Health Care for America Now!

On Tuesday, July 8, a new campaign will be launched - for Health Care for America Now! -- at press conferences in Washington and 55 other cities and towns. We at the Campaign for America's Future are proud to play a leadership role in launching this much-needed campaign, that now involves over 100 national and local organizations. The steering committee includes ACORN, AFSCME, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, MoveOn, NEA, National Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood, SEIU, UFCW, and USAction -- not a bad core group to make history with. And now is the time!

Profound economic changes are convincing the public that we need to take action together to build a healthy, sustainable economy and ensure real security for all families. And that includes, first and foremost, making sure everyone has quality, affordable health care.

The mission of the Campaign for America's Future is to develop and promote bold policy ideas that can build a majority for change. We brought together environmentalists and union activists to promote an "Apollo project" investment agenda to make America energy independent - and to create the next generation of good American jobs. We sounded the alarm about conservative plans to privatize Social Security, and -- working with a coalition similar to HCAN -- we helped to defeat those dangerous plans to undermine retirement security.

So it was only natural that over the last two years, we have been encouraging health care experts to think big: to come forward with plans to cover everyone who doesn't have good health care coverage, while reining in spiraling costs by reorganizing the most inefficient aspects of what is today a very fragmented, wasteful and unstable health care system.

For two years, we have worked to promote discussion of the Health Care for America plan, written by Yale health expert, Jacob Hacker and published in January 2007 by the Economic Policy Institute. Praised by activists, policy experts and labor leaders, the Hacker-EPI plan helped inform the policy work and public opinion testing of many progressive organizations. And partly as a result of our discussions with the presidential candidates and their policy teams and our pointed health care questions to them all over the blogosphere during the primary election debate, it became the template for the health care plans of candidates Edwards, Clinton and Obama.

NPR All Things Considered Jan 31, 08: Parsing Democratic Health Care Plans Julie Rovner and Michele Norris

All three plans (Obama's, Clinton's and Edwards') came from the same source: Yale University political science professor named Jacob Hacker. And all three were based on the concept of something called "shared responsibility," where government, individuals and employers all pay something. . . . So, Clinton and Obama would let people keep their existing coverage if they want to, or buy into a government-sponsored plan like Medicare, and the government would subsidize small businesses and the poor.

Most Americans know that we can't depend on the health insurance industry -- or the drug companies -- to solve the big health care problems of spiraling costs and millions with inadequate insurance or no coverage at all. In fact, those companies and their lobbyists are a big part of the problem. Clearly, if insurance and drug companies want to be part of a national system to cover everyone, they cannot be allowed to exclude people from coverage, including people with pre-existing conditions; they will have to sell good, comprehensive insurance that we can afford, and stop shifting costs to us through high deductibles and co-pays and employing devious tricks to deny people with coverage payment for their health care services. And, while we believe everyone should be free to keep or elect private health insurance, everyone should also have the choice to enroll in a public, Medicare-style insurance plan without a private insurer middleman that guarantees affordable coverage.

So a big part of our contribution to HCAN will be to distribute research and analysis that makes the case not only for why we need change, but for the kind of change we need. Information is power, and we will distribute this information to the many parts of our grassroots coalition. And we will push forward health care policy experts and opinion leaders whose views on health care need to be heard, nationally and locally, in Congress, in the media, on the web and in the field. And here's another project HCAN and CAF will lead: a campaign that engages the public and demonstrates all the many ways that insurance and drug companies put their profits before our health care and use their political influence to undermine health care change.

Most politicians now say they favor some kind of health care "reform," but HCAN is mobilizing a citizens' force that can make sure we do it right, based on the principles of choice, affordability, shared responsibility, and fairness. Without the kind of public mobilization HCAN is bringing to this debate, we could end up, once again, with a system that leaves us at the mercy of predatory private insurance and drug companies.

We're excited to continue our leadership on this critical kitchen-table issue, and confident that the new Health Care for America Now coalition will empower the public to triumph over special interest influence and solve the growing health care crisis.

