"The Republican Party will soon be known as the party of health care – you watch."

In George Orwell's 1984,  the term "wordfact" is used to describe a government pronouncement which is demonstrably false, yet accepted as true by an abject populace which has to swear allegiance not only to the beloved leader, but also to whatever comes out of his mouth. To such a state do we seem to be descending when the leader of the GOP asks us to believe that his party will generate any healthcare program at all -- let alone a serviceable one. 

Putting it charitably, anybody -- other than White House sycophants -- who would endorse that fiction simply hasn't been paying attention. The GOP is the party of providing no meaningful healthcare whatsoever. So fiercely have they opposed healthcare that Paul Krugman, in today's New York Times,  describes their hatred of it as "pathological." I prefer to think of it as a natural consequence of their chief credo -- that entitlement to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be quantified in dollars: the more of them you have, the more entitled you become, and the less of them you have, the less deserving apparently, you must be of any good thing in life. From which it follows that to require the rich to help the poor is unutterably wrong -- "confiscatory," to use one of their favorite words.  Redistributing wealth downward in anathema to them, whereas redistributing upward is natural and right, the inevitable triumph of the stronger -- celebrated, they suppose, by Darwin.

Indeed, in today's corporate world, Cain's question, "am I my brother's keeper?" has developed a sinister answer, for our corporate masters do "keep" us, the way corporate  agribusiness keeps the sheep or cows it owns -- for their wool and their milk. And when we are no longer worth the shearing, or the milking, our owners dispose of us as efficiently as possible.

Thus our Republican overlords either approve of, or acquiesce in the abolition of ACA, and the gutting of Medicare and Social Security.  To them, it makes perfect sense: We are, from their point of view, simply not worth the money -- their money. For it is, increasingly, becoming all theirs.  According to an article in the Washington Post dated February of this year,  the top .1 percent own more than the bottom 80 percent.

Wealth Concentration Returning to Levels Last Seen During the Roaring Twenties

Arguably, the super-rich already own our government. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals alone devotes three lobbyists to each Senator and Representative; doubtless the rest of Big Pharma is similarly devoted: One of the results is that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate drug prices. And the only way Obama could get ACA passed was  to agree to the parameters stipulated by the Medical/Industrial establishment. It was imperfect to begin with, and Trump's continual weakening of it made it even less satisfactory,  But we should be grateful for it, wobbly as it is, for 20 million people are insured by it, and it's the only thing standing between many thousands and certain death.  And if in the courts Trump succeeds where he couldn't in the legislature the results will be catastrophic.

And as if that weren't enough,  I've just received a post from Don McCanne, who quotes an economic report signed by Trump. Its bottom line is there is no reason why Healthcare cannot operate in a market governed by free choice  -- thus dismissing the work of eminent economists asserting that the unique features and conditions of healthcare make it impossible to function effectively in a free market system. (One of many reasons: To lower costs, the risk must be spread as wide as possible. Competing systems divide the pool and thus raise the rates. In addition, many people who need medical care are in no position to "shop  around" for the best value, nor have they the information to make an informed choice. This is no time for ideology. ) McCanne says with breathtaking understatement "we can conclude that our health care financing system is not in good hands. We have to do something about that."

Oh yes we do, friends, yes we do. We live in a country which is not only in thrall to corporate interests, it has seemingly become hypnotized by its propaganda.  There are people who actually believe that National Socialists (Nazis) and Democratic Socialists (Progressive Democrats) are equivalent. And there are people who think that taking the profit motive out of medicine is an attack on our Capitalistic system. If they mean the Capitalism of unrestrained and unregulated greed, they are right.

What can we do?  We must each of us contact our representatives -- on the federal level -- and insist that only Medicare For All will satisfy us, and that we don't buy the Trumpian free market bulls**t.  And on the State level we must contact our State Assembly Members and State Senators, and tell them that the New York Health Act is what we need and what we insist on. For more info on NYHA you can click on:

New York Health Act Campaign

They've got everything from a brief, entertaining animation (see it!) longer videos with  more wonky explanations -- and everything in between. And it will have more suggestions about what you can DO.

And we must do all the above not only forcefully, but repeatedly. Don't rely on your friend or your neighbor to do it -- do it yourself.  Make time for it. Do it.  The revolution begins with us.

Everybody gets sick now and then. And when it's your turn, whose policies do you want  in place -- the Republicans (who really don't care what happens to you so long as their beloved free market is allowed to fly unconstrained) or the Democrats, whose guiding principle is EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO  HEALTHCARE -- NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STATION IN LIFE.

