Over the last six years I’ve evaluated and treated hundreds of patients who have very little access to health care. These patients qualified for mental health care, but a great many didn’t qualify for access to Medicare or Medicaid (which Californians know as Medi-Cal). For these folks, I’ve been able to diagnose severe medical illnesses simply using lab results and clinical history – and for most of them, I could offer no treatment. We all need health care – and folks with serious psychiatric disorders, the need is even greater: as a group, they have far more physical illness and die far earlier than those without such burdens. This year’s fight for public health care could solve this problem – if the fight succeeds. If the fight fails, the patients I’ve served will keep suffering and dying from avoidable causes. Should progressives continue a circular firing squad over the mechanism for universal public access, I fear that’s exactly what will happen.
Do I want single-payer? Hell, yes. After over a decade spent in high tech health care, I’m one of thousands of physicians with horror stories about the patients who lost capacity, lost organs, and even lost lives because they were denied health care. Single payer would bankrupt the insurance megacorps who’ve colluded and lobbied to keep that deadly "system" in place. As hideous as Al Qaeda’s attacks were, they killed slightly more than 3,000 Americans. Once. Every year, nearly 20,000 Americans die because of the deadly system our insurance megacorps now spend over one million per day to maintain. The megacorps executives don’t deserve mere corporate bankruptcy: they’ve killed and maimed so many of us to deserve a fate worse than Gitmo. In a world free of human rights concerns, I’d cheerfully nominate them all – and their in house / outside legal counsel and lobbyists – for mandatory total organ donation. Though these heartless bastards don’t have anything to offer those awaiting cardiac transplant, the rest of the transplant lists could use the relief.
Fortunately, we live in a world (though not a nation) that offically upholds human rights and forbids execution and crimes against humanity – like involuntary organ donation. Unfortunately, in the part of the world called America, the megacorps own our political process. The guy who sits in the Oval Office came to bend his knee when the finance/insurance megacorps hatched out their own megafunded lobbyist group, the Hamilton Project.
So no surprise that when the guy in the Oval Office picked his OMB director, he picked another megacorp servant. Before he was OMB director, Obama’s pick Orszag not only directed the Hamilton Project, he’d actually co-founded it…with Robert Rubin. This will be good news for anyone who thinks Robert Rubin helped our economy when he took time out from helping loot America as Goldman Sachs’ co-CEO, and continued the task as Clinton’s Treasury Secretary…and then continued the looting when he rejoined our socialized finance sector as Citibank’s CEO. Hey – nothing succeeds like success, right?
For those of us blessedly free of psychosis, the idea that anyone from Bob Rubin’s baby the Hamilton Project will put our lives ahead of the megacorps’ greed would be hilarious – if the result weren’t so deadly.
So WTF does this have to do with health care and single payer? Plenty. Obama’s Hamilton Society pick Orszag has apparently wormed into position as Obama’s de facto health care czar. A corporatist errand boy as de facto health care czar? Why, it’s just what the doctor ordered – if we’re talking Dr. Kervorkian.
The indigent patients I’ve seen over the last six years by and large don’t have the luxury to focus on these issues. They are certainly every bit as clever as the rest of us, but they’re obliged to use that cleverness in their daily struggle to remain alive. In a very real sense, when progressive lobby groups and think tanks use my indigent patients urgent needs to justify one position for another, they act as proxies for the disempowered.
I’m very concerned that single payer advocates may vote their proxies against my patients’ survival. The folks I’ve diagnosed with Type II diabetes who can’t get effective treatment don’t care if access comes from a public option, from single payer, or from a coupon on a cereal box: they just need care. The delightful woman whose kidneys were already being damaged by the lupus I diagnosed just needed care – not an infinite debate over ideal mechanisms. We’ve had that debate here in San Francisco, and our uber-ambtious mayor has a "solution" to trot out for his resume: Healthy San Francisco. Which is great for his career, but not so great for the delightful woman on the way to needing dialysis: Healthy SF never got the funding to cover unmet need, and after months of trying to have patients enrolled, I learned our vaunted solution is little more than a Potemkin clinic.
