Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee.

allnurses Guide · May 6, 2009

most of the leadership of both parties receives donatioons and is lobbied by the insurance industry.

can't trust most democrats or republicans. the president is not leading either. it is up to we the people to do all we can to put all ideas on the table.

yes we can!

a cbs news - new york times poll published in february 2009 reported that 59% say the government should provide national health insurance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/sunmo_poll_0209.pdf

universal health insurance-the idea that every resident would have medical coverage from birth to death-has been labeled everything from a communist plot to the only thing that will solve america's growing problem of the uninsured.
still, americans consistently tell pollsters they embrace such an idea....
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-15-universal-usat_x.htm

GCTMT · May 6, 2009

The people who interrupted the meeting were acting in a well-organized and well-planned manner. They knew exactly what they would accomplish by their actions, and that was to get attention and sympathy, not a seat at the table.

They wanted to bring attention to the fact that no advocates of single-payer were present at the forum, and they did. Again, they felt they had to do it that way because no advocates of single-payer were invited to the forum.

You need to direct this question to the leadership of the Democrat Party, which holds the Chairmanship and a majority of the seats on the Senate Finance Committee. It is their job to set the agenda. Again, I find it ironic that the Dems, who promise improved access to healthcare for all have failed to listen to the constituents who desire a single-payor system. Rascals!

I have. Including Max Baucas, the president and a senator. It's interesting that politicians will at times, only take notice in a situation like the one we saw today.

Democrats and Republicans alike promised to improve access to health care, many single-payer advocates believed (and still believe) that democrats would be more likely to consider a single-payer option as opposed to republicans. I find it highly unlikely that any republican politician would ever entertain a single-payer option. So, when considering the single-payer option and who to sell it too, it's basicall a waste of time to go to a republican. I don't see the irony.

Jolie, BSN · May 6, 2009

...many single-payer advocates believed (and still believe) that democrats would be more likely to consider a single-payer option as opposed to republicans. I find it highly unlikely that any republican politician would ever entertain a single-payer option.
As do I.
So, when considering the single-payer option and who to sell it too, it's basicall a waste of time to go to a republican. I don't see the irony.

The irony is that the party which these advocates have supported and trusted is ignoring them. Perhaps they would be better off cozying up to Repbulicans. They certainly couldn't be any worse off.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm all for effective communication techniques in getting one's point across. Nothing wrong with a little civil disobedience as far as I'm concerned.

I just chuckle at the breathless statements that people were arrested for advocating for single-payor healthcare when that is not at all the reason for their arrest.

RN4MERCY · May 6, 2009

I believe that healthcare is a human right, along with many other rights, but I don't believe that the gov't or any other taxpayer has any obligation to pay for my rights.
I also don't believe that the definition of a right means I can behave like a drunken sailor and shout over the normal order of things.

We pay for your clean water, your public libraries, your public school system, your streets, parks, sidewalks, and your police and fire protection.

Why should healthcare be any different?

Did you watch the CSPAN? I didn't see any "drunken sailors." Just physicians and nurses and community members who've seen real people suffer and die for lack of basic, medically necessary health care.

What I see is a speeding health insurance industry locomotive barreling down the tracks of unrestrained greed decimating our health care system. What do you consider the "normal order" of things in this situation, considering there was a room full of industry executives and their political handmaidens who've all but announced that they see nothing wrong with the current system? They refuse to have a debate and a side by side comparison between single payer and mandate plans. THEY REFUSE, despite the overwhelming public support for single payer. THEY REFUSE to represent the best interests of the electorate. THEY REFUSE to do anything except carry on with business as usual politics.

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." Abraham Lincoln

"It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." Hubert Humphrey

:icon_roll

Honnête et Sérieux · May 6, 2009

Every regional attempt at a single payer in the US has failed? I would be interested to know what you mean by that. Are you talking about the Massachusetts plan?
Whether it's the first hearing on the issue or the last, it's still important. Essentially, a large group of Americans (single-payer advocates) were excluded from these proceedings, which is perhaps why one of the protestors asked the simple question of why single-payer advocates were not present. I agree, they were out of order. There are times however, when we can't follow the proper channels and expect our voices be heard.

