http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/legislation_page

Campaign for America's Future - Home

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/200906...lth-care-option

New Poll Shows Tremendous Support for Public Health Care Option
Bernie Horn's picture

By Bernie Horn

June 15, 2009 - 12:24pm ET
Facebook

Eighty-three percent of Americans favor and only 14 percent oppose “creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase” according to EBRI, a conservative business research organization. This flatly contradicts conservatives’ loudest attack against President Obama’s plan to provide quality, affordable health care for all.

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) calls itself “the most authoritative and objective source of information” on the issues of employee retirement and health benefits. Founded in 1978, EBRI says it “is the gold standard for private analysts and decision makers, government policymakers, the media, and the public.” And EBRI is funded by many of the largest corporations in America.

EBRI’s biggest donors include: AT&T, Bank of America, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Mills, IBM, JBMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Northop Grumman, Schering-Plough, Schwab, T.Rowe Price, UBS Financial, and Wal-Mart. EBRI also receives large contributions from the insurance industry, including: Blue Cross Blue Shield, CIGNA, Hartford, Kaiser Permanente, Massachusetts Mutual, Metropolitan Life, Union Labor Life, and UnitedHealth.

Here’s who paid for the poll, as stated by EBRI:

This survey was made possible with support from AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin.

So clearly, no one can accuse this organization of being “liberal” on health care issues.

These findings are from EBRI’s 2009 Health Confidence Survey, their 12th annual poll:

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the following:

Creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase:
• Strongly support—53 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—5 percent
• Strongly oppose—9 percent

Having national rules requiring insurance companies to cover all people, regardless of their health problems:
• Strongly support—55 percent
• Somewhat support—25 percent
• Somewhat oppose—9 percent
• Strongly oppose—9 percent

Expanding government programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid:
• Strongly support—45 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—9 percent
• Strongly oppose—12 percent

Requiring all employers to pay toward subsidized health insurance for employees:
• Strongly support—42 percent
• Somewhat support—33 percent
• Somewhat oppose—10 percent
• Strongly oppose—12 percent

Requiring everyone to participate in some kind of health insurance plan:
• Strongly support—38 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—13 percent
• Strongly oppose—16 percent

Despite clear public support for these provisions—all of which are likely to be in the Democrats’ health care reform legislation—conservatives won’t go along. The biggest battle right now is over the public plan option. As commentator Al Hunt points out:

Although almost half of Americans are already covered by a public health plan, inclusion of a government option is a deal-killer for most Republicans and [some] Democrats…

The Congressional Progressive Caucus says it is a deal-killer if the public option is left out of the health care reform legislation. Get ready for a titanic tug of war.

There was another new health care poll in the news today, this one by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Although the specifics aren’t yet released, he talks about his polling in the New Republic. I point it out because it echoes two important points I made last week in a somewhat controversial post called “Why Not Single-Payer?”

I said “About 3/4ths of insured Americans are satisfied with their health insurance.” Greenberg says: “Yet three-quarters are satisfied with their own health insurance.”

I said “When Americans hear about a health care proposal, they immediately think “how is it going to affect me and my family.” That’s their overarching, overwhelming concern.” Greenberg says when Clinton proposed his plan, “people responded personally, working to figure out what it all meant for them—the impact on their family, access to their doctors, dollars and cents, and on everything they’d done to become satisfied with their health care.”

Some readers commented that they simply didn't believe the polling I cited in "Why Not Single-Payer?" It is natural for all of us—myself included—to seek out polls that support our side and disregard contrary polling results. But please understand that President Obama and progressive health care advocates have access to so much polling on this issue; they are not picking-and-choosing the polls they like. They are making clear-headed decisions in an effort to get the very best health care plan that can possibly be enacted by Congress this year.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

Unfortunately, Obama seems to be cow-towing to the AMA and Big Insurance and he is basically pushing for a watered down mish-mash of nothingness that he can sell to us as the "change" we can believe in. He has pleasantly surprised me in many ways, but on health care, color me horrified. My fear is that something is going to get through, just because no one--not even the AMA and Big Insurance--can deny that we are in a huge crisis and something needs to be done. But they don't want to do, let alone even discuss, what actually needs to be done. A single payor system is the one option not even welcomed to the table, thank you very much. The administration will talk with Iran and North Korea (which I agree with doing, btw) but not with citizen groups in this country who want a single-payor health care system.

I actually think that whatever passes is going to be worse--possibly FAR worse--than the current system we have now.

The only thing we can do is let Obama and our elected officials know, via letters, emails, phone calls and organized protest, that we want a single-payor system, like every other civilized country on planet earth has, and we want it now.

Here's where to go to get active on this: http://action.citizen.org/t/6693/content.j...ontent_KEY=5220

(Gotta go, boss insane...)

You bet I'm for single-payer, converting for profit hospitals into non-profits, eliminating private health insurance for basic care, and regulating prices of FDA approved meds. :spikey:

But, if I can't give a whole loaf to the poor, I would rather give half a loaf today than wait for what I might be able to give in the future. So, a robust public health care option that can cover everyone would be a huge leap forward from what we have today. Let's work on getting that now, and then doing even better later.

What say ye?

I say nay.

Single-payor or bust!

We need real change on this, not shuffling around the deck chairs on the Titanic.