President Hope and Rahm the Deal invested too much of their own prestige to be seen to fail on health care – so we’ll likely get something this year. I know my patients need universal and equal access to health care. Yet I’m very fearful that folks I respect and admire who demand single payer this year have put their own agenda ahead of my patients’ desperate needs.
Here’s the dirty fact: we have a corporatist servant as Prez. His de facto health care czar is a corporatist servant. Dozens of our corrupt House of Lords Senators are paid corporatist servants, as are hundreds of our corrupt "Represenatives". And single payer – a frontal assault on the insurance megacorps – directly attacks the corporatists’ paymasters. The "I" part of the FIRE sector – insurance – is one of the biggest paymasters. Sadly, we just don’t have the strength to directly destroy the health "insurance" megacorps.
And that’s why I’m so worried about how the quest for single payer will kill my patients. The single payer goal is worthy, but to the extent single payer advocates refuse to support other routes to universal coverage – like the robust public option – they are using their proxy vote to kill off the very indigent patients they desire to help.
For employees of Beltway think tanks who already have insurance, I believe this is immoral. For all the rest of us – especially the many folks in the FDL community who lack insurance and tirelessly advocate for single payer, my only criticism is that my indigent patients don’t have the luxury of sacrificing coverage in quest of an ideal solution. For many of them, that abstract poltical quest will bring nothing but disease, blindness, amputation, organ failure, and death.
Though I completely support single payer, I don’t support jettisoning other mechanisms that bring univeral coverage, provide equal access, and starve the megacorps. The most robust public option plans I’ve seen do exactly that, and I’ll be grateful to see any of them succeed. So will my increasingly ailing patients. We activists have years to defeat corporatism: single payer is one front in that very long war. Many of the indigent patients I’ve seen these last years – like many of the other 40 million uninsured Americans – will perish during that long war. With a robust public option this year, most of these patients will survive. Hell, some of them will find the health and energy to help us defeat the megacorps.
They can’t help us if they’re dead – and a future single payer triumph will ring hollow at gravesides and funeral urns. That’s why I hope progressives who share my long term hope for single payer will wholly support this year’s fight for full access, equal access, and a robust option. The megacorps won’t stop killing people what ever we do. But our choices this year can very literally save hundreds of thousands of lives: if we fight the megacorps, rather than one another.
Let’s get to work – together.



80 Comments







kirk – i have no idea what single payer advocates here you are talking about. it isn’t an either/or proposition. please read ralphbon’s diary:
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5920
p.s. which robust public options plans are you referring to?
thanks.
Hi selise-
Thanks as ever for work, energy, and advocacy. I’m not actually referring to any specific single payer proponents here at FDL (though I do look forward to reading ralphbon’s diary – thanks!)
Perhaps it’s just because I’m on too many progressive lists, but my Facebook / email lists are overflowing with single payer advocacy. Some of the advocacy basically rejects a public option as an acceptable alternative. The proponents of that view are the folks I’d hope this Oxdown diary may reach.
WRT to which public option, as teh legislation sausage machinery still seems to be grinding out mechanism details, I’m focused on specifications for the finished sausage:
1) Universal access
2) Equal access
3) No corporate bail-outs!
