Alan L. Maki Can we believe anything Obama says?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ
Barack Obama compares mandating universal health care to forcing the homeless to buy houses
12 hours ago · ·
David Soumis wow..Alan..this is so right on I almost cried when I read it. working class based people's party. lets get it on. NOW ! we do not have time to waste before we are buried here in corporatism to the point of no recovery without a major revolution.
12 hours ago · · 6
JoAnn Conrad I dont know anyone that views single payer as an ending its a begining...we all know persistance will win...in my state...Illinois we are working on everyone in no one out...even the doctors ...the only out persons would be the profit makers...the insurance companies...
10 hours ago · · 2
Alan L. Maki
"Affordable" should not be proposed as any part of any health care reform because what is "affordable" to some people is not "affordable" for everyone. Here in Minnesota they tried to pass off legislation as "single-payer"--- which, by the way, is supported by PNHP, which they maintained was "affordable" even though most people would have had to pay upwards of $700.00 a month--- a figure they tried to, repeatedly, hide.
Also, not everyone agrees that this is "single-payer:"
No fees.
No premiums.
Comprehensive: pre-natal through burial.
All-inclusive: eyes, dental, mental, general health.
Universal: everybody in; nobody out.
Publicly financed.
Publicly managed and administered.
A number of so-called "single-payer" proposals include the state collecting the money but allowing what amounts to a consortium of insurance companies and/or boards made up of doctors and hospital administrators manage the fund (for a huge fee management fee).
I would note that PNHP is supporting a number of "single-payer" plans which are not in line with what is noted above.
I would also point out that the same Obama Administration and Congress which passed Obamacare refuses to adequately and fully fund the present National Health Service, VA, the Indian Health Service and local and state health care agencies are having funding cut for the most basic things like pre-natal programs, vaccinations, etc. so how or why would they adequately fund even the very few good aspects of Obamacare?
Yes, Canadian-style single-payer (the Canada Health Act) is essentially what I have listed above with private delivery still intact for the most part although doctors are paid far less in Canada though still more than they should be paid.
However, for the most part the Canada Health Act DOES NOT cover eyes, ears, dental or mental health--- although there are some very significant exceptions. Also, in provinces like Manitoba, most nurses are now government employees. I'm not sure what percentage of hospitals in Canada are owned by local or provincial governments but the number seems to be growing--- which is good.
In Canada no one will be turned away from needed health care no matter where you are from; citizen or not nor "illegal" immigrant.
Also, a number of drugs are only partially covered and some not covered at all under the Canada Health Act and this seems to becoming a worse problem.
And not everyone supporting single-payer agrees that single-payer is one step in the process towards real health care reform with the final objective being a National Public Health Care System--- socialized health care. Does everyone who is part of the single-payer movement have to agree that socialized health care should be our goal and objective? Of course not--- BUT, those of us who support socialized health care should not be afraid to advocate for single-payer as a step towards socialized health care, either, out of fear the doctors and PNHP will be put off. Democracy requires a full dialog, discussion and debate takes place in the proverbial "public square" so the American people can make up their minds and so they can determine what kind of mass movement it will take to win these reforms.
And finally; people do care if health care is privately or publicly delivered. People are just as fed up with doctors ripping them off as they are with the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.
In my opinion, what it is going to take to bring people into struggle on this issue is advocacy of a Canadian-style single-payer combined with the demand that at least "primary health care" should become publicly delivered to begin with. With all health care workers (doctors included) employed by the government just like public school teachers.
9 hours ago · · 5
David Soumis case in point: my mother gets $740 a month social security. That is her income, which out of comes medicare and supplemental. yeah right
8 hours ago · · 1
Skny John
No, Alan, PNHP supports single-payer, & single-payer is:
No fees.
No premiums.
Comprehensive: pre-natal through burial.
All-inclusive: eyes, dental, mental, general health.
Universal: everybody in; nobody out.
Publicly financed.
Publicly managed and administered.
"What is single payer?
Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private. Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care." http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#what-is-si ngle-payer
www.pnhp.org
Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or ...See More
Skny John
"...we support a comprehensive benefit package for the single-payer program that would eliminate the need (and most demand) for supplemental coverage.
Insurance companies would not be allowed to offer the same benefits as the universal he...See More
www.pnhp.org
Yes and no. Everyone has to be included in the new system for it to be able to c...See More
Alan L. Maki
Skny John; to some members of PNHP this may be the case. But, in reality, PNHP supports schemes that leave the insurance companies as part of the scheme of things to profit... here in Minnesota, the Minnesota Health Act would leave the insurance companies in charge of a pool of money collected by the state government and instead of calling it "insurance company profits" what it would amount to is "management fees." But remember, according to the bill's author, people would have to pay around $700.00 a month which this upper middle class Obama supporter considers "affordable."
Technically I suppose the concept of single-payer could be so perverted that the insurance companies could be completely taken out of the picture leaving people to pay $700.00 a month but this is not my idea of what I expect to get saddled with by a "single-payer system;" do you?
After PNHP supported and endorsed the Minnesota Health Act I personally asked PNHP (which refused to support the single-payer resolution presented to the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party's state convention three times which was written by me and eventually passed without the help or support--- and opposition from--- PNHP and the Progressive Democrats of America); I asked PNHP and PDA to "certify" that the Minnesota Health Act was single-payer, they refused to do so.
I have openly stated what I consider single-payer to be and you say you agree. Here it is. I think it is very legitimate to judge any legislation claiming to be single-payer on if it meets these criteria; don't you:
No fees.
No premiums.
Comprehensive: pre-natal through burial.
All-inclusive: eyes, dental, mental, general health.
Universal: everybody in; nobody out.
Publicly financed.
Publicly managed and administered.
When I lived in Manitoba, Canada for ten years my health care was paid for like all Canadians pay; through a payroll deduction tax like with Social Security. It was a miniscule amount. While I was unemployed, the deduction came right out of my unemployment check and the amount was so insignificant I actually felt guilty paying so little for the excellent health care we received even though dental care is not covered and Canadians are ripped off by dentists worse than here but while eyes are not covered getting glasses in Canada is far cheaper than in the United States.
Of course, like with anything there are exceptions with dental and eyes. I had several root canals taken care of completely under the Canada Health Act because of a little provision regarding the amount of pain.
Canadians get all of this for less than what an annual visit to the family doctor will cost you here--- they get their primary care, hospitalization, physical therapy, etc.
I have personally suggested to members of the Minnesota State Legislature and many members of Congress that the only thing we need to do is copy the Canada Health Act and substitute U.S. Health Act but include eyes, dental and mental care since we are a much wealthier country than Canada.
The fact is that with a fraction of what this government spends on militarization and wars we could have the finest National Public Health Care System and people wouldn't have to pay one single penny in any form other than through a progressive system of taxation--- tax the hell out of the rich.
7 hours ago · Edited ·
Skny John
No, Alan, in reality PNHP supports the following type of health care/health insurance program, which is single-payer:
No fees.
No premiums.
Comprehensive: pre-natal through burial.
All-inclusive: eyes, dental, mental, general health.
Universal: everybody in; nobody out.
Publicly financed.
Publicly managed and administered.
Outside of the current Medicare program there are no single-payer health insurance systems anywhere in the u.s. Cite evidence that PNHP supports any other type of health insurance system besides single-payer.
7 hours ago · · 1
Philip Gurrieri
Alan...
The single-payer movement IS the
START of the END of
MANUFACTURED_SICKNESS as
BEING_NORMAL & HEALTHY.....
...See More
Alan L. Maki
Skny John; I cited one piece of legislation PNHP has endorsed and supported as my example: the Minnesota Health Care Act written by Minnesota State Senator John Marty. You can read the legislation for yourself and tell us if it meets the requirements both you and I agree to be single-payer.
After I challenged John Marty on his use of calling the Act single-payer he started calling it "affordable."