:Y:

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" - Voltaire

Can't go into my usual Graduate dissertation of a post because Cruella (my boss) is in High Evilness Gear of late and I can't give her any ammo by being on the net, so I'll just post my links de jour and run. But read these and act, my fellow Goristas!!!!! ACT! If not now, when? If not us, who? The people, united, will never be divided:

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/200...INION-906250387

http://www.hr676.org/

http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/

edited to add: AND: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/2...pport-of-S.-703

edited to add this GREAT and substantive opinion piece: http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff06242009.html

aaaand I'm back to add this: http://www.pnhp.org/publications/united_st..._act_hr_676.php

:good: :Y:

Me again. Risking my job to post this, in all seriousness. Okay, peeps, this is not a drill: if you do nothing else in life that chad implores you to do, please do this...PLEASE: sign this and sign it NOW! S/he who hesitates is lost!

http://sanders.senate.gov/petitions/index....af-762a5b050809

URGENT with a capital READ THIS AND DO WHAT IT SAYS NOW!

Received the following moments ago. Do it. Do it NOW. Do as hangingchad commands! Ready, set, go (see bolded items especially):

"July 15, 2009

PNHP has learned that as early as this Friday or Monday (July 17 or 20), Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) will introduce, in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an amendment to the so-called Tri-Committee health care bill. The amendment would replace the private health insurance industry with a single-payer national health insurance program.

In effect, the Weiner amendment would substitute Rep. John Conyers' (D-Mich.) single-payer bill, H.R. 676, for the proposed Tri-Committee legislation.

The vote on the amendment will take place the same day it is offered - again, most likely this Friday or Monday.

If your representative is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, please call your congressperson today and ask that he or she support Rep. Weiner's single-payer amendment. A list of Committee members can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/dhxq65

The Congressional Switchboard can be reached toll-free at 800-473-6711.

If your representative is not a member of the Committee, please call Committee Chair Henry Waxman at 202-225-3976 and ask him to support Weiner's single-payer amendment.

This important legislative initiative was inspired in part by Rep. Weiner's meeting with Dr. Quentin Young of PNHP at the time of Dr. Young's testimony in support of single payer before the House Ways and Means Committee in June. It is also a reflection of the grassroots demand that single payer be on the table in Congress.

Please call today.

Cordially,



Ida Hellander, M.D.
Executive Director Mark Almberg
Communications Director

P.S. Below you'll find two excellent opinion pieces written by PNHP members that were published in recent weeks. Please continue to submit your op-eds and letters to the editor!

P.P.S. Hold the date for PNHP's Annual Meeting, Oct. 24, in Cambridge, Mass. More details to follow soon.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hijacking of health reform

By Susanne L. King, M.D.
The Berkshire Eagle
Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Headlines in the Berkshire Eagle recently proclaimed that Berkshire Health Systems (BHS) is cutting the equivalent of 65 full-time jobs, and will lose $3 million this year. This is neither good for employment nor for the health of our population in the Berkshires. The culprits are the cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, the programs that cover 70 percent of the BHS population.

BHS president David Phelps reports that financial problems at Berkshire Medical Center have been aggravated by Massachusetts health care reform. While more patients have enrolled in insurance plans, the reimbursements for these plans are similar to Medicaid rates, which don't actually cover the cost of care.

As the major non-profit provider of health care for the Berkshire community suffers financially, the for-profit insurance industry, (which only administers the funds, and provides no actual health care services), is raking in the money. In the current economic and health care crisis, United Health Group, America's largest health insurance company, enjoyed an increase of 8 percent in revenues for the first quarter of 2009, with a net profit of $984 million. There is something wrong when the administrators of the health care funds are making exorbitant profits, while the providers of the health care services are struggling to remain solvent.

The private for-profit insurance industry diverts roughly $400 billion/year from medical services. In addition, the Senate Commerce Committee recently released a staff report about how health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers should have paid themselves.

Will the current health care reform being formulated in Washington address these issues? Not a chance, even if President Obama gets a public plan option into the reform legislation. Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a founder of the 16,000-member Physicians for a National Health Program, stated in her testimony to Congress: "Insurers compete by not paying for care: by denying payment and shifting costs onto patients or other payers. These bad behaviors confer a decisive competitive advantage. A public plan option would either emulate them - becoming a clone of private insurance - or go under. A kinder, gentler public plan option would quickly fail in the marketplace, saddled with the sickest, most expensive patients, whose high costs would drive premiums to uncompetitive levels."

In addition, the overhead for a public plan option would be higher than for Medicare, which automatically enrolls seniors at 65, deducts premiums from Social Security checks, and does no marketing. The administrative costs for the whole health care system would remain astronomical, as health care providers would continue to struggle with mountains of paperwork and denials of payment from multiple insurance companies. A public plan option would not curb the escalating costs of new technology, and would not address variability in the quality of care.

The only way to attain universal health care coverage, while containing escalating health care costs and standardizing quality of care, is to eliminate the insurance companies, and establish a single-payer "Improved Medicare for All" program. Hospitals, doctors and other providers must be adequately reimbursed for their medical services. This would be possible if the profiteering and waste of the health insurance industry were eliminated, and those health care dollars went to the actual provision of medical care. And hospitals could be paid like fire departments, with a single monthly check and little billing. There is federal legislation for a national health program in both houses of Congress, John Conyers bill, HR 676, and Bernie Sanders bill in the Senate, S.703.