Comments

[Linda Bergthold - Huffpost Blogger]

This grassroots effort is absolutely critical to the possibility of passing any health reform in the next Congress. As Ezra Klein pointed out this week, the lack of such an effort in the Clinton Administration was one of the reasons for the demise of the Health Security Act. Hopefully, this coalition can hang together on the main principles and not get too bogged down in the minutiae of health reform details. We have a very clear choice in this election -- there are two roads diverging on the health reform issue -- Obama and McCain's -- and the one we choose WILL make all the difference. However, in order to make a reasoned choice, we all have to do our homework and learn about the plans of each of these candidates and not just point fingers at the other side.. Shouting at the insurance industry and accusing them of all manner of evil does not further the debate.

[CaseyBabes]

In this article there's not a word of inclusion with the most powerful entity of this universal healthcare nonsense. It's just like the cause of dear Hillary falling on her face when she tried to bully in her healthcare plans. Any planning, positioning and employment of a new healthcare system within the USA must include a preponderence of medical professionals -- those responsible for healthcare. Throw at us all the medical bureaucrats' expert opinion and data all you care to and we'll have a repeat of the Hillary thing.
We've been viewing and hearing for years our professional politicians in office for life advocating universal healthcare. Conversely, never a word from the medical professionals, i.e., the MDs, nurses and advanced technicians. Whoever is the next president of the USA will come up against this group and won't stand a chance. The subject of universal healthcare will fade just like stopping the war in Iraq quickly died after the 2006 elections.
See today where Congress' approval rating is at an historical 9%. Think they care when they know we'll vote them back to sit on their butts, like always?

[krocklin]

This is for the few posters who are so sure we have the best system in every regard: healthcare, education, living standard, quality of life.
We are ahead only in billionaires.
We are currently a backward nation, brought to our feet by a score of issues we have no ability to cope with. We are declining in every demographic except the ultra rich.
Why? Because Republicans have run the show for 30 years and presented no forward looking plans.
I suppose you believe the "free market system" will sort out all of our problems.
Stick to you ideology, as you always do whatever the facts. Stick to your Enron Nation.
Let's outsource and privatize every government department.
I'll bet you have never talked to someone from another country with "socialistic" policies like national healthcare. I'll bet you've never even been abroad in fact. All you know is the American system and you are deadsure it's the best no matter the reality, no matter the declining fortunes of most of your countrymen, previously known as The Middle Class.

[UnbiasView]

Ahh yes, who in this country doesn't need more government in their life?

I know, the people that actually are productive.

[SeriousBlack]

Nice (and utterly useless) statement of the conservative mantra that government is always the problem. Saint Reagan liked to joke about something to that effect, didn't he. Ooops, just committed Republican blasphemy. Sorry about that. NOT.

Always ideology over reality. Yep, REAL productive that is.

[LeonBNJ]

Access to health care is a human right - not a privilege. No one should ever be denied the health care they need. The biggest problem isn't with the poor or old, but the working classes who don't qualify for Medicade and don't have affordable health insurance. Yes, there are many issues from cost to ethics to dealing with religious rights as to a government run program, and all need to take more responsibility to live more healthy. But removing the fears of not having health care access would be a real advancement for all of America, take huge burdens off employers, families and individuals. I hope this new group can achieve the needed goals.

[UnbiasView]

Explain to me what in the founding documents of this country gave you the impression that health care is a right?

For you to get health care you basically need to us government to steal from productive people.

[Annette]

promote the general welfare.

The government will not have to steal from "productive people" they can just stop the inefficient heath insurance companies from doing so. Overhead at insurance companies range from 20-50%. Overhead at medicare 1%.

[SeriousBlack]

And where in LeonBNJ's post did he even mention "the founding documents of this country", "UnbiasView"?

Not that that topic couldn't actually be quite successfully argued ANYway (i.e., the health of one's citizens being covered by / implied by either "life" and/or "the pursuit of happiness" and/or "promoting the general welfare".

But I digress. I ask again, just where in LeonBNJ's post did he even mention "the founding documents of this country", "UnbiasView"?