Mass. for starters.

On to Hawaii, which plan lasted about 8 months.

California, which died before vote because the legislature know just by looking at it that it wasn't affordable.

And then there was Wisconsin, which failed to pass because the proposed 15% additional payroll tax was ridiculous, and even advocates acknowledged that it would result in the loss of thousands of jobs.

Honnête et Sérieux · May 6, 2009

We pay for your clean water, your public libraries, your public school system, your streets, parks, sidewalks, and your police and fire protection.
Why should healthcare be any different?

Here we go with the fatally flawed police and fire protection analogies. Of course, this is the first time I saw water added into the mix, but the reality is that nobody gets cheaper water than someone else. Everyone pays for their consumption, and when they don't pay, it's shut off.

For every tax-funded police officer, there are two (or more, some say upwards of 3-5) people employed in a private capacity to fill in the gaps. And our "fire protection" is provided primarily by volunteers. I don't think you are proposing a health-care system where 70% of the RN's, physicians, and support staff are volunteering at whim and responding from home to take care of patients when they feel like it...

And I hope I never see the day where our healthcare system is run and funded like libraries or the street department.

Did you watch the CSPAN? I didn't see any "drunken sailors." Just physicians and nurses and community members who've seen real people suffer and die for lack of basic, medically necessary health care.

How do you know what they've seen? And they were behaving like "drunken sailors" in that they were shouting out out of order, refusing to listen to what they were being told, and disrupting the scheduled order.

What I see is a speeding health insurance industry locomotive barreling down the tracks of unrestrained greed decimating our health care system. What do you consider the "normal order" of things in this situation, considering there was a room full of industry executives and their political handmaidens who've all but announced that they see nothing wrong with the current system? They refuse to have a debate and a side by side comparison between single payer and mandate plans. THEY REFUSE, despite the overwhelming public support for single payer. THEY REFUSE to represent the best interests of the electorate. THEY REFUSE to do anything except carry on with business as usual politics.

Untrue; there have been discussions on UHC, hearings, and this was certainly not the final one. Given the historical lack of support for measures that have actually made it to vote, or the failure of measures that have been implemented, and also given the fact that Obama has not supported a universal system, then it's likely that this hearing was planned and designed appropriately. Pelosi and Reid can bring it back to the table if they want, but this gives no one any privilege to be disruptive and behave that way.

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." Abraham Lincoln
"It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." Hubert Humphrey

Humphrey also said this, "The impersonal hand of government can never replace the helping hand of a neighbor" and "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."

I don't know what the Lincoln quote has to do with it, but Abe also said this, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" and "Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition."

allnurses Guide · May 6, 2009

Mass. for starters.
On to Hawaii, which plan lasted about 8 months.
California, which died before vote because the legislature know just by looking at it that it wasn't affordable.
And then there was Wisconsin, which failed to pass because the proposed 15% additional payroll tax was ridiculous, and even advocates acknowledged that it would result in the loss of thousands of jobs.

Neither Massachusetts nor Hawaii had a single payer insurance plan.

The California single payer bill passed both houses of the legislature TWICE.

It was vetoed by the governor.

2006 - http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/3751/

2008 - http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/bloodbath_gover.html

allnurses Guide · May 6, 2009

Doctors, Single Payer Activists Arrested, Make History at Senate Finance Roundtable

...The protestors were stoic and respectful but direct. One by one they stood. One by one they asked why single payer reform was not "at the table" of 15 witnesses Senator Max Baucus and his finance Committee gathered to map out what sort of coverage Americans might expect in the Senate reform bill now being crafted.

Sen. Baucus eventually spoke and indicated that he was respectful of those who believe in single payer - as he acknowledged many of his constituents in Montana do - but he made no attempt to explain why no single payer voice has been included in any Senate discussion to date. ...

...While this Congress may pass something very different than single payer reform, it will not do so without hearing the cries of the people left so openly exposed to personal health and financial ruin by the corrupt system that celebrates only profit.

The citizens who stood for the thousands and thousands of dead today will not let this democracy give itself completely over to the big money interests in healthcare. Not without a fight. Not on their lives or yours or mine....