Last year a survey of doctors showed that 59 percent support a national health plan, up from 49 percent in 2002. (Only one in five doctors are in the American Medical Association, which opposes a national health plan). So why is single-payer health care reform "off the table"' as Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, said, before he threw eight single-payer advocates, including several doctors, out of a "public roundtable discussion" and had them arrested. Could it be related to the more than $1 million in donations Baucus received from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in the 2008 election year cycle?

Wendell Potter, a former health insurance industry insider has this to say, ". . . big for-profit insurers have high-jacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street investors, and . . . the industry is using its massive wealth and influence to determine what is (and is not) included in the health reform legislation members of Congress are now writing."

What is going on in Washington right now is not in the best interests of patients, or the doctors and hospitals that serve them. Patients have no lobbyists speaking for their interests in Congress. Most doctors do not want the AMA to speak for them. Contact your congressmen and ask them to sponsor HR 676 and Bernie Sander's bill. (On his Web site, Sanders also has an online petition you can sign and pass along to your friends).

Susanne L. King, M.D., is a Lenox-based practitioner.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single-payer reduces waste dramatically

By Jeremy B. Stern
SouthCoastToday.com
July 07, 2009

I am an orthopedic surgeon who has been practicing in this community over the past 16 years and may be familiar to many of your readers. As our Congress debates the future of our health-care system, I am writing to urge my fellow citizens to get involved in the process. The debate in Congress is being framed largely by the insurance companies. This is problematic because of the large sums of money donated by the insurance lobby to the same senators who are crafting the reform.

What is not being considered fairly is H.R. 676, a single-payer health-care system.

In the U.S. today we spend approximately two times as much as other industrialized nations, over $7,000 per person per year, yet have nearly 50 million uninsured residents. What causes this waste of health-care dollars? We are the only industrialized nation that does not have a single-payer system. Instead our system is based on privately owned for-profit insurance companies.

In the average private health insurance company, one-third of the money paid in premiums is used for "administrative costs." That means that one-third of all the money you and I now pay for our insurance is used to pay for things like salaries, marketing, overhead and, of course, profits and bonuses. Not to provide health care.

In addition, hospitals, nursing homes and physicians need to employ large staffs just to negotiate the maze of rules and regulations from multiple insurance companies. By eliminating these multiple insurance companies, the cost savings to the system would be more than a staggering $350 billion each year.

Many people are scared to have a single-payer system run by the federal government for two main reasons. First, there is a general impression that the government is inefficient and will be unable to manage the system well, and second, people fear that the government would limit their choice of providers. Most people don't realize that the government plan we all know best, Medicare, runs at about 3 percent overhead while most HMOs run 15 to 20 percent overhead, and the Canadian system has 1 percent overhead. The government, then, is more efficient than the private sector.

As to the second fear, lack of choice, in the single-payer plan being talked about for the United States, the majority of the health-care system would run just as it does today. That means that most people would have greater choice of providers because they would no longer have an HMO telling them who they could see. Unlike the VA or Army system where the doctors and hospitals are run directly by the government, in a single-payer system here in the United States there would be no change in the providers; only the payers would change.

What would happen is that we and our employers would all pay taxes instead of premiums. These taxes would amount to a fraction of what we used to pay in insurance premiums. For those taxes we would have insurance that would pay for literally all of our health needs, from glasses to dental care to medical and surgical care.

The large cost savings of a single-payer system would come in various ways. By buying in bulk and demanding volume discounts, the single-payer plan would greatly decrease the cost of medication. The VA system in the United States gets a 40 percent reduction in medicine costs over what we all pay. A single-payer system would also greatly increase the country's access to preventative care. This in turn would reduce the inappropriate overuse of highly costly emergency rooms. Having diseases diagnosed earlier and treated appropriately vastly decreases the overall cost of treatment of that disease. For example, by treating high cholesterol early with medicine, you may well eliminate the need for a very costly coronary artery bypass later in life.

While doctors and hospitals would be paid somewhat less, their costs of doing business would be drastically reduced since there would be a very low cost to billing and administration, and providers would get paid more quickly and reliably.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, there would be improvements to our actual patient care with a single-payer system. Having only one payer would allow us to use a unified computer system. With this single computer system, whenever you went for health care of any kind, the health-care provider would have all the information needed to treat you safely, such as the medications you take and the allergies you have. There would be fewer medical errors and a greater awareness of interrelated medical problems.

I strongly encourage you all to call, write, text or otherwise contact your congressmen and senators, and encourage them to strongly consider H.R. 676, the single-payer system that will fundamentally eliminate a huge waste of health-care dollars and restore our health-care system.

Dr. Jeremy B. Stern is an orthopedic surgeon. He lives in Marion, Mass.



Physicians for a National Health Program
29 E Madison Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602
Phone (312) 782-6006 | Fax: (312) 782-6007
www.pnhp.org | info@pnhp.org
© PNHP 2009"

Glad the founders didn't feel that way or they would still be arguing about whether to include the anti-slavery clause in the Decarlation of Independence.

Isn't that the truth. Take the Great Compromise & state representation, for example. If neither side had been willing to compromise, nothing would have gotten done.

YouTube - Glenn Beck Loses His Mind On A Caller About Healthcare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10

The man needs 500 milligrams of Thorazine....a straight jacket...and a RUBBER ROOM! :!:



THEN IF HE WANTS TO CRY OR THROW FITS OR FEED HIS PARANOIA HE WON'T HURT ANYONE! :!:



GLENN! YOU MILLIONAIRE! I DO NOT CARE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GIVE ME A 39 CENT ASPIRIN! THE GOVERNMENT WILL KEEP ME HEALTHY YOU @SSHOLE!

