There has been much commentary that the Senate debate on health care would have benefited from the parliamentary and personal skills of Senator Ted Kennedy had he been present over the months of illness that took his life last night. But it would have benefited even more from his moral clarity.
He knew - better than anyone - that the debate over health care is not mainly about competing policies, programs and formulas. It is certainly not about the myths and lies propounded by the far right. He knew it is about right and wrong.
The decision facing America is whether - at long last - we will inscribe into our law the principle that health care is a human right - that everyone among us deserves health care simply because we are all human beings.
Ted Kennedy believed that to his core. It was his life's passion. It would be fitting if his passing itself served to refocus the health care debate on the moral principle that lies at its center. It would be his last great contribution to the struggle that more than any other defined his 47-year career in the Senate - the battle to make health care for all a reality in America.
Yesterday, many Americans watched footage from a health town meeting conducted by Senator Tom Coburn. We watched as a woman begged Coburn for help so that her husband could afford the care he needs to recover from the affects of traumatic brain injury. Coburn offered the aid of his office. But then he argued that the real problem is that neighbors don't help neighbors --that we should not depend upon "government."
Kennedy knew - as his friend Congressman Barney Frank says - that Government is nothing more than the name we give to the things we choose to do together.
He knew that it is wrong for any American to have to beg to get health care for their husband - or their child - or themselves. Just wrong.
We can debate the relative effectiveness of structures and the systems of incentives needed to most efficiently provide the health care we need. But there should no longer be any debating the fundamental principle that all of us deserve the same quality health care - no matter how much we earn, or who our parents are, or where we live, or the color of our skin, or how old or sick we may be.
That principle is accepted worldwide as a central element of what it means to live in a civilized society. It is a core tenant of what we understand to be universal human rights.
Yet the Republicans and far right have fought against the implementation of that principle in America ever since Roosevelt first called for universal health care in the 1930s. They fought it under Truman. They fought Medicare when it was passed as a first step to fulfilling that principle in the 1960s. They fought the State Children's Health Care Program that expanded that principle to children.
Their rhetoric is always the same. Ronald Reagan's speeches against Medicare in the 1960s - his charges that Medicare would lead to socialism and tyranny - could just as easily be transcriptions of the talk show tirades of Limbaugh and many Republican members of the Senate today.
But this time things will be different. This time the spirit of Edward Kennedy will infuse all of us with the determination and moral clarity to make his life's passion into the law of the land.
Robert Creamer is a longtime political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.
Rick Horowitz: Kennedy: The Lion at Rest
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, dead at 77 -- and thank goodness for that. None of his three brothers -- his three older brothers -- made it to 70. Or 60. Or even 50.
Sen. Bernie Sanders: Farewell Senator (VIDEO)
Ted Kennedy devoted his lifetime to protecting those most in need, and tens of millions of Americans have been the beneficiaries. His absence from the Senate leaves an enormous void.
RJ Eskow: Redemption Song: Ted Kennedy Through Allen Ginsberg's Eyes
Ted Kennedy was a Catholic, not a Buddhist, but his life reads like a Bodhisattvic exercise.
Andy Ostroy: The Real Appeal of Ted Kennedy and the Camelot Clan
The Kennedys were and are a living, breathing soap opera. But America loves a good soap opera.
Mario Solis-Marich: The Hand of Ted Kennedy
Senator Kennedy will be missed because even though he was a man of privilege he fought for the powerless. As a man of wealth he fought for workers.
https://www.madashelldoctorstour.com/Mad_as_Hell_Video.html
These Oregon physicians are in the process of organizing a caravan designed to inform the public about the benefits of the single-payer option. At last count they will be stopping in approximately 23 states, on their way to demonstrate in Washington. They need volunteers and our support. Please spread the word.
Should everyone have access to healthcare? Yes.
Should the government provide it? I believe No.
Can measures be taken with very limited government involvement while still achieving the goal? Absolutely Yes.
Let's discuss those ideas and we'll accomplish a mutual goal. Why the insistence that the federal government is the only way?