Hmmm?

[princessofnowt]

When did healthcare turn from a helping, kind, sharing profession, calling even, to this rotten sewage of an "industry".

Why are we betting on the stockmarket against our own lives and health? Or- those of 'other people' I guess one hopes.

Why are we paying people in offices with very fine lives to decide that we cannot have this or that test or medication.

Why are we paying pharmaceutical "ex"-employees to "approve" drugs.The FDA is not run on our behalf, people. What a difference since 1991! Witness the Gardasil episode. Force all your teenage daughters to take it by law? Have you seen the amount of damage it has done already?
(Personally, I think they were laughing their asses off at their "I could be one less" campaign. Infertility they can make a lifetime of money on.)

Anyway, think about it. Why is health insurance a profit motivated industry.
It just shouldnt be.
Like the fire department or police services - what if those were traded on the stock market?
Same diffference.

[kappa08]

Call me a cynic. But I don't see corporate america giving up that level of control. How many ppl do you know that would quit tommorow if it wasn't for their benefits? Universal healthcare would give individuals the security they deserve. Putting responsibility for their path square on their own shoulders.
If it ever happened. You would see a power shift instantly. By investing in yourself you no longer have to settle for poor managemant, bad culture and pitiful pay. Then we will truly see where the "true talent" lies...

[Vorticose]

Let me see if I can make this clear, SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK NEVER HAS, NEVER WILL.

[krocklin]

Not if you can help it I'm sure.
Stick to your belief of an Enron America, because that's what we have now.
Socialism works great in the majority of civilized nations yielding a higher standard of living and quality of life. But I'm sure you've never been abroad, nor know anyone in any of those countries to ask them if you might be wrong.

[Annette]

Medicare has worked well for 50 years, it is by far a more efficient purveyer of services than insurance companies. Government administered health care has worked well in Germany for 150 years, it has worked well in the rest of europe for 60 years. They are healthier and live longer than Americans, better health care as well.

Right wingers are good with slogans but in actually keeping people alive, government administered health care is way better than insurance companies. Why is America's life expectancy falling while the rest of the first world is living longer? Why is it by all objective accounts the US has one of the worst health care systems in the first world?

[WorkingClass]

Let me see if I can make this clear, YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG, YOU ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND YOU ALWAYS WILL BE. HA HA HA HA HA

[teembee]

I have a question for all you proponents. Name a program that the government runs well.

[SeriousBlack]

So I assume your position is that private enterprise can do ANYthing better than the federal government, so therefore there should be no federal government at all? That about the size of it?

[teembee]

The less government intrusion, the better. National defense might be the only exception.
Our federal govt doesnt have a real good track record, does it?

[Annette]

Medicare. Ask any senior. Much lower overhead than any insurance company. High satisfaction rate among the users. Lower costs and high rate of efficiency.

By the way before you try to whine about the care under govenment insurance. I have had care under government insurance in Canada, WAY BETTER than in the US. We just returned from the UK where my husband was hospitalised with a severe infection. Outstanding care, Better than here in the US. Way cheaper too $6300.00 for three days in the hospital, CT scans, minor surgery, care, ultrasounds, the surgeon's fees and specialist consultation. Try that in the US. We pay over $1200.00 per month for health insurance in the US. That is with a $2000.00 deductible. I have to wait 3 weeks to see my doctor, had to get an approval for biopsy, got denied and had to appeal. Took 5 months, if it had been cancer I probably would have died. I would be more than anxious to have a single payer govenment administered health insurance like medicare. I wouldn't mind paying the same money for it in taxes.

[UnbiasView]

It is a much lower cost to the users because they use government to steal from everyone else to foot the ever growing bill.

[Vorticose]

Yep Canadian healthcare is so much better that is why Canadian women are coming across the border to have their children, but your right.