GLENN! WE DO NOT CARE IF YOU DON'T HIRE ANYBODY BECAUSE SOMEBODY WILL!!! BECAUSE THEY WON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE!!!

singht...I HEARD the BEGINNING of THIS CALL the OTHER DAY! and I am PROUD of the BRAVE LADY who took on THIS INSANE LUNATIC!...THANK YOU & THANK MEDIA MATTERS for showing us just HOW INSANE GLENN BECK REALLY IS! :dripple:

James...are you OK? Usually you don't repeat yourself! :?:

What are you talking about? You must be imagining things. ;)

Yeah Papabear, didn't you know James' 2nd post was just a mirage? :lol:

Doctor walks 700 miles for health care reform

http://www.pww.org/article/view/16314

Dr. Ogan Gurel, 45, is trekking nearly 700 miles on foot from Chicago to Washington D.C. in order to bring to the attention of lawmakers the real hardships and suffering of people he meets on the way, when it comes to the lack of health care.

Wow, what an impressive feat for Dr. Gurel to tackle, singhtjunior.

Here's hoping he has a safe and successful journey!! :clap: :good:

THIS MAN IS A HERO! YA HEAR? :?:

A HERO!

THIS is what I am TALKING ABOUT FOLKS! THIS IS WHAT ROVE AND THE RADIO CREW CANNOT FIGHT AGAINST!

I HOPE DR. GUREL A SAFE AND SUCCESSFUL JOURNEY! :clap:

IF WE ALL DO THIS THEN THEY FAIL! ;)

DOCTOR GUREL IS DOING HIS PART!

:good:

And I HOPE many JOIN HIM ON HIS PILGRIMAGE! Pass the WORD! AND TRACK THIS GOOD MAN WHILE HE DOES WHAT I WISH I COULD DO! :clap:

HE IS DOING THIS FOR OVER 40 MILLION WITHOUT HEALTH CARE!

DR. GUREL I AM PROUD OF YOU! :good:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/452...payer_advocates


Canada did not establish its national health care program with a bold, immediate political move by the federal government.

The initial progress came at the provincial level, led by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation's Tommy Douglas when he served from 1941 to 1960 premier of Saskatchewan. The universal, publicly-funded "single-payer" health care system that Douglas and his socialist allies developed in Saskatchewan proved to be so successful and so popular that it was eventually adopted by other provinces and, ultimately, by Canada's federal government.

For his efforts, Douglas would be hailed in a national survey as "The Greatest Canadian" of all time. But Douglas' regional initiative also offers a lesson for Americans.

Those of us who know that the only real cure for what ails the U.S. health care system is a universal public plan that provides health care for all Americans while controlling costs recognize the frustrating reality that there are many economic and political barriers to the federal action that would create a single-payer system. This makes clearing the way experimentation at the state level all the more important.

And, remarkably, the forces of real reform have won a congressional victory on that front, a victory that ought not be underestimated.

By a 25-19 vote, the House Committee on Education and Labor on Friday approved an amendment to the House's health-care reform bill allowing states to create single-payer health care systems if they so choose.

"There are many models of health care reform from which to choose around the world – the vast majority of which perform far better than ours. The one that has been the most tested here and abroad is single-payer," explained Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who proposed the amendment. "Under a single-payer system everyone in the U.S. would get a card that would allow access to any doctor at virtually any hospital. Doctors and hospitals would continue to be privately run, but the insurance payments would be in the public hands. By getting rid of the for-profit insurance companies, we can save $400 billion per year and provide coverage for all medically necessary services for everyone in the U.S."

Votes for the amendment came from progressive Democrats who favor single-payer -- such as Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Lynn Woolsey, of California, and Raul Grijalva, of Arizona -- as well as conservative Republicans who have no taste for single-payer but want states to be able to set their own agendas.

Opposition to the amendment came mainly from Democrats such as committee chair George Miller, of California, who have resisted moves to create more flexible, innovation-friendly legislation.

The Education and Labor Committee -- one of three in the House with jurisdiction over health care -- then apporved the amended America's Affordable Health Choices Act, H.R. 3200, by a vote of 26-22.

The campaign for to add the amendment was advanced by a number of groups, in particular Progressive Democratic of America, which mounted a last-minute campaign to sway Democratic members of the House committee. PDA Tim Carpenter is right when he says: "This is a victory for single-payer advocates. Our job in the ensuing weeks will be to ensure that this amendment does not get stripped from the final legislation."

And they will have powerful allies who will fight to preserve the amendment.

After the committee vote, Rose Ann DeMoro, the executive director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, said, "This is a historic moment for patients, for American families, and for the tens of thousands of nurses and other single-payer activists from coast to coast who can now work in state capitols to pass single-payer bills, the strongest, most effective solution of all to our healthcare crisis."

De Moro gets it.

Allowing states to do what is necessary to provide high-quality yet affordable health care for all -- even as a federal plan falls short of that goal -- opens up vital new avenues for promoting, and actually implementing, single-payer systems.

http://twitter.com/DougCOGOP/statuses/2731574774

Limbaugh and the GOP are using pages 167 & 168 of the House Bill to FRIGHTEN PEOPLE into believing they will be FORCED into coverage and TAXED!