I know PDA is still pushing the legislation; not sure about PNHP--- they have been kind of quiet here in Minnesota since the embarrassment they suffered supporting this phony Minnesota Health Act.
I do think the main thing we need to focus on is what kind of health care program we want to build a movement around and it is my opinion we need to be very clear that single-payer is just one step towards what we ultimately want: a National Public Health Care System--- socialized health care.
I don't think it is wise to try to build movements based on what you are willing to settle for as a compromise because then you never get to what you are willing to settle for--- the settlement will always be much worse for the people and best for those who profit.
Single payer is obviously something doctors who profit from private delivery of health care would like to see because, like with Medicare, they establish their own fees. Let's let all workers establish their own wages and then I can agree to let doctors set their own fees.
Doctors are forced to bargain with the government over their fees in Canada. No such bargaining takes place under Medicare--- doctors establish the fees. PNHP apparently likes this system, they have never opposed it that I am aware of.
Skny John Alan, cite evidence that PNHP supports any non-single-payer system. Your "word" is not evidence.
Cindy Sheehan Alan, are you going to dilute all of this into a question that you would like to ask Margaret on the call? Or would you like to send it to me via email or facebook message to ask her myself? These are exactly all of the issues we need to discuss and clarify.
4 hours ago · · 2
Cath Arine
I understood Single-Payer to mean all that you stated Alan. I am sure that like everything else... there are political factions who find different ways to co-opt the movement and enact something and call it 'Single-Payer' as yet another way to undermine it. No matter what 'name' we call it, that can happen. So let's lay down exactly what we want, understand how the bureaucrats are trying to prevent it and what they are REALLY offering [such as Obamacare] and all get on board to make it happen.
4 hours ago · · 1
Cath Arine Looking forward to the phone call. I don't have any specific questions, I just want to absorb like a sponge.
4 hours ago · · 1
Alan L. Maki
Cindy; My question condensed to Dr. Flowers would be: Do you support building a movement around a National Public Health Care System in which single-payer would be a first step towards a socialized health care system with perhaps primary health care phased in very rapidly as the foundation upon which this National Public Health Care System can continue to be phased in--- sooner rather than later.
My comment would be this: All health care can all be socialized in three to five years once primary care is socialized.
4 hours ago · · 2
Cindy Sheehan Alan--will you be on the call? If you are, i will ask you to ask her yourself, if you want to.
4 hours ago · · 3
Alan L. Maki
Skny John; you or anyone interested can check out this cite:
http://muhcc.org/
Notice that all of these organizations are the same organizations whose "leaders" ended up betraying the single-payer movement in favor of Obamacare.
I would also point out that the reason PNHP refused to support the grassroots movement that was built up around the Minnesota DFL resolution I wrote was stated by its primary spokesperson in Minnesota, Kip Sullivan, who is nothing but a foundation-flower and a shill for the Democratic Party and its former leader, the thoroughly corrupt Mike Hatch. Their reason for not supporting this resolution was the very same reason the AMA gave in rejecting Frances Perkin's proposal for socialized health care: a vicious anti-communist smear campaign made me their target.
Another of these Minnesota Democratic Party shills and the leader of PDA, Joel Clemmer, viciously attacked me on FireDogLake calling me anti-communist names and Leo Gerard, the national President of the United Steel Workers Union, even joined in the red-baiting attack citing my support for socialized health care as reason enough to attack me.
I have a modicum of respect for PNHP but I don't believe a group of doctors more interested in saving their private for-profit health care system should be leading the movement for health care reform--- they should become part of a much larger movement and they should be willing to tolerate discussion about the need for a National Public Health Care System where the government hires and fires doctors and establishes their salaries in the same manner as teachers. As workers they would have the same rights to collectively bargain the conditions and terms of their employment instead of dictating to the government what their fees will be as is presently the case with Medicare.
Now, let me make clear, I don't have a gripe with Dr. Margaret Flowers over her position regarding National Public Health Care. She did however acknowledge to me that this is a point of great contention among these doctors supporting single-payer.
