nobody gets billed for basic care. No-body goes broke because of medical bills.
"Yet this option has been declared "off the table" by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who's among those leading the charge for health care reform in America.
"Top Democrats who will be deciding policy in America in 2009, including Baucus and President-elect Barack Obama, say single-payer is "not politically feasible," because the public won't strongly support it.
"What they really mean is that when it comes to health care reform, they don't want a political fight with some of the nation's most powerful financial interests, which have the resources and the motivation to turn public opinion against meaningful reforms.
"These interests include the health insurance industry, pharmaceutical drug companies, some hospitals, highly paid medical specialists, medical suppliers and others who now profit handsomely from our current system - and who could no longer command those profits under a single-payer system or an alternative form of a national health plan.
"HR676, which would create national health insurance and a single-payer system, was introduced last year by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich. and has 93 co-sponsors in the U.S. House. It has not even had a hearing.
"Nearly 500 labor unions from across the country have endorsed the bill, as have AFL-CIO units in 39 states, including Montana. There is a national coalition supporting single-payer, led in part by the California Nurses Association (CNA), which has 85,000 members.
"Michael Lightly, director of public policy for CNA, said single-payer is "the most fiscally conservative approach" to health care, because by having one payer/insurer (usually the government), you eliminate the profits of private health insurers, you negotiate bulk purchases of drugs, you negotiate reasonable fees with health care providers and you have global budgets for hospitals and large clinics.
"Yet Democratic leaders in Congress, who want to reform health care, say single-payer won't be an option, because it doesn't "poll well."
"They cite polls showing that the public thinks single-payer equates with "big government" and taking away what insurance they already have. A majority may like the idea, but that support erodes when asked if they'd pay higher taxes to support it.
"If single-payer is packaged in that context, of course it's a loser. But as any skilled politician knows, if you craft a better message and get it out there, you win.
"Big government? In America, the government is the people, and you tell it what to do. It has to be more responsive than big insurance.
"Less choice? With single-payer, no doctors or hospitals are out of the network, because there is no network. It's one system. Everyone gets the same basic care. You might have to wait for specialty care or some tests, but that's not exactly a deal-breaker."
If single payer HR 676 is packaged and communicated well, the American people would understand and choose it...many do now.
The Obama plan keeps for profit, greedy, private insurance companies in the mix that, even with certain caveats, will find ways to not insure people who have health problems, still make it more expensive for less care than in other developed countires.
Why promote health care plans that are more complicated, more expensive, don't deliver the quality of care found in developed countries that have single payer, universal health care, a basic human right?
Could it be that the millionaires on Capitol Hill are invested in these "health care": insurance companies and don't want to see their profits reflecting reality rather than current humungous profits because these companies have caused the price of health care coverage to skyrocket (50 million cant' even afford coverage, and if you lose or leave your job you lose coverage)?
Could the leadership and member of Congress, who are covered by single payer, top quality government health care, be that selfish and against the common good?
(Although, at the rate the US is going, it may no longer be an industrial, manufacturing country.)
Those who are covered through their employer, the most common health care coverage vehicle for the middle class, have seen their premiums and deductibles increase every year and more employers opting out of providing health care. (See here and here.)
I've written about this so many times; just plug in HR 676 on the Quick search menu, for example.
Here is another voice, Mike Dennison a reporter at the Billings Gazette via CommonDreams.org. Here are some excerpts:
"It's called a single-payer health plan, where the government collects taxes to finance national health insurance. The government, which is the "single payer," covers all citizens and pays the bills when they visit private (or public) doctors, hospitals and other facilities for medical care.
"All would have basic coverage, regardless of whether they have a job, or where they work. Nobody gets billed for basic care. No-body goes broke because of medical bills.
"Yet this option has been declared "off the table" by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who's among those leading the charge for health care reform in America.
"Top Democrats who will be deciding policy in America in 2009, including Baucus and President-elect Barack Obama, say single-payer is "not politically feasible," because the public won't strongly support it.
"What they really mean is that when it comes to health care reform, they don't want a political fight with some of the nation's most powerful financial interests, which have the resources and the motivation to turn public opinion against meaningful reforms.
"These interests include the health insurance industry, pharmaceutical drug companies, some hospitals, highly paid medical specialists, medical suppliers and others who now profit handsomely from our current system - and who could no longer command those profits under a single-payer system or an alternative form of a national health plan.
"HR676, which would create national health insurance and a single-payer system, was introduced last year by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich. and has 93 co-sponsors in the U.S. House. It has not even had a hearing.
"Nearly 500 labor unions from across the country have endorsed the bill, as have AFL-CIO units in 39 states, including Montana. There is a national coalition supporting single-payer, led in part by the California Nurses Association (CNA), which has 85,000 members.
"Michael Lightly, director of public policy for CNA, said single-payer is "the most fiscally conservative approach" to health care, because by having one payer/insurer (usually the government), you eliminate the profits of private health insurers, you negotiate bulk purchases of drugs, you negotiate reasonable fees with health care providers and you have global budgets for hospitals and large clinics.
"Yet Democratic leaders in Congress, who want to reform health care, say single-payer won't be an option, because it doesn't "poll well."
"They cite polls showing that the public thinks single-payer equates with "big government" and taking away what insurance they already have. A majority may like the idea, but that support erodes when asked if they'd pay higher taxes to support it.
"If single-payer is packaged in that context, of course it's a loser. But as any skilled politician knows, if you craft a better message and get it out there, you win.
"Big government? In America, the government is the people, and you tell it what to do. It has to be more responsive than big insurance.
"Less choice? With single-payer, no doctors or hospitals are out of the network, because there is no network. It's one system. Everyone gets the same basic care. You might have to wait for specialty care or some tests, but that's not exactly a deal-breaker."
If single payer HR 676 is packaged and communicated well, the American people would understand and choose it...many do now.
The Obama plan keeps for profit, greedy, private insurance companies in the mix that, even with certain caveats, will find ways to not insure people who have health problems, still make it more expensive for less care than in other developed countires.
Why promote health care plans that are more complicated, more expensive, don't deliver the quality of care found in developed countries that have single payer, universal health care, a basic human right?
Could it be that the millionaires on Capitol Hill are invested in these "health care": insurance companies and don't want to see their profits reflecting reality rather than current humungous profits because these companies have caused the price of health care coverage to skyrocket (50 million cant' even afford coverage, and if you lose or leave your job you lose coverage)?
Could the leadership and member of Congress, who are covered by single payer, top quality government health care, be that selfish and against the common good?
Comments