[ema]

MEDICARE

[UnbiasView]

Part of the cost of Medicare is attributable to fraud, which government auditors estimate costs Medicare billions of dollars a year. The Government Accountability Office lists Medicare as a "high-risk" government program in need of reform, in part because of its vulnerability to fraud and partly because of its long-term financial problems. A Washington Post story from June of 2008 reported that Medicare fraud is a growing problem. Limited resources mean that fewer than 5% of Medicare claims are audited. The annual cost to taxpayers of Medicare fraud is estimated to be over $60 billion.

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

There are none. Medicare is a good case study. It is going bankrupt. Congress is doing nothing.

[UnbiasView]

It is a very good example, as well as public transportation & education . . . ever growning black holes of millions lost yearly because government employees just don't give a F. If they run out of money, they use government to stick a gun in your face to take more, no accountability and no personal responsibility.

[swift goat pet for truth]

True, Medicare is going bankrupt.
But the question is, "Name a program that the government runs well" which is a relative question, that is, "well compared to what?".

For one thing, Medicare gets those from society who spend the most on healthcare, the old. The vast bulk of an individual's medical expenses occur in the last 10 years of life. So that is one of the reasons for that Medicare is going bankrupt.

But, we can look at other parts of the system, for example, how well is the money spent. HMO's spend something like 20% on overhead. Advertising, CEO payments, denying healthcare to those who have paid into the system for years, entering forms with the same information over and over and over again. By comparison, Medicare spends about 1% on overhead. More money is delivered for healthcare.

Medicare also treats everyone in the system. The well quoted statistic is the 47 million Americans have no health care. Many of those die for lack of healthcare. Many of those go bankrupt because of lack of healthcare.

If the comparison is between Medicare and everything else, which system is the greater failure?

[Zeje]

Social Security. I would be DEAD without Social Security disability and Medicare.

[UnbiasView]

You aren't serious are you?

[BetsyMcCall]

Its encouraging to see these groups collaborating on health care reform. Hopefully we'll eventually see better policy related to women's health care issues and a stronger emphasis on evidence based medicine and reforming the delivery of high quality health care for all.

There's much work ahead of these groups and more policy fine tuning, but hopefully they'll be up to the task. Recommendations from the Institute of Medicine on health care policy is a great place to start.

[swift goat pet for truth]

So why are no GM, Ford and the major airlines enlisted to support single payer health coverage?

They are the ones constantly whining about the uneven playing field. Then they donate $zillions to the GOP.

Their shareholders need to realize they would rather go bankrupt than get rid of legacy costs.

And the groups mentioned in the article need to use their brains better.

[teembee]

Would someone please name a program that the government has run well?

[Zeje]

Social Security. Medicare.

[UnbiasView]

Says the uninformed liberal who has no clue how bad both systems have been run.

[ofbbg]

A well thought out, well written response. Problem is, to cite your example, public education, for the most part, isn't working! My sister-in-law is a public school teacher in Special Ed. Her experiences with incompetent administration, ignorant lazy uncaring inept teachers, totally uninvolved parent/parents are an indication that, despite the billions and billions spent on education, our kids are NOT being educated. Indoctrinated, caressed, pampered, indulged - yes. Educated - NO! I'm 63 yrs old. I knew more history, math, science, geography, language skills, civics when I graduated high school in 1963 than my children did when they graduated college in 1984/1988. From a highly-rated Virginia college. More and more public funds poured down the same toilet aren't going to improve things. Detroit's school system is a perfect example of what's wrong. Check it out! And let's face it - college isn't, and shouldn't be, for everyone. We still need plumbers, electricians, carpenters, cabinet makers, mechanics of all kinds, etc., etc. Educate, don't indoctrinate! Challenge, don't sooth. Make education more demanding rather than less. Make more vocational training available. Start failing students who fail! Reward good teachers based on performance rather than politics. Talk less about self-esteem and more about self-motivation. And start firing administrators and eliminating poor teachers. Most importantly, allow private schools to compete with public using vouchers. Give people a choice between failure and success.

[SeriousBlack]

BUT NOWHERE IN YOUR LONG, DETAILED RESPONSE DID YOU SAY:

THERE. SHOULD. NOT. BE. PUBLIC. EDUCATION.