Tell others how you feel.

Dio

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!

PAUL KRUGMAN VS. WHO?

Anyone who has read the New York Times will likely recognize the gentleman on the right: He's Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning Economist and Columnist for the Times. It would be hard to be more distinguished than he. 

I'd be surprised if many of my readers recognized the gentleman in the left: He's Don McCanne, MD, who in addition to being a physician, has been all his life a student of health policy.  He currently serves as Chief Policy Fellow for the Physicians for a National Health Plan PHNP), a body in which he served as President in 2002 and 2003. There is no more passionate advocate for Single-Payer than Dr. McCanne, and I read his daily blog with the deepest respect.  

On Sunday, March 17, the Texas Tribune published Patrick Sviteck's story about Beto O'Rourke's pivoting on his healthcare plan preference:

In Iowa, Beto O'Rourke works to find his footing on health care

Sviteck explains that O'Rourke, never more than luke-warm towards the notion of Single-Payer, seemed more comfortable embracing a policy considerably to the right of  it -- Medicare for America.  Sviteck quotes him:

"It responds to the fact that so many Americans have said, ‘I like my employer-based insurance. I want to keep it. I like the network I’m in. I like the doctor that I see,'" O'Rourke said. "It complements what already exists with the need that we have for millions of Americans who do not have insurance and ensures that each of them can enroll in Medicare. It then suggests additional investments in that program so it becomes the program of choice, and people who have private insurance migrate over to the Medicare system."

Someone questioned him:"So the greed has to stay in the insurance industry in your opinion?"

Beto paused, then said that he didn't see it as a function of greed. "I think I have to be respectful to people who just shared with me what I shared with you: They like the program they’re in, they like the insurance that they have," O'Rourke said. "If we become too ideological or too prescribed in the solution, we may allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. And there are fellow American human lives depending on us finding a solution."

Upon reading this,  Dr. McCanne posted a very passionate statement about 

The-Fallacy That You Can Keep The Insurance You Have

He says that virtually nobody in this country does. "The obvious point" he writes, "is that people do not have stable health care coverage throughout their lives." And as he makes clear, there are too many reasons why the insurance companies change, or their policies do, or the networks do.  I suggest you read his article I've linked above: I never knew there were so many reasons why the insurance you have can and will change, but I can testify that in my lifetime that has been my experience.  

And as for that shibboleth "freedom of choice," you have to go along with whatever your employer chooses to give you -- if he chooses anything. You get the doctors and the network that your employer chooses. But as McCanne says, with Single-Payer, you don't have to worry about doctors being in your network; You can choose any doctor, any hospital you want: they're all in the same network!  (This would be very much unlike Medicare for America, if it devolves into a two-tiered system -- one more pricey than the other -- those who belong to the medicare tier might find themselves priced out of the tier whose pricier doctors might not want to treat them. That sort of thing is happening as I write this. There is a physician in Kingston, well thought of,  whose receptionist told me: "Of course Doctor doesn't take Medicare. That's what you have? You should have told me from the get-go, and not wasted my time!" Luckily for Carol and me, we could find quite a few other good doctors in Kingston who do take Medicare.)

Thus this argument for Medicare for America -- that you can keep the insurance you have -- is, in McCanne's opinion, based upon a fallacy. And, as I said in my most recent post, Medicare for America, in my opinion, would be unlikely to last long, if for no other reason that no billion dollar company is going to sit quietly by while it is being put out of business -- however slowly. They'll deploy every dollar they have to lie, distort, and bribe.

Despite all this, Paul Krugman believes that eventually most of the Democratic candidates will be persuaded to move rightward and and embrace Medicare for America. In  his recent opinion piece,

Don't Make Health Care a Purity Test

Krugman asks, 

But even if optimistic claims about Medicare for All are true, will people believe them? And even if most people do, if a significant minority of voters doesn’t trust the promises of single-payer advocates, that could easily either doom Democrats in the general election or at least make it impossible to get their plan through Congress.

And he points out that -- just as there is more than one way to skin a cat -- there are in the world many ways proven successful in providing universal healthcare. "Every two years," he says,  "the Commonwealth Fund provides an invaluable survey of major nations’ health care systems. America always comes in last; in the latest edition, the three leaders are Britain, Australia and the Netherlands. 

"What’s remarkable about those top three is that they have radically different systems. Britain has true socialized medicine — direct government provision of health care. Australia has single-payer — it’s basically Bernie down under. But the Dutch rely on private insurance companies — heavily regulated, with lots of subsidies, but looking more like a better-funded version of Obamacare than like Medicare for All. And the Netherlands actually tops the Commonwealth Fund rankings."