I couldn't care less if there are doctors opposed to a National Public Health Care System. But, these doctors acting through their American Medical Association or the PNHP do not have the right to restrict debate in a way that prevents a discussion about a National Public Health Care System just like Obama and the Senator from Montana he aligned himself with clamped down on single-payer. Place everything on the table for the American people to discuss. We are talking about ideas here; what is there to fear? Okay, so doctors are afraid of losing their place on a pedestal--- big deal.
My gripe that I have with Dr. Margaret Flowers is that she doesn't seem to be supporting building a working class based people's party to push a progressive agenda which would include real health care reform including single-payer and she is apparently content to rely solely on mass action in the streets. This is a very common problem we seem to be experiencing in our movements in this country: either people support direct action mass movements in the streets or they support working in the electoral arena. Not too many people are willing to talk about how both the mass movements in the street and people working in the electoral arena should be working together so one form of action compliments the other. I was very surprised and taken aback to hear Dr. Flowers at a forum at the Unitarian Church in California chide Rocky Anderson for being engaged in electoral activity. She almost mocked him. Had Rocky Anderson admonished her for engaging in direct action this might have been legitimate but this wasn't the case because Rocky Anderson praised and supported mass action in the streets.
I firmly believe we aren't going to be making much headway in winning any reforms--- health care or otherwise--- until we can re-establish the historic liberal-progressive-left coalition of grassroots and rank-and-file activists to struggle in the streets and in the electoral arena behind our own political banner.
muhcc.org
HCAMn is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization dedicated to establishing comprehensiv...See More
3 hours ago · Edited · ·
Karen Sandness Actually the Canadian single payer system DOES have premiums, but they are much lower than the typical private insurance premiums.
4 hours ago · · 1
Todd Boyle We need UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER public health system. And don't say "No Premiums"... it will cost real money--REAL serious payroll deductions like Social Security. For example, Japan has it. It's 15% of your pay, including the pension deduction, matched by employer for a total around 30%. So be careful what you wish for. I lived there 14 years and thank GOD i was able to get out of their system being a foreigner.
3 hours ago · · 1
Todd Boyle Oh and then when I had an injury and needed surgery it was free, anyway.
3 hours ago · · 1
Cindy Sheehan I have a friend who lives in Japan from New Hampshire and he can never come back to the states because he has no kidneys...all of his treatment is free and easily accessible---dialysis three times per week and all his medication. he told me he is a "healtcare refugee."
3 hours ago · · 1
Todd Boyle Mariko (my wife) got diagnosed with cancer in Feb and said she would have packed her bags and moved back to Japan immediately, if she hadn't had insurance.
Alan L. Maki I didn't realize the "donate now" was going to come up--- don't throw your money away supporting this bunch of deceitful Obama supporters who hide behind red-baiting.
3 hours ago · · 1
Charles Jannuzi
Foreigners in Japan are being told to stop trying to opt out of paying for the health care. Those who claim they are 'residents' for tax purposes are for the most part forced to enroll.
If you purchase through the local government (the plan that is available for the poor, the self-employed, farmers), it is based on your previous year's reported income. So the less you made, the less you pay. Foreigners come to Japan thinking their salaries are much higher than they really are because (1) the yen is so very strong against the dollar (so expressed in dollars a low salary looks high) and (2) they fail to realize that overall costs in Japan are higher (especially living in crowded urban areas like Kanto, Aichi or Kansai).
One thing that has hurt the system has been people making claims on the health care system and/or the retirement without having made payments into the system. For example, former PM Koizumi and a whole class of politicians from rich families.
3 hours ago · · 2
Karen Sandness I know at least one other "medical refugee" in Japan, someone who was diagnosed with a chronic condition that would be considered uninsurable in the States. The Japanese system has high co-pays and premiums based on income (but no deductibles!), but certain catastrophic and chronic conditions are treated with no co-pays.
3 hours ago · · 2
Charles Jannuzi
I know an American with lung cancer who stayed in Japan because he had no hope of getting care in the US. He lived for 5 years using the medical care available here.