Here is what I propose. In short, (since I've posted it a million times on this site and no one seems to care);
First, the cost of insurance to Americans should be regulated similar to electricity and gas. This would force negotiations with health care providers to create efficiencies and effectiveness, and not just depend on the volume of procedures.
Second, the cost of medicine should be capped which would increase the volume and accessibility of medicine to all citizens who need it. (It's effectively done in Canada and would work here)
Third, eliminate insurance retraction which screws people and is just simply so wrong a child can identify the wrong.
Fourth, every insurance company should be required to provide a standardized minimum level insurance policy to anyone who applies at the same price everywhere.
Fifth, allow for inter-state insurance to exponentially increase competition.
Sixth, apply the anti-trust laws to insurance companies.
Seventh, make tort reform a national issue and not a state issue.
Regulations along these lines would increase health care accessibility to anyone who could afford a so called "public option," increase efficiencies, effectiveness, and competition.
To say the government can't run it is wrong, un-American and seriously unpatriotic.
It's such a tired, old, worn down & useless argument to try to defend the private insurance companies.
They've FAILED. They are over-run with greed and have brought us and our economy to its knees. They don't deserve to remain as industry leaders.
In our present system, insurers are secretive and neurotically controlling.
It's not hard to see how the transparency of government would save our country Trillions of dollars over the long term with health care, but this is what our leaders who believe in it have failed to highlight well. It’s up to us… SO OPEN YOUR EYES! ! !
So -too bad private insurers would likely have to lay off some of their workforce. Not to worry... Savings for employers and average Americans would increase new and even better jobs elsewhere all over our country. ...Healthcare wouldn’t be a luxury anymore. It’d be a right. Like it should be.
And yeah, too bad CEO's won't be able to pay themselves 300-400 times what their average employee makes. I think America could learn to live without that just fine.
Universal healthcare does not equal socialism. Universal healthcare equals equality.
What was so special about Ted Kennedy is that he kept believing we could do this. He had more faith in this culture than we perhaps deserve. If we ever do create a workable health care system, it will be because he kept the dream alive.
While there are social and health care issues that a national health care bill could fairly address, currently, there are too many unanswered questions and potential abominations that the authors of the bill (including Obama) refuse to acknowledge or respond to.
Many Americans cannot, in good conscience, support a government imposed health care system that doesn't respect innocent life. Further, for those over age 65, some of the language in the bill smacks of a Big Brother approach to giving "a" doctor or advisory board the right to determine a patient's course of medical action, rather than the patient and their loved ones making these decisions.
I would be the first to admit the current delivery system is propelling itself out of price, yet the proposed Health Care bill forecasts no real reduction in cost, but it does suggest an extraordinary tax bill - paid only by the people who actually work for a living.
While I can't think of a single person who would choose to go without health insurance, America was founded on the principle that you get what you work for, not what you can extract from someone else.
Ted Kennedy, at least in his earlier years, was an effective orator, yet words don't make great Americans, it is actions that count.
Paying for health care by using sales tax revenues would be hundreds of billions of dollars cheaper each year than using private insurance and infinitely easier for everyone to manage.
Offering a choice in the United States to use either free public health care funded by a national sales tax, or using private systems paid for with private funding, would allow proponents of each system the opportunity to use their choice.
All government mandated programs could be distributed through government hospitals at a fraction of the costs spent now by taxpayers to private systems, and the new system would produce true savings of hundreds of billions of dollars annually from the $2.5trillion spent last year, while producing better patient outcomes.
For individuals selecting public care; all prescribed care and medications would be free, no insurance, no co pays, no precondition exceptions, free period.
For seniors care and medications at public facilities would be free, no more doughnut holes and no insurance or co pays required.
Businesses which select public care for their employees should have no further involvement to either pay anything or be involved in any way with health care.
Going back and forth between free public, and user purchased private care, may suit some people, and it would provide unlimited choices, ultimate freedom, and always free public care would be available when it is needed or desired to everyone who asks for it with no restrictions.
'Nuf said.
Coverage for EVERYONE who applies
Structured premium payments of not more than 100 per individual, 300 per family
Deductibles capped at $2000 and based on income (means testing every year like the va)
No mandates forcing people to purchase insurance (a windfall for private carriers)
No triggers (also a windfall to private carriers)
No subsidies to private insurance carriers
No taxes on employer provided benefits
If someone has private insurance and wants the public option, they can drop private with no problem and be covered immediately under public.