Krugman then asks,  "So which system should Democrats advocate? The answer, I’d argue, is the system we’re most likely actually to create — the one that will play best in the general election, and is then most likely to pass Congress if the Democrat wins." 

He concludes, "To me, then, Medicare for America — which lets people keep employment-based insurance — looks like a much better bet for actually getting universal coverage than Medicare for All. But I could be wrong! And it’s fine to spend the next few months arguing the issue. What won’t be fine will be if activists make a no-private-insurance position a litmus test, declaring that anyone advocating a more incrementalist approach is no true progressive, or maybe a corrupt shill for the medical/industrial complex. As you might guess, my concerns aren’t drawn out of thin air; they’re things I’m already hearing."

So the next few months will be anything but boring! And the thing is: I'm really not 100% sure of where I am on all this.  In the readers comments section -- which I strongly urge you to read -- readers give their views about Krugman's opinions. In the first New York Times Pick, you can read:

"Private insurance is mostly there to say No, you can’t have that, but if you do, we’re not going to pay for it. And we currently pay through the nose for these companies to tell us that. Who in their right mind is “satisfied” w that? Only stupid people or people w ties to the health insurance industry. No, private health insurance, w the possible exception of “boutique” brands for the wealthy, should be abolished. I don’t often disagree w Mr. Krugman, but this time I do. Wholeheartedly. Is my view impractical? Let’s forget the polls and vote on it."

After reading this, I thought, "yes, yes! Those !*#@*! [the healthcare companies] should not be rewarded for what they've put us through! I agree 100 percent! But then I read:

"One of the problems that Progressives will have in selling Medicare for All is that they have made a compelling case for the utter corruptibility of politicians due to money in politics. The GOP over the years has made a much less honest but electorial effective case that "liberal elites" cannot be trusted. And Trump has demonstrated the weaknesses in oversight, check and balances, and the value of facts in our system of government in the face of extreme partisanship and the conservative media ecosystem. "So how do you convince the rightfully skeptical, currently insured but potentially persuadable, to let OUR Federal government take this much control over health care NOW? "Explaining all the positives of Medicare for All is easy relative to the challenge of explaining how THIS government, that will without question still be highly partisan in 2020 and still awash in big donor money, is capable of pulling this off. "Have a robust debate. If Medicare for All resonates with a solid majority of voters across a majority of states that's great. I hope it goes that way. "But if not, keep in mind that our democracy may not survive another 4 years of Trump and McConnell. Medicare for All is not the hill to die on. [Emphasis added]

After reading this, I think, OMG, of course, of course! This makes sense!

Let our good doctor, the esteemed Don McCanne -- only one year younger than I -- have the last word about what we activists for Single-Payer must bear in mind:

This is a time for PASSION. We have to get this message out there.

As with everything else, he is so right about this, too.

Dio

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!

BETO O'ROURKE CHOOSES "MEDICARE FOR AMERICA" (NOT MEDICARE FOR ALL)

What does he know that we don't?

Although Medicare for All  has been the rallying cry of most of the progressive Democrats in the presidential race,  Beto chooses another, seemingly more "moderate" plan. What is this "Medicare For America" that Beto should go for it? You can check it out in this link:

Medicare for America -- Beto's Favorite Healthcare plan -- Explained

It's very much influenced by a plan cooked up the Center for American Progress (CAP) last year, and presented in my blog post "Various Flavors of Healthcare Reform" (12/15).  The new plan would allow all who like the insurance offered by their employer the opportunity to keep it. Everyone else -- those who don't like their employer's plans, or who do not have employer-offered insurance, or who have either private insurance, ACA, Medicare or Medicaid, or no health insurance whatsoever -- get Medicare for America. In addition, every new-born automatically gets enrolled in Medicare for America, whose required contributions  are graduated by ability to pay, and whose benefits would be at least equal to the remaining Private Employer's Insurance which would theoretically be strictly regulated, and would cover at least 80% of the expenses incurred by the employee. But any time the employee became dissatisfied with his employer's plan, or any time his employer wanted to move him or her off it, that employee would transfer into Medicare for America.

Thus, so the story goes, as more and more newborns are enrolled into Medicare for America, and more and more currently employed people retire, gradually everyone would be covered by Medicare for America, and Private Health Insurance would just fade away, so to speak. What's not to like?

WELL!

