Health Care For America Now

We don’t need “coverage”; we need health care. We don’t need a uniquely American solution to financing medical care.

Countries like France, Germany and Canada have already paved the way: Hospitals and doctors remain private businesses. The government guarantees access to essential care, financed by taxes. People are still free to buy enhanced coverage in the private market. It’s that simple.

The fastest and easiest way to bring health care costs under control is to eliminate the overhead and profit generated by and for private health insurers. 20 to 30 cents of every health care dollar spent doesn’t currently go towards keeping people healthy it goes to insurance companies. Take them out of the equation to the greatest extent possible.

Private health insurance is irrevocably broken. They no longer do any of the things they are allegedly in business to do: They can’t control costs, they can’t deliver predictable and understandable premiums and coverage contracts, and they don’t even protect individual policyholders from substantial financial risks.

by Joe Bob - 07/10/08

Please take the term ‘affordable’ off the table.  Affordable implies ‘pay’ and therefore will negate the meaning of universal health care.  No matter how low the sum of payment there will still be too many that will not be able to ‘afford’ any health care, much less ‘quality health care’.  Thank you.

Dennis Jones
8475 77th St. S.
Cottage Grove, MN 55016

by dennis jones - 07/10/08

I’m not sure what sent you on this tack but, as a health care activist and professional with decades of experience, I must say there is no way I will support your movement as it stands. Moreover I will do everything I can to inform others about the deficiencies of this approach. As long as the health insurance companies are left in the mix, there will not be any serious progress on health care reform. I don’t know to what extent to lay the blame for your abortive effort at reform to your naiveté and that of the members of your coalition vs. to a more cynical approach designed to give the appearance of reform while giving up the battle before it’s fought, sucking up a lot of money, and providing cover for candidates who are generously supported by insurance companies, HMO’s, and pharmaceutical and health equipment companies.

HR 676 is the only plan with significant Congressional support—90 cosponsors at this point. Why are you not using your considerable resources to educate the public, persuade Congress, and fight for genuine universal, single-payer health care coverage that side-lines the huge for-profit insurance industry? Medicare has been popular and it ran efficiently until for-profits got into the mix. Had you not noticed? 

I would like an explanation as to why you are so considerate of health insurance companies; why you are concerned with “regulating” them rather than side-lining them; and why you think we are the only developed nation without a universal health care system?

I await your answers.

by L. C. Rustad, PhD - 07/10/08

The real grass roots has been PNHP and CNA and local labor and local activists working on Single Payer, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All. If MoveOn and HCAN want to do something real they would have included in this $40 million campaign an option for people to urge their congressperson to sign onto Conyers HR-676. A real bill, really in congress. That would really accomplish what you say your goals are.

by DrSteveB - 07/10/08

Will someone please tell me what private company will insure an individual with a pre-existing condition?

by Marilyn Schaller - 07/10/08

Sorry, I do not have a response as to which company may cover someone with a pre-exisiting condition.

I would also like to say in response to the earlier comments, that we are all in a grassroots movement for change. We would welcome all help and all voices for change, if you agree to our principles.

The real fight here is with the insurance industry which we all agree should not be in charge of health care reform. We may disagree slightly on the best path to get to health care for all, but we all agree on the destination.

I am glad to see such a spirited debate, and I hope that you will join us when the real debate kicks in—in Congress in 2009.

by Levana - 07/10/08

Levana, here’s a challenge.  You wrote:

“a properly designed single payer plan can fit within our principles”

Accordingly, please either:

(A) Declare that HCAN supports HR 676 (a single-payer plan), or

(B) Explain (1) exactly how you believe HR 676 fails to be “properly designed” and (2) how it would need to be changed to be “properly designed” and (3) why those changes would be an improvement.

Thank you.

by N. Olson - 07/10/08

Ok, folks. Thanks for sharing.

Please do not curse, use other foul language, or personal attacks.

If so, I will not be able to post your comments.

by Levana - 07/10/08

I am deeply dismayed that HCAN, in the interest of political expediency, is willing to give up on a cure for the cancer that ails our health care system: profit based on denial of care. As long as insurance companies are provided an economic incentive to deny care, ordinary Americans will be denied care. Placing a watchdog without teeth to guard them is about as effective as requesting Karl Rove honor a subpeona. At least include Single Payer in your survey.

Shame on you for capitulating to Murder by Spreadsheet!

by Lauren Reichelt - 07/10/08

Actually, Lauren. You are mistaken. We explicitly say in our statement of common purpose that we are for:

“A watchdog role on all plans, to assure that risk is fairly spread among all health care payers and that insurers do not turn people away, raise rates or drop coverage based on a person’s health history or wrongly delay or deny care.”

Now you may disagree with the fact that we are open to other solutions besides a very specific single payer plan that you endorse, but that doesn’t mean that we are giving in to the industry.

However, as I have said before we have more in common than our differences. And, we would be happy to have you work with us to fight the industry on this.

Please don’t assume that because you disagree with us on one point our statement of common purpose that we are opposed to your ideas entirely.

I don’t know how to be more reasonable, but it seems that your ideological commitment is stronger than your desire for a solution that works to get quality, affordable care for all.

by Levana - 07/11/08

Hi Levana. I assume you’ve at least read my challenge above? Since HCAN is apparently not supporting any specific plan as of yet, I’ll relax the first option of my challenge so that it says:

(A) Declare that HR676 is a properly designed single payer plan that would fit within HCAN’s principles,

or

(B) Explain (1) exactly how you believe HR676 fails to be properly designed and (2) how it would need to be changed to be properly designed and (3) why those changes would be an improvement.

I have no doubt that you want to solve our country’s healthcare problems as much as I do. I’d really like to see your response to my challenge. I’m happy to be educated, if you can cogently describe how some modifications to HR 676 could be an improvement.

Would you please give me some response as soon as you see this post, at least just to let me know whether you’re planning to accept my challenge? Thanks.

by N. Olson - 07/11/08

Maybe if HCAN had worked BEFOREHAND with PNHP and CNA and the hundreds of grassrotts organizations we have had on the ground since the last time pre-comprimising failed and you all went into hibernation, then you would not be so surprised at the pushback you have received.

by DrSteveB - 07/14/08