We need pages 167 & 168 in FULL CONTEXT!

People will be THROWN into a MASS PANIC over this unless nipped in the 'bud' right NOW!

People making under 'poverty' in wages are being SCARED into believing they will be TAXED money they do NOT have!

Wanna watch this 'bill' sink FAST? I suggest Congress NOT EVEN TRY IT!

in accordance

P. 167

with subsection (a) by the officers referred to in subsection (a) shall provide for the application of the health coverage participation requirements to the plan sponsor and contributing sponsors of such plan.

TITLE IV--AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986


(a) IN GENERAL.--Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

''PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

''SUBPARTA. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

''Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

''Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

''SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

''(a) TAX IMPOSED.--In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

P. 168

''(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

''(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

''(B) LIMITATIONS.--

''(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.--

''(A) IN GENERAL.--The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.

''(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM.--

''(i) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 'applicable national
average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.

''(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL.--In the

Obama's popularity has dropped to 49% and the GOP is gaining 'traction' due to these pages...now the AVERAGE American is NOT going to READ this ENTIRE BILL...so these pages NEED CLARIFIED! :o

IS WHAT THE GOP SAYS TRUE? OR ARE THEY JUST PLAYING POLITICAL GAMES AGAIN? WE NEED TO KNOW!

They NEED to 'clarify' aspects of the ENTIRE Bill! This holds the KEY!

Is it a 'premium' similar to Medicare?

Facing facts, we KNOW everybody will pay SOMETHING!

But the GOP & NEOCON ROVE RADIO are trying their BEST to 'villify' this entire PACKAGE!

http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intellig...nsored-by-media

It's getting 'worse' in the RUMOR MILL folks! Rove & Radcon Inc. are NOW passing a'rumor' that ANYONE who DOESN'T HAVE COVERAGE...

WILL BE FINED $2500!

THIS ISSUE NEEDS ADDRESSED NOW!!!! :angry:

I said it BEFORE and I will SAY IT AGAIN! THIS NEEDS NIPPED IN THE BUD!!!! OR IT WILL GO THE WAY OF THE CLINTON HEALTH PLAN! :!:

I listened to Fat B@stard's EIB Radio SH#T as well today. This JERK is soooooo full of himself that he THINKS that Barack Obama listens to what HE has to say first before doing ANYTHING!

RU$H WE AREN'T EMPTY DITTOHEAD FANS OF YOURS! OK? :?:

I love how THEY took a 2.5% premium charge and turned it into a $2500 FINE!

Here's the RUB, WE ALREADY PAY A PREMIUM FOR MEDICARE! HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE? With MONOPOLY MONEY? :?:

Also LIMBAUGH is sticking UP for 'smokers' NOW! And OBESE people and EVERY HEALTH CARE ISSUE THAT KILLS YOU! (By the way I am a NON-SMOKER)!

Here's another RUB! If this BILL did NOT ask 'smokers' for a HIGHER PREMIUM (even though it has been the NUMBER ONE 'killer' andf REASON for HIGH HEALTHCARE COSTS) then Limbaugh would be BITCHING because SMOKERS GOT A BREAK! (and we HEALTHY FOLKS HAVE TO PAY FOR IT).

Papa is correct, the 2.5% premium and $2500 FINE HOGWASH NEEDS ADDRESSED IMMEDIATEDLY!

(Also RU$H is using yet ANOTHER Rove TECHNIQUE by DISTORTING The PRESIDENT'S VOICE in FAST FORWARD to make HIM SOUND BAD!)

RU$H...HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU REFER TO OBAMA'S 'CULT LIKE PERSONALITY' IN ONE HOUR? I AM SURE THE PAVLOVIAN RESPONSE FROM YOUR DITTOHEAD SKINNER BOX WORKS WELL ON YOUR LISTENERS!

KEEP REPEATING THE LIE RU$H! KARL HAS YOU AND YOUR ZOMBIES WELL TRAINED!!!



LOOK RU$H! ONE OF YOUR FANS IS STRAYING! BETTER SHOCK IT!

:tongue:

ATTENTION PEOPLE! :!:

THEY are STILL telling everyone they will be FINED $2500 for NOT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE if THIS BILL PASSES! :!:

THIS NEEDS ADDRESSED! :angry:

If it IS NOT TRUE then somebody better ANSWER THE QUESTION! :o

IF IT IS TRUE THEN I ADVISE THE SENATE TO TAKE IT OUT OR COME 2010 YOU WILL BE DICED INTO TINY PIECES!!! :angry:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_...h_care_overhaul

MY ADVICE TO DEMOCRATS IS THIS...INSTEAD OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 'WATERLOO'...LET US MAKE IT THEIR...

ALAMO & LITTLE BIG HORN COMBINED!!

:mad:

AT WATERLOO ONLY NAPOLEON WAS DEFEATED! AT THE ALAMO & LITTLE BIG HORN EVERYBODY WAS TAKEN OUT!!!

(and THAT is WHAT we WANT! TO TAKE THEM ALL OUT IN ONE FELL SWOOP!) ;)

THEY WANTED THIS SO I SAY NO QUARTER!!! ;)

Look OUT! RU$H is siccing the PRO-LIFERS on THE HEALTHCARE BILL! :!:

I guess LIMBAUGH doesn't THINK the $2500 FINE HOGWASH is GOOD ENOUGH ALONE, so HE CLAIMS THE HEALTHCARE BILL WILL BE FUNDING ABORTIONS! :rolleyes:

What's NEXT? The BILL will be FUNDING MERCY KILLINGS AS WELL? :?:

(and PLEASE, let's not get into Schiavo AGAIN because I mentioned THIS!)