All you said in some admirable detail was that PUBLIC EDUCATION WAS NOT WORKING VERY WELL.

Which, AMAZINGLY enough, I complete agree with. But what is the freakin' answer to that? MAKE IT WORK WELL. PERIOD. Like with some of the great suggestions YOU YOURSELF had.

The point being that you don't argue whether or not a particular public program should exist or not based on an ideology. You argue what the form of a service, whether it be education OR health care, should take IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE BEST SERVICE.

And where people like you and I SHOULD be disagreeing is not whether or not health care should be a government-administered program or not based on your ideology that the government can't do anything well, but on a cold, hard, logic-based analysis of whether a health care SYSTEM works better with or without a private, for-profit health INSURANCE middleman inserting itself into the system and doing nothing but taking money, raising costs and being motivated solely by how much money they can make INSTEAD OF providing quality health care.

Drilling deeper into the actual issues instead of just arguing back and forth about ideology, HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU? Can you explain to me how the health insurance component of the american health care system makes ANY sense?

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

Insurance is quite simple, in the abstract. The insurance calculates some risk of an event occurring where they will need to pay you a certain amount of money. Let"s say they calculate a 10% chance of having to pay you $1000 in a given year. That means if they charge you $100, they will basically be breaking even. So they charge you about $150, so they"ll make a 5% profit, $50 from $1000.

A lot of people can probably afford $1000 out of pocket, so this is actually not a good plan (the same reason you usually shouldn"t buy an extended warranty from an electronics store). But let"s say there is 0.1% chance you may have to pay $1M dollar in any given year for medical expenses. Buying a $1500 insurance policy would be good because you cannot readily come up with $1M.

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

Of course, most health insurance policies today include doctor visits, prescriptions, maternity services, etc. That"s thanks to this wonderful government you want to socialize our health industry (or maybe nationalize our health insurance industry). Some extremely caring politicians thought it would be a great idea if we gave employers a tax break for providing health insurance. This shifted the market from direct consumer driven health care to more of a third party payer system, which, of course, is one of the main reasons our costs are sky rocketing. Most consumers of health aren"t spending their own money (which leads to massive over consumption). Some 77 cents of every health care dollar (44 government, 33 employer) is paid through a third party.

For the second year in a row, the medicare trustees have had to issue their legally required warning about the insolvency of medicare. For the second consecutive year, our congress has chosen to ignore the warning. Can"t we at least make sure they fix the current system their in charge of before we broaden it?

[WorkingClass]

If you were advocating single payer universal health care you would have my support, modest though it is. But you are not.

[leopoldmozart]

Why not use the same systems that work for public health (i.e. disease prevention), national defense, and interstate commerce? Everyone benefits regardless of income, they are administered by the government, no one bears personal responsibility for paying for the systems, and they are payed from our income tax.

The only answer is free non-profit universal health care administered by the government and payed through income taxes.

[leopoldmozart]

Why should we support a plan which is a complete chimera of misfitting parts of our failed healthcare system? Why don't we copy the successful healthcare plans of Sweden or France or Canada or...

Obviously, we get this total loser of a plan because insurance company mafias want their 30 cents "taste" of every healthcare dollar, and the American lawmakers are too wimpy and the American public too ignorant to fight them.

Here's what will happen:
1. The government criteria for who gets subsidies will quickly suffer bracket shift so that only the desperately impoverished will get aid, and a legion of working poor will again be locked out of the system.
2. The aid that the poor get will be insufficient, and they will either drop out of the system or not be able to pay their premiums, deductibles, and prescription costs.
3. America will continue to have the most expensive health care by a factor of 2 compared to the rest of the world while insurance companies build bigger skyscrapers and executives become decamillionaires.

It's easy to predict what will happen with the plan described above: just look at California's auto insurance situation. It's illegal to drive uninsured, so the state promises to subsidize the needy. Yet 25% of California drivers drive without insurance. Why? If you have to choose between present day needs and preventing some possible future disaster, present day needs come first.

The only answer is single payer non-profit government administered universal health care.

[SeriousBlack]

You got it.