No mandates on employers to buy into the public option to cover employees. Has to be free choice.
Everyone with coverage gets treated for new or pre-existing conditions.
Fairly negotiated reimbursement to private pracitce, specialty doctors and hospitals
Fairly negotiated prices for medications, even on name brand stuff which has no generic equivalent.
AND IT HAS TO BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. Within 1 month of the above bill passing, Americans must be able to start buying in and using it.
It must be administered by an autonomous federal agency. Monies paid in must not be co-mingled with any other money, does not go into the general fund so it can be looted.
The ONLY payouts from this fund will be for: payments to practicioners, pharmacies and admin. In 5 years if we see significant overages, those overages will only be used to suplement medicare and fund medical research and maybe scholarships.
See my next post on funding
20 million under insured
Subtract 10 million poor/indigent/mentally ill, etc, who are uninsured and will have to get free care = 37 mill un-insured who can pay.
18.5 million can pay $50/mo = 925,000,000
18.5 mill can pay $100 = $1,850,000,000
20 mill under insured will switch and can pay $100 = 2,000,000,000
That is a grand total of $4,775,000,000
That is FOUR BILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS IN PREMIUM PAYMENTS PER MONTH. FIFTY SEVEN BILLION THREE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PER YEAR IN PREMIUMS FOR ONE SET OF PEOPLE.
That does'nt count the millions who'll switch from private companies if they can pay $100 or 200 per month and have their entire family covered even with pre-existing conditions. Repeal bush tax cuts asap another 700 billion.
After thinking about it more, institute a 1 penny federal sales tax on EVERY item. I can hear the opponents shouting about making the poor poorer, but my statement is 1 cent on each item NOT on every dollar or hundred dollars. From candy bars to big screen tv's to your house. 1 cent on everything. If your grocery bill was $100. for 53 items, your bill would be $100.53. That's not putting people in the poorhouse especially when we've been dealing with price increases. Also, if you're saving 300-500 per month on insurance, you have that money to spend and put back in the economy, save, or invest.
"Two thirds waste and innefficiencys" .
Obama is going to get enough money out of waste to cover 2/3rds of the plan. That means already in house we have enough to cover FULLY all that you have suggested. 231,000,000 US citizens having FREE health care for how many years if they would have just keep proper accounting of our money.
This is not about "Public Options" this is about them voting in another big bill to cover up their theft and mismanagement.
IMAGINE THIS, Obama had some percentage he is going to get from waste, and instead of coming to the public and saying I have FREE health care for 2/3 of you all he ask's for more money... Whats not right about this? A politician loves free... Unless there getting something...
And from what you're saying, you did not listen closely to what President Obama actually said.
The 2/3 of the cost of health care reform comes from the changes instituted BY THE REFORM. You can't say "I'll have $20 when I sell 40 lbs of apples" and then not buy the apples. The money is the result of the reform. If there's no reform, there are no changes that eliminate the waste. We don't have the money "in house" because there's no way to force the insurance companies to cap their endlessly skyrocketing rates UNTIL REFORM IS PASSED.
And WHAT theft and mismanagement are you saying Obama wants to cover up--8 years of mismanagement and theft under Bush? I don't think that's any secret.
Single-payer healthcare would be the best idea.
The public-option is the compromise.
I can't tell what you're actually advocating because your argument doesn't make any sense.
We have too many people dying RIGHT NOW -- 18,000 per year is the estimate I read on Huffpo - because they had no money to go to a doctor and couldn't get insurance.
We need something to help those people right now.
I agree that both sides need to compromise -- but if you read the Huffpo stories about the GOP, they have one goal only -- to stop healthcare reform. You can't do bipartisan if one side refuses to compromise. It's time to stop treating the GOP fossils as sacred cows, and do something to help ordinary working Americans.
It's a big win for America, leading by example, and its a big win for the Dems......meanwhile the Repubs can crawl in a hole somewhere, lick their wounds, as we sprinkle lightly with salt, and try to get their act together.