Also, getting 'nosy'...has ANYONE SEEN CLAY lately? :?:

Nobody NEEDS to be taking a VACATION! :coolwink:

We are at a 'crucial' time NOW!

(also, SOMEBODY keeps messing with MY FIREWALL! I MAY have to put out a TRACE!) ;)

Not to worry cousin because MY COMPUTER WORKS FINE!

While we are AT IT, let's take a GOOD LOOK at Jim Demint! THIS NAZI passed a concordance called the SEMPER FI ACT with INHOFE, COBURN, VITTER and other GOP MEMBERS to SQUELCH FREE SPEECH of PROTESTS AGAINST THE IRAQI WAR!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_DeMint

Demint and the SILENCING CREW BLACKMAILED BERKLEY CALIFORNIA BY DENYING FUNDS IN ORDER TO GET THE CITY TO SILENCE WAR PROTESTORS!



I SAY IT IS TIME TO PILE ON DEMINT! PASS THE WORD! SENATOR HERE IS TO YOU!

SIEG HEIL!!!



DeMint stirred controversy during debates with Tenenbaum when he stated his belief that openly gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools. When questioned by reporters, DeMint also stated that single mothers who live with their boyfriends should similarly be excluded from being educators. He later apologized for making the remarks without specifically retracting their substantive claims, saying they were "distracting from the main issues of the debate." He also noted that these were opinions based on his personal values, not issues he would or could deal with as a member of Congress.[9]

SENATOR DEMINT! WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST SINGLE MOMS TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING?

Pass the WORD! To DU & HUFFINGTON! ALL OVER!

JIM DEMINT HATES SINGLE MOMS WITH KIDS!!! :!:



Also EM! People cannot seem to get IN!!! :!:

HEY KARL BABY! MAYBE YOU CAN GET ANOTHER STALKER TO FOLLOW ME AROUND!!!

:mad:

All right, guys and gals, cats and kitties, ladies and gents...well, you get my drift: everybody in, nobody out--speaking of which:

PLEASE, please, please, please, pretty please with universal coverage, huge cost savings to the country, and a return to the decent values that make America America, PLEASE sign the following petition for passage of HR 676, and forward it to all your friends and DEMAND that they sign it as well. No more Mr. Nice Guy and Miss Nice gal on universal health care. We need it NOW and we need the whole enchilada, not some watered-down, Big-Insurance and Big-Pharma-approved piece of nothingness legislation, we want HR 676!

Sign this now or chad will be mad at you. And I think we all want to avoid that! ;) :P

SIGN: http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676

In an act of TRUE IGNORANCE...Glenn Beck just called a LIVING WILL...

SNUFF OUT PAPERS

He just DID it on HIS show! (After poking cruel fun at people who NEED HEALTHCARE!) :mad:

Then he launched into an AD about getting those SNUFF OUT PAPERS at LEGALZOOM.COM!

CONTACT LEGAL ZOOM AND ASK THEM IF THEY AGREE WITH BECK!!!

http://www.legalzoom.com/

AND REMEMBER TO PASS THE WORD THAT JIM DEMINT DOESN'T WANT SINGLE WORKING MOMS WITH KIDS TO HAVE HEALTHCARE!!!

;)

Also if you haven't signed the 'petition' as chad brought up then please DO SO!!! ;)

By the way, EM...MANY visitors come in through the FRONT DOOR which is down! (Also...if you get it back up...it NEEDS UPDATED!...I also volunteer to HELP in ANY WAY you NEED!...EM...WE have up to 15 vistors an HOUR during the day! I KNOW it doesn't SEEM like MUCH! But THESE VISITORS pass on OUR IDEAS!) :good:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4939.shtml

"The enemies of America’s real healthcare reform
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor


Jul 23, 2009, 00:23

Email this article
Printer friendly page


As Wikepedia tells us, “In 2005, Americans spent an estimated US$6,401 per capita on health care, while Canadians spent US$3,326. This amounted to 15.3 percent of U.S GDP in that year, while Canada spent 9.8 percent of GDP on health care.”

You might ask yourself ‘where did nearly half of the US per capita dollars go?’ Was it in superior health care? I think not.

“A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the U.S. found that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.” Even with that caveat, if the Canadian medical outcomes tend to be superior, why are they paying nearly half per capita of what we’re paying for inferior healthcare?

In fact Wiki says, “The U.S. ranks 42nd in the world for low infant mortality, 46th in life expectancy, between Cyprus and Denmark, and 37th in health system performance, between Costa Rica and Slovenia.” Abominable, isn’t it? But how could this be? Read on . . .

“Advocates say that a U.S. single-payer health care system would provide universal coverage, give patients free choice of providers and hospitals, and guarantee comprehensive coverage and equal access for all medically necessary procedures, without increasing overall spending. Shifting to a single-payer system would eliminate oversight by managed care reviewers, restoring the traditional doctor-patient relationship.” Alas, at last a breath of fresh air and hope.

