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

[Marlyn]

"we should be able to get reasonable health care...and public schools, and other necessary infrastructure upgrades."

Yes, if we didn't have to pay for WAR.

[Marlyn]

"it became the template for the health care plans of candidates Edwards, Clinton and Obama."

That's NOT the health care plan I want. I want what Dennis Kucinich proposed. Get INSURANCE out. Take the burden off business. Pay for it with taxes and cover everyone.

[racom]

I agree, I have followed the CNA, ca nurses association, and their push for single payer health care. They are on the right track. I do not believe the insurance/­corporatis­t/fascist system we live under will ever allow it.

[Marlyn]

"I do not believe the insurance/­corporatis­t/fascist system we live under will ever allow it."

Oh, I know.

[katnyp]

And while we're at it, can we please stop referring to the Canadian system (and others) as "socialized medicine". Let's call it what it really us - socialized insurance. One insurer - the government - one set of rules, no one is denied coverage. The health care is not provided by the government, it's insured by them. It works in so many other 'civilized' countries, how can we possibly believe the US system is better??

[DallasMike]

Socialized health care is not a right granted to Americans in the Constitution.
I do agree that the health care system is broken but making it into another Gov't run bureaucracy is not the answer either.

[justobserve]

We have had the current system for so many years and it doesn't seem to work. Why not make an effort to see what are good and bad with the Canadian system and tailor- made for us? It couldn' t be worse.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Do you know that the US Government ALREADY pays more than 50% of the US health costs?

Between Medicare, Medicaid, the US Military, and US government workers, the government not only pays more than private companies, but uses the money more effciently, too.

So what is your problem?

[DanteForClinton]

then what would you do? do you know how others have tried to deal with the health care crisis without resorting to the scare tactics surrounding the use of the loaded phrase "socialized"?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Look what 5 Capitalist Democracies have tried. We need to stop using scare tactics when discussing health care...and­...it is debatable that there is no right to health care

U.S. CONSTITUTION: NINTH AMENDMENT::: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[leopoldmozart]

DallasMike wrote, "Socialized health care is not a right granted to Americans in the Constituti­on."

Neither are public health/disease control, interstate highway systems, the Security Exchange Commission, the FDA, and federal deposit insurance. We have them because our constitution was ratified to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," and eradicating polio and small pox, encouraging interstate commerce, preventing fraud in the equities market, having healthful food and drugs, and preventing another Great Depression helps achieve those goals.

Right now, the greatest drain on our economy, and the biggest reason Europeans live longer, healthier, and happier lives than Americans is that they have government run non-profit universal health insurance paid for from income taxes, and we have our expensive wasteful barbaric "the rich get care and the poor die" system.

[Annette]

I think it comes under providing for the general welfare. Americans are dying at earlier ages than in countries with decent health care. We are about 19th in life expectancy. We run about the same as Cuba, a poor second world country. We lose more work days to illness, we die younger, and we have higher infant mortality. That certainly ought to come under the General welfare.

[SeriousBlack]

Then what IS the answer, "DallasMike"? Enlighten us.

[torrrep]

I've yet to hear any of these groups that were mentioned in the article make a proposal as to how all of these people will be treated. Even with health insurance now it is a wait of several hours in an emergency room and if you go to the doctors office you'll be lucky to get in within an hour of your appointment. So where are all the medical professionals going to come from? We already have a national shortage of nurses and doctors. How do you propose to provide service to several million additional people? What good is national health care going to be if you have to wait six months to see your doctor? Throwing money at the problem is not going to solve anything. Especially personnel shortages.

[Annette]

They might quit fleeing to other countries and be available in the US. My husbands surgeon in the UK left the US 8 years ago to work in the UK. Less paper work, no more second guessing by the insurance companies, better income, Pension. He paid almost $200,00 per year for malpractice insurance in the US. He pays $14,000 for malpractice insurance in the UK.

In the US I wait 3 weeks to see my doctor. In the UK I regularly had an appointment the next day.

[klmebane]

fewer americans are going into the science and medical fields. that stems from the fact that it costs so much for the education that the pay they make after that doesn't come close to recouping the costs. it can take years of work before a doctor or scientist makes a living wage, and at the same time they still have 100's of thousands of dollars in educational debt that they have to start paying back as soon as they get out of school.

is your proposition that we just say screw the 47 million + uninsured and the millions more with inadequate coverage?