Clearly since I have been in Japan (since 1989), there has been a degradation of the health insurance schemes. The 'co-pay' % has gone up in my plan from 10%, to 30% for dependents, to 30% for everyone including 'head of household'.
The system also has a tendency to care more about the profits of doctors and their hospitals, often prescribing totally shit drugs (tamaflu, anti-cholesterol drugs that destroy your liver, etc.) make huge profits for the companies (which appear to paying lots of money to doctors to get them to prescribe them).
Alan L. Maki
Karen, what province in Canada do you live in? I lived in Manitoba for ten years and never paid any "premium." The payroll deductions were very minimal even when my pay was quite substantial. This is one of the problems with the Canada Health Act; it does allow a lot of control for the provinces. In a province like Manitoba which has been under the socialist New Democratic Party for much of the last 50 years there is very good health care. My 8 year old granddaughter just broke her arm in four places falling off her horse and she has received top-notch care in the Children's Hospital in Winnipeg. I have heard of people from other provinces complain of some things but I never got into any specifics. I'm pretty sure most nurses in Manitoba are now employed by the government and are pretty well paid and doctors get paid probably more than they should in Manitoba but no where near what they make here in the United States.
Let us know what your premiums are--- how much, Karen; and what they are for.
While living in Manitoba we never asked for specific doctors because we found all we came in contact with very capable lacking arrogance.
My son required extensive surgery on a finger and the micro-surgeon actually INSISTED I come sit beside him as he worked all the while explaining step by step what he was doing--- the operation took many hours. This would never happen in any U.S. hospital. We took our children to the doctors for everything--- it never cost us one single penny except for once when a doctor mistakenly wrote a prescription for a non-generic medication which ended up costing me a co-pay of $17.00. There were the usual children's illnesses and the breaks, fractures and dislocation of fingers from playing basketball, softball, football and baseball, etc. All free. I forget what they took out of my unemployment check for health care--- but I don't think it was over ten dollars a week.
I have never heard of one single Canadian complain about the little pay-roll deductions taken from their checks for health care. I am sure that somewhere there must be someone complaining but I never heard it and I traveled in every single Canadian province.
3 hours ago · · 1
Karen Sandness Sorry, Alan, I meant payroll deductions. I've never lived in Canada, but I heard about a monthly deduction of CDN$50 from someone who lived in British Columbia. And no, she had no complaints about it. That's less than people get charged for Medicare here.
3 hours ago · · 3
Charles Jannuzi Another recent annoyance has been, as the co-pays go up, for profit insurance companies have flooded the market with supplemental plans. Of course the US government encouraged this as part of Japan's 'need' to liberalize health care here. And companies owned by AIG came in big time.
2 hours ago · · 1
Karen Sandness Yes, in my observations on intermittent trips to Japan, a lot of good things have gone to hell since Japan began bowing to U.S. pressure to "internationalize."
2 hours ago · · 2
Todd Boyle One of the big-picture things is the wealthy, from around the world, come to the U.S. for the super-high quality, gold-plated services. And yes some docs. and hospitals are WAY better than others. We will never see the inside of those places, they don't take medicare or our cheap-ass insurance won't pay for it. lol
2 hours ago · · 1
Charles Jannuzi For many basic procedures, more and more people are going to Thailand and Malaysia because major surgery there costs a fraction of what it does in the US. Looking at the medical care some wealthy bought for themselves (Elvis, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston), I do have to wonder.
2 hours ago · · 2
Alan L. Maki
Ok, thanks for clarifying this "premium" issue, Karen. I have mentioned the pay-roll deductions taken from my own pay-checks and unemployment checks. One has to make quite a bit to have $50.00 taken out of their pay-check for health care. I think the most ever taken out of one of my pay-checks might have been $90.00 but this was a drop in the bucket compared to what I was making at the time. As a comparison, when I worked construction here in the U.S. if I wanted an insurance program that would get me anywhere near what I got in Canada, it would cost me well over $1,500.00 a month. Just ask a union carpenter of a pipe-fitter what they pay into their insurance and make sure to ask what their "co-pays" are.