I can't imagine anyone so naive as to suppose that during the decades-long process of conversion to Single-Payer, Private Insurance would go gently into that Good Night. No, it would fight with every dollar at its disposal, and it would exploit the public's dissatisfaction with the new system. And there would be plenty to complain about! For one thing, all the disadvantages of our badly fragmented system would be kept, with the loss of much of the savings in administrative overhead that would have helped pay for Single-Payer, thus raising the costs higher than necessary.  And with the pool of risk essentially halved, the required payments to Medicare for America would be even higher than if  all the population were paying into it. 

Moreover, medical providers, who currently spend a fifth of their time wrestling with Private Insurance, would be denied the relief that Single-Payer would have provided. And since the Private insurance folks could drop coverage for anyone too sick or frail to be profitable (they're doing it now), we'd have a two-tiered system -- one for the rich and healthy, and one everyone else, with costs spiraling out of control.  And within the first two years -- five at the most -- the public would cry out to go back to what it had before -- the Medical Industrial Establishment would make sure of that!

Truly, the only thing Beto's plan has going for it is what he may suppose is the public's unwariness that might lead it to believe two things:

1. This "incremental" approach is a good thing, and
2. Private Insurance can be trusted not to find ways -- even with "strict" regulation -- to game the system to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of everything else.

I should make it clear that even with Single-Payer, there are bound to remain a few private insurance companies, to deal with things NOT covered by Medicare for All -- aesthetic plastic surgery for example.  And there may be others.

But Howard Schultz, the ex-CEO of Starbucks, supposes that the entire Health Insurance Industry would be destroyed. "Destroy a whole industry?" he says, "that's un-American! What will they destroy next -- coffee?"  My point is that the privatization -- indeed the financialization -- of all industries is so in-grown within the body of our American life,  that there is a benefit in making the excision of this toxic mass as surgically swift as possible.  Yes, we must plan for dealing with the displacement of many of the insurance workers -- they count, too!  In this I do NOT include the hugely salaried CEOs and their ilk. They have the resources to take care of themselves. 

They also have the resources to find ways to hold on to their jobs -- at the expense and pain of everyone else.

We must fight them, opposing all their culture of greed. Despite Schultz's protestations, that is NOT the American way.

Dio

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!

I COULDN'T RESIST THIS!

I saw this on Twitter, and loved it!  We can quibble about whether Berniecare or Rep. Jayapal's new Medicare-For-All bill is the better, but you get the idea: Only Single-Payer is going to provide Medicare for All.  Accept no substitutes!

Dio

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!

THE SECRETS HIDDEN FROM YOUR DOCTOR WHICH COULD KILL YOU

On March 11th, Huffington Post published a report by Kaiser Health News stating that 
The FDA has built and expanded a vast and hidden repository of reports on device-related injuries and malfunctions, a Kaiser Health News investigation shows. Since 2016, at least 1.1 million incidents have flowed into the internal “alternative summary reporting” repository, instead of being described individually in the widely scrutinized public database known as MAUDE, which medical experts trust to identify problems that could put patients in jeopardy.
Read the full report here:

FDA Keeps A Database Of Medical Device Injuries Hidden From Doctors And Public

Instead of issuing a full report on each malfunction or injury, a device manufacturer is given an "exemption" which allows it to update a spreadsheet of such incidents, so it looks like there is only one report when investigating the spreadsheet could reveal many such problems. And this spreadsheet is in a database so secret that many in the FDA have never heard of it.

And for those who find out about its existence the FDA has made access to this secret database all but impossible. Using the Freedom of information Act might make them let you look, but it could take up to two years for that to happen.

All of which means that if your doctor wants to use a medical device with the best safety record, or a medical research engineer wants to avoid design problems that have cropped up in the past, they're in trouble -- and so are you. KHN concludes this explosive article with the following:

The growing cadre of exceptions to the injury- and death-reporting rules strikes Dr. Michael Carome, director of the Public Citizen Health Research Group, as a retreat by the FDA from making crucial information available for researchers and patients. “It’s just another example of a flawed oversight system,” he said, “bent toward making it easier for industry rather than making protection of public health the primary goal.”

In other words, the FDA -- like the government of which it is a part -- is more interested in the health of business than it is in the health of people.

This is why a mere nibbling around the edge of current policy ultimately will not change a thing. We need nothing less than a great sea-change in this country, so that in matters of healthcare, profits will no longer have primacy -- patients will. And that will not happen unless we all raise our voices.

Have you been silent about healthcare reform? That means you have acquiesced to the current dysfunction, and if you acquiesce to it, you enable it.

Dio

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!

