Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee.

GCTMT · May 12, 2009

If there was an advocate of single-payer at the table, do you think that the protestors would be behaving like "drunken sailors"? If there was a single-payer advocate at any of the three roundtable discussions, there would be nothing to be upset about.

Karen Ignagni spoke against the public option, and it's reasonable to suggest that if Karen Ignagni is not even willing to entertain the public option, then single-payer is off the table as well, to her mind of course.

I think there is a population in the United States that supporst single-payer and I thought it was unfair that they were excluded.

Lately, the news on this issue has remarked that single-payer advocates were excluded, I think they are correct in their remarks.

allnurses Guide · May 12, 2009

AARP is in the insurance business. They ar NOT for single payer

After tens of thousands of Faxes, e-mails and phone calls on physician from PNHP and Congressman Conyers were allowed in to one "Round Table" but not allowed to speak.

THE REAL SHOW WAS OUTDOORS -- WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE FORUM ON HEALTHCARE LEFT OUT
Hundreds of people, nurses, doctors, medical students, grassroots activists, and California School Employees Association members gathered in downtown Los Angeles Monday to deliver an unequivocal message about the nature of the healthcare reform Americans so desperately need.

For those inside the tightly scripted White House Forum or anyone watching the live feed on line, that message was blacked out. Inside the pre-selected speakers kept within the accepted framework: we need reform, costs are out of control, Americans are hurting, and preventive care will solve all our problems ('fraid not). Unfortunately nothing proposed in the forum is likely to cure this crisis.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/chuck-idelson/2009/04/07/the-real-show-was-outdoors-what-white-house-forum-healthcare-left-out

Honnête et Sérieux · May 12, 2009

Obama and Baucus are quite aware of the concept of a single-payer system.

Both of them have flatly rejected it. Maybe some would say out of ignorance, but I doubt it.

The flip side is that they also aren't pursuing an expansion of private insurance, so this set of hearings seems reasonable, especially considering that the reason that the actual existing elements were brought to the table not so much to influence the process, but because they are going to have to comply with the initiative to reduce the cost so more people can get insurance.

I've already shared one measure which will reduce cost; tort reform.

I'm also thinking of a new one; stop allowing Canadians to access the US healthcare system. They are only increasing demand for US healthcare resources and driving up costs. If the providers were no longer permitted to include Canadians on their client list, then they'd have to find American patients to fill in that gap, and the natural market process works like this; if they can't find a patient, they will reduce cost to remain competitive.

And since Canada supposedly has such a superior system, it really shouldn't matter to them, because they can always just cross the border to access the superior Canadian healthcare system.

Honnête et Sérieux · May 12, 2009

They also didn't allow anyone attend who wanted to abolish medicare.

See how that works?

GCTMT · May 12, 2009

They also didn't allow anyone attend who wanted to abolish medicare.
See how that works?

Thanks.

Did people who wanted to abolish medicare want a seat at the table? Did they send letters and attempt proper channels (at first) to try and secure that seat?

allnurses Guide · May 12, 2009

Five protesters were arrested this morning at a Senate hearing on health-care reform. The protesters -- some, who identified themselves as doctors and nurses -- were be charged with "Disruption of Congress," according to the Capitol Police spokeswoman. The Senate Finance Committee hearing was a roundtable discussion between senators and experts on the best way to pay for health-care reform.

As the hearing opened, about 25 women, who identified themselves as nurses stood up, turning their backs to the senators. Taped to each of their red shirts were signs that called on Congress to pass what's called a "single-payer system," ...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/12/1929527.aspx

Honnête et Sérieux · May 12, 2009

Thanks.
Did people who wanted to abolish medicare want a seat at the table? Did they send letters and attempt proper channels (at first) to try and secure that seat?

I don't know. If they did, I hope they weren't given a half a thought.

My point is that the committee seems to be focused and moderate, and just because people are willing to get arrested to make it look like they were denied a spot at the table doesn't mean they deserve a spot, or that it is even the right venue.

The committee had a specific focus; mandatory health insurance. It was not a hearing on complete reform, and the implementation of a single-payer option is nothing less than complete reform. For that reason, the committee obviously followed it's rules on appointing witnesses to testify, and single-payer was as off-topic as having someone testify on needle-stick injuries. If single-payer advocates want to be heard, a hearing on reform would be more appropriate. The upcoming hearing on Thursday may actually be a more appropriate forum.

Additionally, some experts (both liberal and conservative) think this might be a graduated move toward a socialized system depending on which of the three recommendations (if any) gain traction. Whether you are for a single-payer system or not, even advocates have to acknowledge that swapping the entire enchilada for a freshly-plucked chicken all at one time may not be so wise.

The protestors broke the rules of procedure; if they have to break rules to be heard, then apparently few are interested in listening.

Rule 15. Audiences.—Persons admitted

into the audience for open hearings of the

committee shall conduct themselves with the

dignity, decorum, courtesy and propriety traditionally

observed by the Senate. Demonstrations

of approval or disapproval of any

statement or act by any member or witness

are not allowed. Persons creating confusion or

distractions or otherwise disrupting the orderly

proceeding of the hearing shall be expelled

from the hearing.

allnurses Guide · May 12, 2009

Civil rights and health care rights, says Chism, are "…about the same things. It’s about equality. It’s about social justice.

