Comments on: Time to Start from Scratch

By: David

David — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:39:19 +0000

As a member of this wonderful community of organizers education – specifically language – is of urgent concern. It is our role, as being opposed to that which is supported or legitimated, to introduce an alternate value system.

The slogan such as “start from scratch” is disengenuous because we are not proposing elimination of our spectacularly advanced medical infrastructure or human capital.

In fact, such a response to our detractors reinforces the message of fear on which they operate. An analogy is the public option. Instead of speaking about a concrete example, Healthy San Fransisco, we spoke in theoretical and abstract terms.

That the majority of the electorate we can influence (those who earn under $40,000 do not vote 60 – 70% of the time) is interested in statistical conversations has, as of now, been totally unfounded.

By: Larry MacDonald

Larry MacDonald — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:58:45 +0000

It seems to me that we are missing one important aspect – that there is strength in numbers.

If 42% of those of us under the age of 65 have inadequate or no health insurance, then, very simply, an organization which we could join which could then bargain with existing insurance companies for our business would have an incredible amount of power.

It’s well known that larger companies, because they represent greater buying power, have lower rates than smaller companies.

20, 30, or 40 million people purchasing insurance as a single entity would have tremendous bargaining power.

Obviously, there would be obstacles to overcome – a major of which would be purchasing insurance across state lines. However, that many people would also have tremendous political power.

Another obstacle might be that the needs of those 20 to 40 million consumers may vary considerably. I would offer that a number of ‘health plans’ could each be bid for by all of the insurance companies.

Another obstacle may be those that could afford to pay little or no money would still need to be covered. This could be accommodated by
stipulating that a certain percentage of the proceeds for each plan would go to the indigent.

Very obviously, the “single payer” idea would be much more efficient, but it would not necessarily have to be run by the government. A non-profit organization could be put into place to take care of the payouts and billings to the insurance companies. (Unfortunately, it would probably put many who work in the accounting departments in hospitals and doctor’s offices out of work.)

Our government has demonstrated to us that they either cannot or will not get it right – that is, to the benefit of consumers.

There are too many special interests to which they seemingly are obligated to cater. It’s time the consumer became the special interest. We must band together and speak with one voice to our government, to the insurance companies, to the medical community, to the pharmaceutical companies.

By: bob_gutermuth

bob_gutermuth — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:32:21 +0000

RanknFile HEALTHCAREnotWARFARE. We have billions for Warfare, but the Republicans are whining about what Healthcare is going to cost. They would budget the VA for our troops at 125 billion.

By: Julia hathaway

Julia hathaway — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:02:32 +0000

Single payer is the only way to go. So Many people die because of lack of access to health care. This is unacceptable.

By: Sarah Williams

Sarah Williams — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:14:17 +0000

Medicare for all would solve the unemployment problem — a lot of people who are working even though they are sick and old because they can’t afford health care would retire, and businesses relieved of health insurance costs would add staffing. We are sacrificing our health and our economy to a myth that “competition” in private health care produces quality.

By: Ken Sandin

Ken Sandin — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:58:52 +0000

Strip away all the complications–mandates, public option, exchanges, medical loss ratios, income eligibility, surcharges on the rich, pre-existing conditions, taxing high-end plans as income, thresholds, subsidies, periods of ineligibility, opportunistic switches in and out, cherry picking, exempted entities,….. Makes my head hurt.
Let’s get down to what’s important: health justice–quality affordable care for everyone, nobody out–and fiscal responsibility. Quoting William C. Hsiao, Director of the Program in Health Care Financing at the Harvard School of Public Health, “You can have universal coverage and good quality health care while still managing to control costs. But you have to have a single-payer system to do it.”
Isn’t it just that simple? Medicare for All!

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:12:42 +0000

Vote Green Party folks. http://www.gp.org We dont take any corporate money. Think about it. How people can still vote for dems/reps and then be shocked when nothing changes is really beyond me.

So the President is going to give a speech? Big deal. He gives a lot of speeches. He just does not follow through.

By: Larry Glazer

Larry Glazer — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:07:56 +0000

Doesn’t the opposition need health care?

By: John Piekarski

John Piekarski — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:43:12 +0000

As a small-business man, I want single payer so I don’t have to worry about where health care insurance is coming from.

By: iBlogWestHartford

iBlogWestHartford — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:29:08 +0000

Careful – the Insurance Industry can be ANIMALS!

Watch the new cartoon at:
http://iblogwesthartford.blogspot.com/2010/01/aetna-cigna-and-connecticare-would-they.html