EXCUSE ME, BUT I HAVE TO BARF

This was how Don McCanne -- the distinguished physician and policy analyst -- ended his commentary upon reading the Health Affairs study of women who had been switched from Low Deductible commercial health plans to High Deductible Health Plans (HDHP'S), and who had been diagnosed with Breast Cancer. Most of them -- even those who had the money to pay for it -- delayed their care for many months, risking what the study termed, euphemistically, "sub-optimal results." McCanne writes:
We have serious problems with our health care financing system - a system that costs twice the average per capita of other wealthy nations yet falls miserably short in performance. In the meantime, the policy community busies itself with fixes that have clearly failed to bring our expensive system up to the standards of other nations. One of those fixes is high-deductible health plans....The policy community is quite smug now because moving to higher deductibles is working, according to their terms. People are limiting or delaying care because of these deductibles, thus meeting the goal of reducing health care spending. [But,] in our terms, is it really working? Is it smart health care shopping if the financial exposure causes patients to delay diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer? Should women be waiting to be sure that they really need this care by seeing if they develop further invasive or metastatic disease? Just asking that question depresses and even nauseates me. 

Where McCanne was nauseated,  I was enraged! I dashed off a missive -- more like a missile -- to my local network, shouting in bold type:
Hey, all you women out there, and all you men who love them, are concerned about them, and/or who are appalled by the disaster we call healthcare in the United States: We already know that mortality rates in child delivery are higher in this country  than elsewhere. But now, read Don McCanne's commentary, and then, to any of you still waiting to take direct action on behalf of the New York Health Act, I ask:

WHAT THE DEVIL ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!?! VISIT THE NEW YORK HEALTH ACT WEBSITE; JUST CLICK ON: 

https://www.nyhcampaign.org/

and read about all the things you can do, and do something. Don't wait for someone else to do it.

Wake up, people : The war against women is a war against EVERYONE! 

But then I calmed down a bit, and thought, "maybe I should learn more." So I looked at the original document and saw that its authors had suggested a palliative -- the implementation of  something they called,  "value-based features" in the HDHP's. That didn't sound very good to me, since "value-based pricing" means that if you need a pill to stay alive, the Pharma robbers are allowed to gouge you $1000 or more per pill. But no, this was seemingly more benign: 

Value-Based Insurance Design

seemed to mean, among other things, having little or no deductibles for things that are needed to keep you well,  and higher deductibles for things deemed unnecessary, or of no proven value. Leaving aside the question of whether this would work, I noticed that the aim of the authors was "cost-efficient health care services" -- that is more healthcare for the consumer dollar. But that, I realized, is exactly the converse of what the insurance companies are aiming for: more profit from each diagnosis -- more consumer dollars taken in, and less spent.  

In short, the authors of the study supposed that the only viable solution to the problem was within the current profit-driven health care system, when in truth, THE ONLY SOLUTION IS A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM WHICH WOULD, OF NECESSITY, ELIMINATE VIRTUALLY ALL PRIVATE INSURANCE!

Having got that off my chest, I feel better.

Dio

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!

CALLING OUT THE MOST DIRE FAILURE OF ALL

Pictured above is Marina Tsaplina as she addressed the crowd at the Picket The Profiteers rally at the New York Public Library, March 3rd.  Born with Type 1 Diabetes, sbe has been not only been  struggling to stay alive, but has also founded several international activist organizations dedicated to making insulin available to everyone who needs it. In her short, up-beat address, she said that she had noticed in some of the people she had encountered "a huge and acute lack of imagination about what is possible,"  and urged us to stir "the public imagination" to embrace the idea that Medicare for All  is indeed possible.

This talk about imagination struck home with me. In my career as a programmer, I discovered that the challenge I faced was not knowing how to code something-- anybody can learn that -- it was rather having the imagination to conceive of something new.  I learned that if I could dream up something, making it real was merely mechanical. How empowering that felt!  The most important thing was not the coding -- it was the dream. I learned that if I could dream it, I could do it.

We must share our dream. But before we can convince others, we must first convince ourselves that change will happen;  we must convince ourselves that all the reasons advanced by doubters -- the ineptitude of government, the unwillingness of the healthcare industrial establishment to give up their profits, the power of the almighty dollar to corrupt weak politicians, the paucity of politicians honest enough to resist being bought, the fear of change, the seeming inability of those with money to be empathetic to the plight of those without, the complexities of program design, etc. etc. etc. -- will in the end NOT prevail against THE INELUCTABLE RIGHTNESS OF WHAT MUST IN THE END COME TO PASS.   We cannot predict when it will happen. But if we ourselves are not confident that it will happen, whom can we persuade? 