Yet, here are mentioned the first enemies, perhaps the most formidable, the managed care reviewers, HMOs, PPOs, i.e., the insurance companies, that siphon off dollars from that per capita US healthcare figure. Dollars siphoned into expensive DC lobbyists, advertising, PR agencies, who will do everything from misinforming the public about the facts to stuffing campaign contributions in the pockets of the very politicians appointed to reduce healthcare costs and find equitable protection for all Americans, including the nearly 47 million with no care at all.

Case in point as reported by the Washington Post, Industry Cash Flowed To Drafters of Reform. As the story goes, “As liberal protesters marched outside, Sen. Max Baucus sat down inside a San Francisco mansion for a dinner of chicken cordon bleu and a discussion of landmark health-care legislation under consideration by his Senate Finance Committee.” Of course, the landmark was his level of corruption.

“At the table on May 26 were about 20 donors willing to fork over $10,000 or more to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, including executives of major insurance companies, hospitals and other health-care firms. [Italics mine]

“’Most people there had an agenda; they wanted the ear of a senator, and they got it,’ said Aaron Roland, a San Francisco health-care activist who paid half price to attend the gathering. ‘Money gets you in the door. The only thing the other side can do is march around and protest outside.’” That’s not just cynical. It’s reality. More?

“As his committee has taken center stage in the battle over health-care reform, Chairman Baucus (D-Mont.) has emerged as a leading recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the hospitals, insurers and other medical interest groups hoping to shape the legislation to their advantage. Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus’s political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, when he began holding hearings and making preparations for this year’s reform debate.” Yes, there’s even more . . .

“Top health executives and lobbyists have continued to flock to the senator’s often extravagant fundraising events in recent months. During a Senate break in late June, for example, Baucus held his 10th annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in Big Sky, Mont., for a minimum donation of $2,500. Later this month comes ‘Camp Baucus,’ a ‘trip for the whole family’ that adds horseback riding and hiking to the list of activities.” Baucus makes Gordon “Greed Is Good” Gecko look like a Boy Scout.

“To avoid any appearance of favoritism, his aides say, Baucus quietly began refusing contributions from health-care political action committees after June 1. But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show.

“Baucus declined requests to comment for this article. Spokesman Tyler Matsdorf said the senator ‘is only driven by one thing: what is right for Montana and the country. And he will continue his open process of working together with the president, his colleagues in Congress, and groups and individuals from across the nation to get this legislation passed.” Excuse me; I’m choking on his cordon bleu.

“Baucus’s fundraising prowess underscores the enduring political strength of the health-care lobby, which led all other sectors in donations to federal candidates during the last election cycle and has shifted its giving to Democrats as the party has tightened its control of Congress.” Is anyone ready to throw up? Hold on . . .

“The sector gave nearly $170 million to federal lawmakers in 2007 and 2008, with 54 percent going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. The shift in parties was even more pronounced during the first three months of this year, when Democrats collected 60 percent of the $5.4 million donated by health-care companies and their employees, the data show.”

So there is another big piece of your per capita dollars, both in bribes, and in the less than equitable services the HMOs tend to deliver in return for them. You’re screwed both ways. You can read the rest of the excellent WP story for yourself. Take names. Highlight Big Pharmas, too, like Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and insurance giant Northwestern Mutual. While they’re at Baucus’s “Eighth Annual Ski and Snowmobile Weekend” in Big Sky in February, you may be in the emergency room.

Maybe you lost your job and your health insurance. Maybe you couldn’t afford to pick it up with COBRA because that costs twice as much. Maybe you didn’t have health insurance in the first place because you’re one of the 47 million not covered by it. So can we talk about single-payer health care now? Can we get real now? Can we not let these A-Holes tell us it is socialism, like Michael Steele, Republican Party chief? It’s really like an expanded Medicare, Medicaid, or the Veteran’s Administration program. And it’s American as apple pie, the first two conceived by JFK and put into law by Lyndon Johnson.

Medicare is for the elderly, or still vital, handsome guys like me, playing with all their marbles. Medicaid is for the poor, too many of whom I have seen in my years, beginning with my first job as a social investigator for the New York City Department of Welfare. Neither the welfare nor the gig was a piece of cake, trust me. The last sector, the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides benefits and services solely for veterans and their families -- and which could be doing a better job had it not been so woefully neglected financially by the war-mongering Bush and Donald Rumsfeld -- was instituted by Herbert Hoover in 1929, which proves even a Republican can do the right thing, and should be doing another now in 2009.

The argument for single-payer healthcare

Returning to Wiki, it tells us “Single-payer health care is a term used in the United States to describe the payment of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single fund. It differs from typical private health insurance where, through pricing and other measures taken by the insurer, the level of risks carried by multiple insurance pools as well as the coverage can vary and the pricing has to be varied according to the contribution of risk added to the pool. It is often mentioned as one way to deliver universal health care. The administrator of the fund could be the government but it could also be a publicly owned agency regulated by law. Australia’s Medicare, Canada’s Medicare and healthcare in Taiwan are examples of single-payer universal health care systems.”

The bottom line to take from this paragraph is that healthcare should not be for profit, corporate profit, which is where your per capita dollars get lost in other people’s pockets. Picture Social Security privatized after the last market collapse, and all those seniors bankrupted for good. Not a pretty picture. So you don’t want privatization in your healthcare to ruin it with bottom-line greed.