[DanteForClinton]

The sad thing is how the author avoids the ugly truth with gymnastics like this: "it became the template for the health care plans of candidates Edwards, Clinton and Obama."

sure a template is what we need. as if that will make things better. WE NEED what Hillary proposed..­.universal health care for ALL.

Everyone who is honest (is Obama?) will admit just because you make insurance cheap/affordable and subsidized doesn't mean people will sign up. We need mandates. Health care is NOT a commodity for the free market or an issue for academic elites to play with in their campaigns to screw things up more.

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

Hillary never had a proposal for universal healthcare. She just redefined "universal" as the fining of individuals that don't obtain what you want to make universal. See, Obama's proposal wasn't universal simply because he didn't fine those without healthcare.

[klmebane]

hillary didn't propose universal health care. she proposed mandating all people to pay for coverage that stays at the same price. you can't force people to buy something they can't afford anyway. that doesn't solve the problem. the problem is the way the insurance industry is run right now. they deny coverage, they give inadequate coverage at inflated rates, and so on. making people buy that won't help the problem. the people who need insurance the most can't get it. they would sign up if they could afford it or get coverage. the people who are the healthiest are the only ones who might opt out, and the healthiest people are generally the ones who have had insurance and had preventative care that kept them from developing treatable and preventable illness. mandates alone will not solve the problem. perhaps a combination of things to spread the risk around the entire population, but as long as the insurance industry can keep doing things the way they want, people who need coverage are still left out.

[livesimply]

When 1/3 of our hard-earned income goes to taxes, I expect we should be able to get reasonable health care...and public schools, and other necessary infrastructure upgrades. I spend over $700 on insurance for myself alone. It is worse than spending insurance for a top-of-the-line car...and I get nothing for it. I only spend it in case something life-threatening should happen. THAT is not health care. Instead my taxes go for pork barrel spending, trips in air force one, a stupid war......a­nd on and on... We not only need adequte health care, we are spending enough to pay for it.

[darcy]

livesimply, you said a mouthful!

[Donkslayer]

Hi.

The federal government messing with anyone's healthcare situation is unconstitutional. There is nothing that says the fed can do it.

If you argued it should be done by the states, I can see that.

And your opposition to war spending does not make it OK to spend on other things.

[Annette]

Nothing says they can't, I believe considering the infant mortality rate in the US and our low life expectancy it falls under the "promote general welfare".

[klmebane]

perhaps the constitution needs to be rewritten. healthcare didn't exist 200+ years ago. many things did not exist, like automatic weapons for example. the only problem with keeping it at the state level is that you get 50 different plans all implemented differently. federal involvement could mandate that all states have the same plans. that way when people move it transfers regardless of where they move to.

[swift goat pet for truth]

In fact, for every $1 Americans pay, the citizens of the NEXT most expensive country (Germany) pays 60 cents. And the USA is ranked something like 17th.

For profit health care (or more accurately, disease care) does not work.

[Shaddup]

This needs to be done, yesterday! Right now the Republican Senate is trying to knock another 10% off medicare in states where they don't even run medicaid appropriately. Once again they take advantage of the old, young, weak and infirm.

[ofbbg]

Explain to me why I am personally responsible for someone elses health care - and they're responsible for mine. Explain to me just why every person who exists in this country, or will exist during my lifetime, is "entitled" to a percentage of my wealth, however small. Explain to me why I am compelled to give my hard-earned money to someone who has done absolutely nothing to deserve it. I'll take self-reliance or voluntary collective action over government compulsion, waste, fraud, abuse, and outright larceny every time. I'll take care of me - YOU take care of YOU!!

[scottarino]

Spoken like a true neo-con. "I got mine!!"

[ofbbg]

That's right - by my own efforts, with suitable support from family. Nobody gave it to me. I earned it all. If I choose to share my wealth with others to help them achieve what I have, or perhaps more, that's MY business - not yours, and especially NOT the governments.

[jennmce]

I think the late George Carlin can answer your question best...