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2009/may/doctors-single-payer-activists-arrested-make-history-at-senate-finance-roundtable.html?print=t

Honnête et Sérieux · May 6, 2009

Neither Massachusetts nor Hawaii had a single payer insurance plan.
The California single payer bill passed both houses of the legislature TWICE.
It was vetoed by the governor.
2006 - http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/3751/
2008 - http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/bloodbath_gover.html

The 2006 Mass. Health Care Reform Law was a universal system, one that is similar to what Hillary spoke of implementing. It may be a tomato/tomahto issue, but it's not necessarily conservatives who are calling it a universalized program.

Hawaii DID implement a socialized system for all children in the state of Hawaii....failed in eight months.

And I'm not seeing the Calif. issue that way; I see that Arnold veto'd 840 once, but that other legislation died in assembly. Your observation is noted to be correct.

allnurses Guide · May 6, 2009

the 2006 mass. health care reform law was a universal system, one that is similar to what hillary spoke of implementing. it may be a tomato/tomahto issue, but it's not necessarily conservatives who are calling it a universalized program.
hawaii did implement a socialized system for all children in the state of hawaii....failed in eight months.
and i'm not seeing the calif. issue that way; i see that arnold veto'd 840 once, but that other legislation died in assembly. your observation is noted to be correct.

the system hillary clinton proposed was not single payer. neither was the plan governor schwarzenegger wanted which did not pass because it was the similar to massachusetts.

it was not a single payer plan.

here are the problems with such a mandate:

1.the goal of healthcare should be to help people, not criminalize them. the plan forces people to buy health insurance - with proposed penalties such as requiring employers to check insurance status before hiring or getting schools to ask before a student is allowed to enroll, plus tax penalties and fines.
2.no cost controls. no limits are set on rising insurance premiums, drug charges or on pass through charges to patients or consumers that hospitals, doctors or employers may impose in response to the new taxes.
3.unaffordable, substandard insurance plans. with no price controls, middle class californians are likely to buy the cheapest plans which will carry out-of-pocket costs of up to $10,000 per family for medical expenses. subsidies for the low income will also be inadequate for many.
4.encourages increased medical debt. the double cost of premiums and high deductibles likely will force many consumers to cut other basic needs or incur higher debt at a time medical bills already account for half of all bankruptcies.
5.discourages preventive care. many may opt to forgo medical visits rather than pay high deductibles, risking greater health problems and higher costs later and the spread of communicable diseases.
6.no uniform benefits. those who can afford it will be able to buy more comprehensive coverage. the plan also seeks de-regulation of existing minimum requirements for what health plans should cover.
7.entrenches a two-tiered system with better care for the wealthy. the high income will be able to buy better coverage and will also disproportionately benefit from the tax-free health savings accounts promoted in the plan.
8.not universal. even with penalties, some may choose not to buy plans due to cost, as has already occurred in massachusetts.
9.inadequate funding. revenues may not be sufficient for state pools for subsidies for the low income to buy insurance. california's legislative analyst says the governor's budget plans rely on multiple "high-risk assumptions."
10.employers may drop benefits for currently covered employees. the proposed 4% tax for not providing coverage is cheaper than the 9%-11% employers who now provide benefits pay, not counting ever-rising premiums.
11.threatens public health hospitals and clinics. the proposed $2 billion shift in tax funds now used for indigent care to buy insurance would starve public facilities of critical revenue, prompting more closures.
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/files/facts_gov_plan_problems.pdf

Honnête et Sérieux · May 6, 2009

Unfortunately these people don't see any other way to make a socialized system work.

They also realize that people will do exactly what happened in Hawaii; they'll bail on their own insurance to sign on with gov't insurance at the first opportunity, which is why the Hawaii plan failed.

I don't care what you call it; it won't make things better here.

allnurses Guide · May 6, 2009

Unfortunately these people don't see any other way to make a socialized system work.
They also realize that people will do exactly what happened in Hawaii; they'll bail on their own insurance to sign on with gov't insurance at the first opportunity, which is why the Hawaii plan failed.
I don't care what you call it; it won't make things better here.

Tha is why we need SINGLE PAYER.

Everybody in - Nobody out

FAQ http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php