“According to the National Library of Medicine’s Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus, a single-payer system is: An approach to health care financing with only one source of money for paying healthcare providers. The scope may be national, like the Canadian system, statewide, or community-based. The payer may be a governmental unit or other entity such as an insurance company. The proposed advantages include administrative simplicity for patients and providers, and resulting significant savings in overhead costs.” Let that last sentence resonate in you.

The economies and efficiencies of US Single-payer healthcare is that one institution, i.e., the government, most likely, would cover the bulk of the citizenry. The costs are paid through taxes to employers and the employed, just as you pay for your Social Security with your FICA tax. A surcharge on the rich could be applied, as Obama is suggesting, perhaps an additional 5 percent. The unseen enemies in all this would be simple human selfishness and greed, a refusal for those with more to share in kind for the benefit of all.

Given a sufficient pool of the insured, employers might even be eliminated from the cost of insuring employees. A single-payer fund could be augmented by a trust, as is Social Security, which would invest in safe equities, Treasuries and the like, providing ancillary income. The doctors in a single-payer plan (SPP) could work on a fee plan as they do in Medicare and Medicaid. Or they can be salaried as they are in other nations. Again, the AMA, in its own greedy fear of income loss, is to be counted as another enemy of the people’s health.

On the other hand, Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) supports a single-payer system, as does the American College of Physicians, the second largest group of physicians in the USA. They called for legally mandated coverage of all Americans and urged lawmakers to consider a single-payer system as one option for arriving at that goal. The American Medical Student Association also supports single-payer care.

As of July 19, 2009, Doctor Howard Dean gave Democracy Now his prescription for real healthcare reform. “I don’t give a damn about the health insurance people being in business or out of business. I want a system that works,” said Dean, physician, six-term Vermont governor, Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.” You gotta love that guy.

DN responded, “We speak to Dean hours after the House Ways and Means Committee approved legislation to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system and expand insurance coverage. By a 23-to-18 vote, the committee backed key elements of President Obama’s blueprint for healthcare, including the creation of a new government health plan and requirements for employers to offer health insurance to workers or contribute to its cost.

“To help fund the changes to the healthcare system, the House committee also agreed to impose a surtax on families with incomes of more than $350,000 a year. Meanwhile, the conservative American Medical Association has just come out in support of the House bill, saying ‘the status quo is unacceptable.’

Dean then hedged the single-payer option, when he endorses President Obama’s healthcare plan for a public option choice. Having advocated that option myself, more study has led me reject half measures. Single-payer healthcare works best with the largest number of insured, so that its strength and income and economies are guaranteed.

In Congress, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) has reintroduced the United States National Health Care Act (HR-676), as he has in every term of Congress under the same name since is was first introduced in 2003 in the 108th Congress with 38 cosponsors. That’s the baby to keep your eye on and ask for.

The final bunch of enemies

Part of the reason for this recalcitrance to embrace single-payer health care has been the economy, ironically, the same economy wrecked for now as in 1929 by Wall Street’s excesses, sins, and crimes. After four or five bailouts, several trillion dollars worth to investment banks, the Fed’s discount credit window thrown open to them, Goldman Sachs posted $3.44 billion in second-quarter profits and is planning to give billions in bonuses to its employees. Bank of America is posting a profit on trading gains. JPMorgan’s profit soared despite the turndown. And so on. And so I want my single-payer health-care. That’s my bonus, and yours!

Fortunately, Paulson got his butt reamed by Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns for the Bailout Bait and Switch. This Prison Planet article is definitely worth reading. It highlights the conspiracy of wealth stolen from taxpayers to feed a parasitic financial oligarchy. Its hands are as well stuffing campaign contributions in DC legislative pockets. These scoundrels are also the enemies of healthcare, the financial elites that would like to eliminate “useless eaters” as Hitler and Kissinger called the sick, the poor, the aged and infirm, or those simply struck by bad luck.

Don’t let these cumulative enemies triumph over single-payer, universal health care, either with fear of its costs, which will cost far less than what we have now, as the Canada/US/Australia examples and more point out. There are more of us than them, these enemies of the people, not just of our healthcare. These are the people that belong in prison, or up against a wall, or on trial in glass boxes like Eichmann. These are the enemies that would take your life for lunch. Remember that and them, the Baucuses and his friends, the insurance companies, their HMOs, Big Pharma, the misguided medical facilities and misguided practitioners who would get rich on your blood.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. His new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” is available at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com."

Duuuudes! I'm SO beyond fired up today on health care. Here's an alternate link to the one I provided several fired up posts back, which you could use to contact your representatives to express support for HR 676. The other one contains language that says you are a physician, which you of course would need to customize because most of us are not physicians. This one eliminates the need to do that, yet also gives you a second field in addition to the default letter, in which you can add your individual thoughts on the matter. So, use whichever link floats your boat but please contact your representatives to support TRUE health care revolution, not just watered down "reform" that appeases Big Insurance. Here's the alternate link:

http://www.democrats.com/single-payer-petition?ad=d0

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_.../us_wall_street

Yes! SIGN THE PETITION! DO IT NOW!!! :clap:

ALSO GOOD NEWS! THE ECONOMY IS RECOVERING!

THE DJIA HAS CROSSED OVER 9000 POINTS! :clap:

DO NOT BELIEVE THE NAYSAYERS ON THE RADIO!!! :clap:

THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!! :good:

Guys, I've put up a seperate thread regarding a rally on July 30, 2009 for HR 676!!!

Here's a link: http://z8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support...showtopic=11261