Health Care For America Now

I don't find Senator Feinstein's position as confusing as that of Health Care for America NOW.

The current system is a MESS. It is a hodgepodge of different employer plans….most of which are hooked into private insurance who ABSOLUTELY control access to care. Companies are changing plans yearly, stopping coverage altogether, or hiring more part time employees to try to deal with costs. Many have already stated that they cannot compete with overseas companies when they have this extraordinary expense. For many it is the crux of whether they can stay in business at all. Their insurance costs are figured into their product costs. So, we as consumers pay for employee coverage.

For those who are public employees (including many teachers, firefighters, police, etc.) at all levels of government, we also pay for their health coverage through our tax dollars.

And if people would stop demonizing the poor and uninsured long enough to look at it, the poor/uninsured also pay, through everything from income tax to sales tax etc, for public employees' health coverage…though they have none of their own, and regressive sales taxes impose a much greater burden at their level of income.

If competition drives down costs, then why hasn't competition between private insurance companies done that already. Why do you want to leave an industry smack in the middle of a "reform" plan, when 1) they need a public option to "keep them honest"' 2) they are the only industry aside from professional baseball that is EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST LAWS, which protect consumers from things like price fixing, 3) the insurance industry is NOT UNDER ANY FEDERAL REGULATION, but is "regulated" by 50 separate bodies in 50 different states, some of them elected, some of them appointed, many of them weak because of industry influence and lack of adequate funding.
These last two points are part of why the AIG fiasco happened. Why do you want to put an industry smack in the middle of a "reform" plan that we had to spend billions of dollars to bail out due to their greed.
And first and foremost, by their very charters as for-profit entities, they are DESIGNED to put profits before people. Their responsibility is to their stockholders not to consumers!! We are a means to an end. Same with the pharmaceutical companies. THEY DO NOTHING THAT DOESN"T IMPROVE THEIR BOTTOM LINE. Any "charity" they might contribute is a tax write-off.

I am very suspicious of simple "surveys" that say the majority of people are happy with their plans… but fail to ask why? It may be as simple as "because my employer pays for it." At the same time, people list the insurance industry at the bottom of their approval list, only slightly above the tobacco industry. AT THE BOTTOM! I BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE ARE FAR LESS COMMITTED TO HAVING A CHOICE OF PLANS THAN THEY ARE TO HAVING A CHOICE OF DOCTORS.

By comparison you will find a high approval rate for Medicare, where people ARE allowed their choice of providers, and not from a restricted list provided by insurers. Medicare's administrative costs are approximately 3%. Private insurance companies' is over 30%.

It is true that aside from the increasing number of seniors, costs to the Medicare program are skyrocketing. One might look to the programs that President Bush put in place to find out some reasons for that. The Medicare Advantage Plus plan is directly designed to profit private insurance companies. There are a number of independent studies that show it benefits insurance far more than it benefits seniors. The Part D Drug Benefits plan is confusing and difficult to decipher for many seniors. It was passed with the restriction that the federal government could not negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies regarding cost of prescription medications. Only the INSURANCE COMPANIES could negotiate those rates. See any collusion problems here?

The recent generosity of big Pharma in contributing towards the "doughnut" hole of coverage in Medicare only applies to PATENT PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, NOT GENERICS. I wonder if its only coincidence that some of the pharmaceutical companies' major "cash cow" drugs are due to have patents expire in the next five years, including many used by seniors, like Aricept for Alzheimers, which opens the market to generics. Seems possible that Pharma is trying to squeeze what extra profits they can make through copays and government pay on these very expensive drugs while they can. Once again, by their charter, their primary commitment is to their stockholders, not the public, not seniors.

I personally am of the belief that for-profit industries have no place in making life and death health care decisions for people for that very reason. Their commitment is to stockholders….oh yeah, and exorbitant executive bonuses.
I believe it is immoral.

So far in the first quarter of 2009, the insurance industry has spent $47 million in lobbying expenses. If you want to see how much individual Congress members and, unfortunately, President Obama, received in campaign contributions from for profit health industries, go to http://www.OpenSecret.org.

I am a huge fan of President Obama, was a delegate for him! But I believe he is dead wrong in the proposals he is putting forth, and the deadline he has set. I believe one reason that the majority of people want a public option, but a majority of people do not support Obama's plan is because the public option they think will be best for everyone is single payer…but nobody asks.

It is an absolute slap in the face to many of Obama's supporters that "Yes we can" became "Absolutely not" ONLY in regard to single payer….every other plan is open for consideration. And that is giving his supporters much pause in determining if it really is still "business as usual" when it comes to the private health care industry. There has been MORE DISINFORMATION SPREAD ABOUT SINGLE PAYER THAN ANY OTHER PLAN. Is it a coincidence that it is the one that removes for-profit insurance companies from the middle of the picture? And Obama condemned it again in front of the AMA. However, the AMA only represents 17% of practicing physicians. I wonder how many of them are "preferred providers" under the insurance company's plans?