But we’ve got people more concerned about making a profit than helping the sick."

http://www.calnurses.org/publications/revolution/2005/nov-dec/revmag_novdec05_torch.pdf

tntrn, ASN, RN · May 12, 2009

Civil rights and health care rights, says Chism, are "...about the same things. It's about equality. It's about social justice.
But we've got people more concerned about making a profit than helping the sick."

http://www.calnurses.org/publications/revolution/2005/nov-dec/revmag_novdec05_torch.pdf

So are you willing to work for free? Our salaries represent profit to us...a return for the work we do. Why should anyone be expected to give away their expertise? If they want to voluntarily do that, I'm sure there are places where it can be done. And many do that, in addition to doing their paid jobs.

GCTMT · May 12, 2009

I don't know. If they did, I hope they weren't given a half a thought.
My point is that the committee seems to be focused and moderate, and just because people are willing to get arrested to make it look like they were denied a spot at the table doesn't mean they deserve a spot, or that it is even the right venue.
The committee had a specific focus; mandatory health insurance. It was not a hearing on complete reform, and the implementation of a single-payer option is nothing less than complete reform. For that reason, the committee obviously followed it's rules on appointing witnesses to testify, and single-payer was as off-topic as having someone testify on needle-stick injuries. If single-payer advocates want to be heard, a hearing on reform would be more appropriate. The upcoming hearing on Thursday may actually be a more appropriate forum.
Additionally, some experts (both liberal and conservative) think this might be a graduated move toward a socialized system depending on which of the three recommendations (if any) gain traction. Whether you are for a single-payer system or not, even advocates have to acknowledge that swapping the entire enchilada for a freshly-plucked chicken all at one time may not be so wise.
The protestors broke the rules of procedure; if they have to break rules to be heard, then apparently few are interested in listening.
Rule 15. Audiences.--Persons admitted
into the audience for open hearings of the
committee shall conduct themselves with the
dignity, decorum, courtesy and propriety traditionally
observed by the Senate. Demonstrations
of approval or disapproval of any
statement or act by any member or witness
are not allowed. Persons creating confusion or
distractions or otherwise disrupting the orderly
proceeding of the hearing shall be expelled
from the hearing.

Well, they were in fact denied a seat at the table, it didn't just "look" that way. They asked to be seated, (PHNP) through proper channels at first, and were denied. And they could have provided useful information, even though it's obvious that this Congress and our president seem unwillingly to pass a single-payer plan, many Americans feel it is the right plan and their voices shouldn't have been excluded.

I watched all three roundtable discussion on the internet, the first was focused on delivery system REFORM (direct quote from Max Baucus) followed by the second on May 5th exanding health coverage to all Americans, and then "finance and health reform" on May 14th.

A transfer to a single-payer system would have be done carefully. Legislation already exists to make it happen with as much care as possible. It's very possible that this could be one step toward a more equitable system.

As to breaking the rules, I believe another poster already adressed that issue. History is full of rule-breakers (some good, some bad) who have had to step out of the normal way of things to foster change.

Jolie, BSN · May 12, 2009

Civil rights and health care rights, says Chism, are "…about the same things. It’s about equality. It’s about social justice.

The flip side of rights are responsibilities. We don't get one without the other.

Our system of government is a representative one. If the protesters are unsatisfied with the actions of their elected officials, they have legally acceptable means of expressing that. One is to vote the suckers out of office, which admittedly takes time, lacks drama and doesn't typically involve getting one's face on the news. Another is to protest and engage in civil disobedience, which has immediate results, is dramatic, gets one's face on the news, but usually involves arrest.

The protesters made their choice. Now they have to live with the consequences of that choice. That's where responsibility fits into the equation.

GCTMT · May 12, 2009

The flip side of rights are responsibilities. We don't get one without the other.
Our system of government is a representative one. If the protesters are unsatisfied with the actions of their elected officials, they have legally acceptable means of expressing that. One is to vote the suckers out of office, which admittedly takes time, lacks drama and doesn't typically involve getting one's face on the news. Another is to protest and engage in civil disobedience, which has immediate results, is dramatic, gets one's face on the news, but usually involves arrest.
The protesters made their choice. Now they have to live with the consequences of that choice. That's where responsibility fits into the equation.

I don't think they are having problems living with their decisions. Of course, there is no way to know for sure, is there?

Voting people out of office indeed takes a lot of time, but I agree it is one way for us to accept our dislike of whatever group happens to be in power at the moment. But as you rightly mentioned civil disobedience is another way, and just because it's civil disobedience, doesn't meant it's lawful.

As far as responsibility is concerned, perhaps they feel so responsible for their positions on health care, that they are in fact enaging in Civil Disobedience to reflect that. Whether or not they "broke the rules", is inconsequential to me in this regard, they were unfairly excluded so they took the next step and that step required that they break the rules.

People who protest, sometimes expect to get arrested, I would imagine that these individual are no different.