My father of blessed memory used to say, "in life, you must sell yourself a bill of goods." And the bill of goods we need to sell ourselves, tell ourselves, consciously, every day, is that Single Payer is the right thing to do, and that its time has come. 

My earlier post -- A Taste of What We Could Have Here In The U.S. (1/03/19) -- using the French example, makes it easy for us to imagine how profoundly Universal Health Care will change the dynamic and the  texture of life after its passage. We must convey such details to those with imagination deficits so they will be able to see what a positive effect these changes will make in our lives. When any of us gets sick, our first question we will no longer be: Can I afford it? It will be: Where can I find the best care? There will no longer be networks restricting our access to the best doctors. And those who already have what they suppose is good corporate insurance will no longer have to worry about their employers' changing health insurance providers, thus changing the insurance protocols or requirements, such as co-payments and deductibles.

Likewise, those who have trouble imagining should be told what will happen if Single Payer is NOT passed.  Prices will continue to skyrocket, so that in Detroit for example, the thousand dollars of healthcare costs now built in to every automobile will seem trivial compared to the formidable figure it will become. And fewer and fewer in the middle class will feel insulated from the on-coming horror. Even the myopic will blink at the future rushing at them.

The truth is that all  the reasons advanced by doubters are really excuses: At bottom, they don't believe in Single Payer because they don't really want it.

Hopefully, sooner with our help, or later inevitably, even the unimaginative will realize that they do want Single Payer. 

And when they want it, they'll find a way to do it.

Dio


PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!

THE OPPOSITION

Who's Against the New York Health Act, and What They Are Saying

Way back in November 15, 2018 -- in these eventful times, it seems like ages ago -- Carol and I joined the PICKET THE PROFITEERS activists to picket the annual conference of the New York Health Plan Association, a trade association for the state's health insurance companies.  Some of our chief antagonists were -- and are -- Eric Linzer, President of the NYHPA,  Heather Briccetti,  President of the BCNYS (Business Council of New York State), Matt Eyles, CEO of America's Health Plans, the national lobby group for the insurance industry, and Kipp Snyder, a vice president of PhRMA, the lobby group for the pharmaceutical industry. 

Also present were leaders of the so-called "realities" coalition mainly of business interests: 

Bond Benefits Consulting, Inc, Buffalo Niagara Partnership, The Business Council of New York State, Inc. Opposition Memo, Business Council of Westchester  Opposition Memo, CAP COM Federal Credit Union, Capital Region Chamber of Commerce Opposition Memo, Centers Health Care, Century Benefits Group, Inc., Chemung County Chamber of Commerce, Columbian Mutual Life,  Insurance Company, Consiliarium Group, LLC, Corning Area Chamber of Commerce, Crisafulli Bros. Plumbing & Heating Contractors, Inc., DiVirgilio Benefit Resources, LLC, Dupli Envelope, Employer Alliance  Opposition Memo, Food Industry Alliance of New York State, Inc. Opposition Memo, Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce. Greater Central New York Association of Health, underwriters, Greater Niagara Frontier New York Association of Health Underwriters, Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce, Hematology Oncology Associates of Central New York, The Hilliard Corporation, Kaatirondack Benefit Planning, Inc., Matt Industries, Mohawk Valley EDGE, National Federation of Independent Businesses  Opposition Memo, New York City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, New York Health Plan Association  Opposition Memo. New York State Association of Health Underwriters  Opposition Memo, New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, New York State Conference of Blue Cross and Blue Shield  Plans  Opposition Memo, New York State Professional Fire Fighters Association, New York State Society of Plastic Surgeons, North Country Chamber of Commerce, North Eastern New York Association of Health Underwriters, Pathfinder Bank, Perry & Carroll Inc., Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Pinnacle Human Resources, LLC, Rockland Business Association, Sergeants Benevolent Association, Suburban Hospital Alliance of New York State, LLC, The Agency,  Uniformed Firefighters Association of Greater New York. Unshackle Upstate  Opposition Memo, Welliver McGuire, Inc.

PHEW!

Why am I rehearsing all this? One of my readers suggested I post the names of some of the opposition. There are a lot of them! The so-called "realities coalition" have their own web site:

https://realitiesofsinglepayer.com/

Here they lay out in lurid detail what they want us to believe are the consequences of single payer:  "Staggering Tax Increases -- Job Loss -- Government Run Healthcare".