In one monologue that can be used as an analogy for this subject, George talked about trusting our lives and money to the decision-making of a gullible, uninformed, and unreflective citizenry. He argued higher education is more of a public good than a private one. Is it not a wiser social policy to invest in the education of the future workforce, rather than to suffer the financial loses and endure the fiscal and social burdens associated with economic weakness, public health problems, crime, and avoidable poverty? Rather teach people to make good decisions, and you equip them to improve their own futures and become contributing members of society, rather than burdens on society. Becoming educated and practicing good judgment does not absolutely guarantee a life of happiness, virtue, or economic success, but it surely offers a better chance at those things. And it is clearly better than enduring the consequences of making bad decisions and better than burdening friends, family, and all the rest of us with the unwanted and avoidable consequences of those poor choices.

If we invest in health care for everyone now, we head off bad things in our society further down the road later. It really is a worthy investment if you think about it on a societal level. If we all take care of each other now, there will be less problems and deviance further down the road.

[ofbbg]

While a lovely, well written response, it didn't even try to answer the three asked questions. See, I believe that, if people really care about the health of others, they can start a foundation or donate to a foundation that provides assistance. I do, and I know many, many others do as well - voluntarily. I draw the line at coercion - no matter how noble the cause. Government is very rarely a solution to problems; government IS the problem.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Public education is not in the Constitution, either.
Neither are public roads or communications systems.

[swift goat pet for truth]

One line of reasoning is that it is what civilized people do, take care of each other.
But obviously that is not you.

Another reason might be that a society is healthier, an economy is healthier when all of the citizens can contribute in a meaningful way. Having large groups that are sick or otherwise incapcitated weakens the society as a whole, weakens the economy as a whole.

One could also apply your arguements to public education. Many people think that our economy would be less strong if we had a population even more poorly educated than they are now. Many people argue if we had a more educated population, our economy would be stronger. Why should single people pay for public education? Or old people.

One could also apply your arguments to police and fire departments. And even the military, and utilities, like power and water.

Your hard earned money is made possible because we live in a society. Your hard earned money would not be possible in a situation of total anarchy. There would not even be money. Normal people do not expect to glean only the parts of that society they use from the whole. That is not rational. It is in the interest of individuals to support the society for the collective benefits that society brings us.

[SeriousBlack]

WELL SAID, swift!

[leopoldmozart]

Ten times a day you benefit from the wealth of richer people given in taxes. How do you make sure the medicine you take doesn't have arsenic or mercury in it? How do you know the stocks you bought aren't worthless paper and your broker a fraud? How do you make sure the people who make your car, electronics, and your children's toys don't make dangerous garbage? How do you know the water you drink isn't full of dysentary?

People like you who are devoid of civic virtue are so silly. You have a modest measure of success in some small part of U.S. commerce and you think you're some awesome demigod. You imagine you are Robinson Crusoe who can conquer anything by himself when in fact you are Gilligan resenting the fact that some of the food you find has to go to feed the Professor.

[SeriousBlack]

And not only that, he is too stupid to realize that he advocates perpetuating a situation on the island in which he has to give MORE of his share of food to the professor than being smart enough to revise the situation in a more efficient way in which he would actually end up having to give LESS of his share of food to the professor.

And preventing such change in the name of selfishness, peevishness and greed and a dislike of having any rules (read: government) whatsoever rather than being smart enough to cooperate with one's fellow castaways to provide a better existence for all, INCLUDING HIMSELF.

Not very smart.

[Annette]

Exactly !!

[SeriousBlack]

If you want to look at it in your narrow view of the issue, ok. What you fail to see is the bigger picture in which THERE IS A PROBLEM. I.E., A DYSFUNCTIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM that costs too much and delivers crappy care. Most proponents of the kind of universal single-payer government­-administe­red health care are open-minded enough to look at the problem and come up with a solution that not only will EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN ***LESS MONEY OUT OF THEIR POCKETS*** (there, what about that phrase COST ***YOU*** LESS MONEY didn't you freakin' understand) than the current system AND deliver BETTER care.

THAT is the goal, "my friend". To take a broken system and overhaul it so that it actually ends up costing EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN ***LESS*** money. That costs YOU less money out of your pocket every year, while at the same time giving you and every other american BETTER HEALTH CARE.

Why can't you GET that?!

[Gdebs]

The simplest idea is Medicare for everyone. Ask your mom or grandpa if is a good system.

[Overd0g]

Good and bankrupt.

[Zeje]

Trillion dollars (and more) for war (and more war)...so Americans pay taxes - but they won't get a good education system or a good health care system or good roads...