We have more people dying from lack of health care than the protesters in Iran; but they are doing it sickly, quietly at home rather than in the streets. President Obama has constantly touted participation of all parties in problem solving…except single payer supporters. He never said a word when the Senate Finance Committee, under the "leadership" of Senator Baucus (check how much campaign money HE's gotten from private insurance), refused not only to seat single payer folks at the table, but refused to call any of them to testify.
The docs who were arrested for protesting are members of a long standing organization called Physicians for a National Health Program, representing over 16,000 physicians.

If you want really good information on single payer, go to their site. http://www.pnhp.org.

There is another reason I am upset with President Obama on this issue. He said that the people of Iran are entitled to a "voice in determining their own destiny" yet that voice regarding our right to determining the life and death matters regarding access to health care have been shut down.

Private industry has had a well-paid six months to lobby all over the Hill. Yet, President Obama has set a deadline of July 31st for Congress to come up with a plan. THIS DEADLINE IS JUST BEFORE THE AUGUST RECESS WHEN PUBLIC HEARINGS COULD BE HELD WITH CONSTITUENTS AT HOME. You think a community organizer wouldn't recognize the importance of that? We're encouraged to share our "horror stories" which make nice anecdotes for Congress to use; we're encouraged to do days of service; yet we must have taken a turn for stupid after the election, because we're NOT encouraged to engage in planning unless we meet his criteria which includes keeping private insurance smack in the middle of a horribly broken system. These "Presidential edicts" may be required in the financial fiascos, and some foreign policy matters where he has additional information.

BUT NOBODY KNOWS THE HEALTH CARE CRISIS BETTER THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! WE LIVE IT (AND DIE AND GO BANKRUPT FROM IT). Plus, all of the Congress have Cadillac plans for life, so how can they possibly understand the anguish of going without? Most Americans are too broke and/or sick, or to involved trying to keep their jobs and families together to fly up to Washington for extended periods to lobby their legislators. The non-profit advocacy groups scarcely have the same budget as the insurance industry.

I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT HR 676 BY CONYERS IS THE ONLY PLAN WHICH PROMISES ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE, NOT HEALTH INSURANCE, FOR ALL AMERICANS. I ALSO STRONGLY BELIEVE IT IS THE ONLY PLAN WHICH WILL ACTUALLY SAVE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MONEY BY CUTTING OUT EXTRAORDINARY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND SUBSIDIZING THE PROFITS OF THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT OF OUR DAY, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE OF OUR DAY.

THIS IS WHAT I WANT:

1) PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION WHICH REPEALS THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY'S EXEMPTION FROM ANTI-TRUST LAWS. AND, ESTABLISHMENT OF SOME FEDERAL OVERSIGHT MECHANISM TO PROVIDE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY AND COORDINATE THE FRAGMENTED AND VARIABLE 50-STATE REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY. THESE NEED TO HAPPEN BEFORE, I REPEAT BEFORE, PRIVATE INSURANCE IS CONSIDERED AS A POTENTIAL "PLAYER" IN ANY REFORM LEGISLATION.

2) A RETRACTION OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S JULY 31ST DEADLINE AND COMMITTMENT OF ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO HOLD PUBLIC TOWN HALL MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS, FOR THE RECORD, IN THEIR HOME DISTRICTS DURING THE AUGUST RECESS.

(IF NECESSARY, TO HELP FUND THESE, I THINK CONGRESS SHOULD RETURN THEIR AUTOMATIC PAY INCREASES FROM 2008 AND 2009, TOTALLING ABOUT $5 MILLION. IF ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE "PAY AS YOU GO" PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE, THEN I THINK THAT CONGRESS SHOULD ALSO PAY PRIVATELY FOR THEIR INSURANCE POLICIES, WITH ALL CURRENT RESTRICTIONS SUCH AS NO COVERAGE FOR PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ETC., FOR A YEAR, OR LET US, AS THEIR EMPLOYER, DETERMINE AN HMO PLAN WHICH WE THINK WE CAN AFFORD. HOW NICE THAT CONGRESS CURRENTLY GETS TO SET THEIR OWN WAGES AND DESIGN THEIR OWN CADILLAC POLICIES.