Of course their claims are at best distortions, and at worst outright lies. For example, while there would be tax increases, they would be largely offset by reductions in personal expenses. No matter what your condition, you wouldn't be charged a thing at the door, and you would be taxed progressively according to your income: Most of us would pay much less for healthcare, and only the richest would pay more -- which they could well afford. In fact, New York State would save a bunch of money through reductions in bureaucratic overhead -- Medicare now enjoys an overhead of merely 2 or 3 percent, in contrast to the overhead suffered by private insurance companies -- which is in excess of 13 percent -- not to mention the many, many millions paid to top esecutives. And this, of course is the secret of the vehement opposition. Some people  feel they stand to lose a lot -- in money and in perquisites, when our healthcare system ceases to be driven by profit.

Look: If you were a healthcare exec paid 25+ millions of dollars a year (there are such people!) would you be willing to give all that up without a fight? I daresay not. 

Surely, there are a lot of reasons to be afraid of anything new.  People thought that Medicare would bring on catastrophe, or at best, socialism. Of course, neither happened. 

Of course there are legitimate reasons for apprehension: Workers who are lucky enough to belong to unions which give them so-called "Cadillac" health insurance plans fear that they might have to do with less than what they currently enjoy. But there are ways around that. too. 

But those who are invested in the primacy of profits will fight against it with every dollar at their disposal -- and they have a lot of dollars to fight with! Only today I learned from an article by Carl Gibson in GritPost that Pharma and Insurance gave $43 million to Democrats not backing Medicare For All. 

GritPost article

The report stated that the Rep in my district was paid $76,579 from these interests -- which didn't surprise me at all. From the time he started running, he has made no secret of his opposition to Single Payer.  And, since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has been paid an awesome $1,029,375 from the healthcare industrial establishment. She too isn't thrilled with Single Payer. Are these mere coincidences, or is there somehow a connection between the payments and the positions? You decide.

Follow the money, follow the money! But the money doesn't always lead to compromise and corruption. I know for a fact that some moneyed folks out there are for Single Payer. Some of them see our current situation -- where a full fifth of our GNP goes for healthcare -- as unsustainable, and is putting us in an increasingly disadvantageous situation competing with the rest  of the industrialized world, which gets more health care and better outcomes with half the expense. And some want to give back to a country to which they owe so much. There even are some who are appalled at the immorality of what's going on, and answer "YES!" to the question, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

I know a young woman (at my age, most women seem young) who keeps saying that if something seems good and true, keep fighting for it!

I think so, too. We've come too far, and the cause is too worthy, to simply lie down and give up.

Fight on!

Dio.

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.


PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!

THIS WAS WORTH GETTING UP AT 4:00 IN THE MORNING

The Picket the Profiteers Action in New York City

All this happened yesterday, Sunday, March 3rd. The setup group -- which included me -- was to meet at 10:30 in front of Pfizer headquarters, near the corner of 42nd St. and 2nd Avenue. Carol and I agreed that we were not going to attempt driving down there and back at one day -- the days when I could do that easily are well behind me. Yet to make it to Poughkeepsie and the Metro-North train that would get us there in time, we knew we had to get out of bed at 4 AM. 

For me, there was no question about going down. I had promised them that I would deliver 2 dozen posters that I had designed and printed; moreover, I had agreed to lead the chanting as part of the warm-up. There was no way I was going to renege on either. As I drove to the train station, I burst into song. Carol said, "you're in a good mood, this morning!" and I was. Carol was quieter.  I hadn't asked her to come with me because I didn't want her to feel obligated, but, angel as she is, she volunteered to accompany me, and I gladly accepted. It was not the first time in our marriage that we had done such a thing.  56 years earlier, we had driven down to Washington DC and were in the crowd that heard Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his immortal "I have a dream" speech. And -- 56 years later -- as I drove us both to the Poughkeepsie train station -- I silently wondered if the forthcoming demonstration might in some small way have some of the significance that the earlier event had.  As it turned out, I needn't have wondered: It did. 