In the province of Saskatchewan Tommy Douglas while Premier pushed through socialized health care reform after reform until primary care and most of what was done in hospitals was socialized and he had MASSIVE opposition from the doctors. Even the American Medical Association stuck its dirty hands and fingers into the mix. The doctors went on strike so Tommy Douglas hired doctors from all over the world and he told the doctors either work for the people or get the hell out of Saskatchewan.
it was really sickening. Doctors who openly supported the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shooting striking miners dead went on strike against against a health care system that worked for people instead of for the profits of a small group of arrogant and greedy doctors. Needless to say, the RCMP thugs never shot down the doctors who went on strike and violent rampage against socialized health care.
2 hours ago · · 1
Todd Boyle Charles gets it: part of the problem is the Docs and Hospitals are charging ridiculously high prices, it's way out of control and the 13 of the 15 highest paid occupations are Docs, surgeons, dentists etc. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=101504539429 46509&set=a.106815371508.9 3936.503556508&type=3&thea ter Ask any NURSE! or Billing professional.
2 hours ago · · 1
Todd Boyle And they get away with these HIGH prices because the wealthier people in our society can afford it. They are buying our healthcare resources out from under us--- just like they grab all the land, and the production from our farms and factories.
2 hours ago · · 2
Todd Boyle The PNHP has way too many doctors, in my opinion. How would you feel if it was staffed by Insurance Company people? http://www.pnhpwesternwashington.o rg/about.htm
www.pnhpwesternwashington.org
Since 1987, Physicians for a National Health Program has advocated for refor...See More
2 hours ago · · 1
Alan L. Maki
I would point out that many doctors and clinics here in northern Minnesota are refusing to accept patients who have insurance companies who they claim pay very slowly forcing many people to travel hundreds of miles to get health care. Sheer greed governs our entire for-profit "free market" health care system.
We need to cut through the bull advanced by PNHP to appease doctors calling for the so-called right to the "doctor of choice."
This is nothing but a smokescreen used to hide behind when their real concern is maintaining the for-profit aspect of health care for themselves.
2 hours ago · · 3
Todd Boyle Oh another pet peeve. Look at your local university medical school. Guess how many MDs they graduate? They spend like a billion dollars a year, and graduate only like 100 docs. Docs for the rich. This is seriously screwed up.
2 hours ago · · 1
Karen Sandness
My younger brother is a doctor, and he hates both the way insurance companies operate and the way so many of his colleagues are ready to rush the patient out the door with a prescription or refer them for surgery without considering less invasive options. He went into solo practice so that he wouldn't be required to see one patient every 15 minutes. He figured that he can make a good living seeing 8 patients a day, but he has to fight the insurance companies, which will do anything to avoid paying.
He has actually said that he would rather be salaried and be free to treat patients the way he saw fit without having to fight insurance companies or meet some "profitability" quota. (Yes, one of the group practices he was in had such a quota.)
2 hours ago · · 1
Frederick J. Calabrese This is what happens when medical care becomes a commodity.
13 minutes ago · · 2
Alan L. Maki I have really appreciated Cindy bringing forward this health care issue at this time. Obviously a lot of people, myself included, are looking for forums to say what's on our minds.
Some people messaged me and thought I was too hard on the doctors. I was not attacking doctors as individuals. It is about how they have acted collectively to defend their own selfish interests. I know lots of good doctors, some who hate the system as it is but the ones who will speak out are few and far between. This is why I appreciate doctors like Dr. Margaret Flowers even if I disagree to some extent the way she places the issues or doesn't really adequately deal with the topic of socialized health care like I think she should but she is getting better on this issue.
I think lots of people are starting to understand why a National Public Health Care System needs to become part of the broader public discussion.
As Dr. Flowers noted anything in the way of real health care reform is going to be labeled as socialist so we might just as well bring it right out.
Thanks, Cindy!
No comments:
Post a Comment