3) AN INDEPENDENT PROPERLY DESIGNED SURVEY INSTRUMENT WHICH, THROUGH USING PROFESSIONAL "BEST PRACTICE" SAMPLING, SHOWS WHAT THE PUBLIC REALLY THINKS OF THEIR CURRENT COVERAGE, WHAT THEY LIKE, WHAT THEY HATE, WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO THEM, WHAT KIND OF PLAN THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

4) A MORATORIUM ON PRIVATE INDUSTRY LOBBYING CONGRESS OR CONTRIBUTING TO ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL CAMPAIGNS, FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS, IN ORDER TO ALLOW CITIZENS THE SAME TIME PERIOD FOR HOLDING HEALTH CARE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND REDUCE UNDUE INFLUENCE BY PRIVATE INDUSTRY.

4) PRESIDENT OBAMA'S RECANT OF HIS REFUSAL TO CONSIDER SINGLE PAYER, INSTEAD ALLOWING FOR ALL OPTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE TABLE, AND REITERATING HIS COMMITMENT TO GOVERNANCE FROM THE GRASS ROOTS UP, INSTEAD OF THE TOP DOWN.

5) PUBLIC EDUCATION MATERIALS ON ALL THE PROPOSED PLANS, PREPARED BY AN UNBIASED (OR SEVERAL) HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW CITIZENS TO FAIRLY EVALUATE OPTIONS AND ADVISE THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

YES, THIS WILL TAKE TIME. IF NECESSARY, LET'S CONSIDER SOME TEMPORARY STOP GAP MEASURES TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF CARE TO THE UNINSURED, MAYBE A SPECIAL NEED STATUS QUALIFYING THEM FOR MEDICARE, UNTIL ANOTHER PLAN IS ADOPTED.

IT WILL TAKE TIME. BUT A SHODDY QUICKLY SLAPPED-TOGETHER PLAN
WILL KILL ANY PUBLIC OPTION FASTER THAN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY OR CONSERVATIVES COULD. THEY WILL JUST SIT BACK AND LAUGH. LET'S DO IT, AND LET'S DO IT RIGHT. THEN THE PUBLIC WILL BACK IT. WE DESERVE TO LOOK AT ALL THE CHOICES WITHOUT SINGLE PAYER BEING GAGGED.

I HOPE THAT MY COMMENTS MAY PROVIDE SOME ROOM FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THIS ORGANIZATION TO RECONSIDER THE
WORDING OF THEIR CURRENT PRIORITIES. THE MAIN ONE THAT CONCERNS ME IS THE SAME ONE THAT OBAMA ADDED TO HIS 3 REQUIREMENTS. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS SAYING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE OF THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. IF THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR CURRENT DOCTORS, THEY CAN KEEP THEM. PERIOD.

I AM NOT WORRIED THAT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY WILL FOLD. THEY CAN SELL SUPPLEMENTAL CADILLAC POLICIES WHICH MAYBE EMPLOYERS MIGHT WANT TO ADD SINCE THEY WILL NO LONGER HAVE THE BURDEN OF BASIC HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER TYPES OF INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR THE INDUSTRY TO SELL.

THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THESE OPTIONS AND HEARING ME OUT. I HAVE HAD TO BURY TOO MANY FRIENDS TOO YOUNG, INCLUDING JUST LAST WEEK A WONDERFUL MUSICIAN FRIEND WHO LIVED AND BREATHED COMMUNITY SERVICE. MY WORK IS DEDICATED TO THEM AND THOSE WHO FEEL THEY HAVE NO VOICE.

Again there is great information available on single payer and HR 676 at http://www.pnhp.org

Blessings and Health CARE for all,

Carolyn Caffrey

"It will be a great day when there is health care for all, and AIG has to put out a tip jar at the corner store to ask for a bailout." (my update on a 1960's anti-war poster)

Oh, one more comment. I think that the first comments on Senator Feinstein's position missed something, specifically on point #3 (and a crucial one it is) She wants:

3)" Moving toward either a non-profit model of medical insurance or to one where premium costs can be controlled, either through competition in a public or cooperative model or through a regulated authority"

I don't believe she mentions keeping private insurance in the middle of this and just ADDING a public option. I translate this as looking at competitive PUBLIC plans; she may have conceded that a non-profit model may not be achievable in one fell swoop. But I don't see anything in her comment that suggests she wants to keep private insurance as a major player.

As for her comment that she's not sure they have the votes, that's just telling the truth. Aside from HR 676, most of the other proposals are fuzzy and as yet not-fleshed-out proposals. And President Obama's arbitrary deadline of July 31, pretty much precludes that from happening. If we want to have major reform, then we've GOT to take the time to do it right and get the public behind it. Otherwise, it is we who are doing the opposition's work for them. Again, I am a strong supporter of single payer health care for all. And I will continue to promote it being back on the table.

Thanks again for your patience.

Carolyn Caffrey

I keep hearing people saying that huge numbers of people are dying daily from lack of health insurance. Where are the stats and who has done the leg work to determine if it's availability or choice.