We got there some 15 minutes early; we were the first there except for one photographer. But soon, there appeared, towing a rolling case, Bob Lederer, the leader of Picket the Profiteers. He withdrew from the case a pole and a small horn-shaped outdoor loudspeaker,  looking at both speculatively,  wondering how to set them up. I believe he mentioned that he had been loaned the equipment from a cosponsoring organization whose name, unfortunately,  I forget.  But he had plenty of cosponsoring groups to choose from. In his press notice released today, Bob writes:

Based out of the Campaign for New York Health, Picket the Profiteers is cosponsored by these cosponsoring organizations:

• ACT UP/NY
• Democratic Socialists of America
• Fight Back Bay Ridge
• Healthcare Equity Action League of New York
• International Action Center
• International Socialist Organization NYC
• Metro New York Health Care for All
• Peoples Power Assembly
• Physicians for a National Health Program – NY Metro
• Rise and Resist
• Students for a National Health Program
• Uptown Progressive Action

It shouldn't surprise anyone that there is a large community of activist groups in New York City, a  network doubtless known to Lederer, who is Executive Director of Physicians for a National Health Program - New York Metro Chapter. And, as it happened, the Students for a National Health Program had had an event at Columbia University the day prior. The date for our demonstration was set with the hope that many of these students might be interested in joining us the next day. It turned out that 50 or 60 of them did.  So, as Bob set up the audio equipment, the  demonstrators from all the groups listed above kept arriving, and arriving, and arriving -- in all amounting, according to Bob, to as much as 250! This seems a plausible number so far as I am concerned.

And the police were arriving, too. Bob pointed out to me the steel barriers that had been stacked against the building. "The police brought those to contain us," he said. "Our job is to evade them, if we can."  But the police had a point: Our occupying the entire depth of the sidewalk was illegal; for it blocked access to non-demonstrators who had their own pedestrian purposes for using the sidewalk. The barricades were supposed to guarantee them access, yet allow us to have our demonstration. Only one was deployed. 

One of the policemen wore double bars on his shoulders. I had never seen a police Captain before. He seemed a bit tense, as if he were wondering whether he'd have trouble controlling us -- or his own men, maybe? 

Then someone thrust a bull horn into my hand, and told me to start doing my thing, which was to bark out brief punchy slogans such as

Greedy Pharma kills!

Stop the profiteers!

and 

Down with Big Pharma!

Up with our health!

I gave it everything I had, with spark and passion I didn't know I could muster at any time -- let alone after having had a only a few hours of sleep. But assaulted as I had been -- along with everyone else -- with daily news of corruption and abuse, and feeling impotent to do anything that would make a difference, there I was doing something, and that sustained me --for a while. I'm sure the crowd felt the same way; they had plenty of passion too, and their fervor echoed mine.  I felt deeply linked to these people; we were all in this together. At the very end I ran out of strength, and handed off the bullhorn to a young woman who finished with a flourish. It was all I could do to keep standing.

After the rally at Pfizer, the crowd made its way up 42nd Street to a second rally at the New York Public Library. And we were accompanied by a squad of police officers escorting us,  walking with us or riding on motor scooters,  and it occurred to me that the police were there not only to control us  -- though we really didn't need controlling -- but also to protect us from traffic, or any other danger. I felt safe with them.

Yes, the speakers were inspiring, deeply moving, and I could go on and on about them. A couple of images stick in my mind: When we were crossing the street, a crew of  our marshals -- volunteers -- stood athwart the street with with arms extended to the sides, with each hand gripping that of the person on the side, to form a living wall to block traffic, and let us cross in safety (the Police were there, too!) It seemed to symbolize the sort of fellowship we were going to need in the future.  I wish I had taken a picture of it.

Somebody did take a picture starkly reinforcing the reason we were there in the first place. It was a message to Big Pharma, and to the health insurance industry in general:

And I had a flash: To those folks high up in their posh offices, we were nothing more than a herd of cows to keep milking while we had anything of value in us. But once there was nothing left in us to extract, we could be disposed of, so far as they were concerned, Bring on more warm bodies!

The whole event was too big for me to do justice to.  I didn't even try, knowing that Mike D'Elia made a video of virtually the whole thing.  The whole video does it justice, but I encourage you to pay attention to the speeches starting at 1:53 and at 33:54.

Picketing the Profiteers Action in New York 3/3/2019

When you click on the link you will see on the left Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried, who introduced this legislation in 1992 and has championed it ever since. With State Senator Gustavo Rivera, he is Co-Sponsor of it.  Gottfried arrived early, stayed late, and chanted with the rest of us. 

You'll see quite a few wearing white coats. These are authentic; the wearers are either in the medical profession, or training for it.

When it was all over, Carol and I made our way back to Grand Central station, and we saw clusters of family groups and other groups pursuing their pleasures, and it occurred to me that these folks were also involved in all this -- only they didn't know it. Probably they had never heard of the New York Health Act, nor for Medicare for All. That was our big task -- showing them, dramatizing to them what's at stake here. Only when the governing powers become aware that the once sleeping masses have awakened to their interest will the powers realize that it's to their interest to listen to them -- and act!

Best,

Dio

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.


PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!