So I guess I’m focusing less on the kitchen prep, and more on the final product. I’m hoping for one where we can all say “Bon Appetit!”
thanks for the reply kirk.
unless you think that any public option plan, even a crappy not robust industry bailout bill, must be supported, then i think it really does come down to the question of “what public plan?”
because, at least imo, legitimate questions have been raised re public-plan-in-a-multi-payer-system (by people like himmelstein and woolhandler for example) about things like costs and the practicality of regulating for adverse selection, etc. if those issues have been addressed by public plan advocates, i have not seen it — and i’ve been looking and asking. for months. also there are issues like mandates, like benefits and out of pocket expenses, etc.
as i look at the bills coming out of the congressional leadership (disclaimer – i haven’t read the bills, i’m basing this on the analyses i’ve been reading. so if i have it wrong, please please correct me) i don’t see anything like a robust public plan as you’ve described it (even though that’s what they are being called). see for example this diary from scarecrow:
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/6089
if this is the “robust public option” i can see why some single payer advocates might be against it. i probably would be too (although i’m not sure — have to do a lot more investigating and thinking)
on the other hand, there is a very good looking public option bill from pete stark (it was introduced in the 110th congress and again this winter) hr 193:
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5749
i think hr 193 qualifies as “robust” according to your criteria (and mine) and i doubt single payer advocates would be against this “robust public option.” but hr 193 seems as much off the table as single payer hr 676.
… and that’s why, even though i’m for any step that takes us forward, i have toi ask “what public plan?”
selise, your mastery of the legislative process is a treasure. I couldn’t recall the bill number or the sponsor, but HR 193’s provisions are what I had in mind for robust public payer.
I think the fight we’ll see tonight (and this summer) is the fight to force the provisions in Pete Stark’s bill into whatever vehicle moves throught the process.
Because this will be a long fight, I guess that’s why I’ve tried to refocus broader activism on outcomes, rather than vehicles. Your mastery of the legislative process is beyond impressive, and everyone working on health care reform shared that I think my diary would be irrelevant.
But for those who lack the time or opportunity to follow so closely, I’m groping for a way to let our readers (and all the pals they motivate) stay active in pressuring Congresscritters.
My hope is that many – heck, all – of the people who’ve joined FDL’s policy mass actions in the past would be willing to keep that pressure on.
I know FDl can help spotlight the desired legislative events, and I’m hoping that resource will enable those who don’t follow legislative intricacies to support the broader goals by joining in our effort to push specific tactical objectives (which will vary from week to week – or even day to day) because they support the goals.
thanks for the kind words, but i am really fumbling in the dark on this one.
the problem is that no one is organizing around stark’s bill and public option advocates do not mention it (single payer advocates brought it to my attention — thanks ralphbon and drsteveb!). furthermore none of the requirement lists i’m aware of (hcan’s or the cpc’s) would get us there.
i wish there was some public plan legislation (hr 193 or similar) to organize around, but there’s just not. and i can’t in good conscience support a campaign slogan when there is so much unknown (it could be a corp bailout or wonderful or some combination). as eoh wrote above, the devil is in the details.
I think you’ve put your finger on the tactical problem: how to motivate folks to push for concrete, specific goals when the legislative susages are still in process.
I’m hoping that the strong work FDL’s done over the last few years on various major campaigns has earned FDL enough good will that folks will use us as a resource – week to week, day to day – on whipping the Congresscritters re specific legislative details.
My trust in those who seek to move public opinion is rarely given, and easily withdrawn. But after 15 years of overt political action, I’m confident that Jane and colleagues will honor our trust in service of specific goals: equal access, equal care, and no megacorp bailouts.
i’m only one person, but for me it’s really easy: educate me. address my questions / concerns. and don’t do this.
We can only win these fights if we start early and keep going when we don’t see how to reach our desired goals. We didn’t get a good outcome on the environment, because we weren’t there at the start of the legislative operations.
It will be the same thing when we get to financial regulation. If we don’t attack at the outset, we will surely lose.
I second this
I greatly respect you Kirk, and have nowhere near your depth of medical knowledge, but what does “robust public-option” mean?
Which bill are you talking about?
It’s not only the de facto Health Czar. The “Health Policy Czar” made big bucks from corporations now under corruption investigation. What a deal! This is not something that could be said of Howard Dean. Nope. He’s on the side of the people and not the corporations (nor Rahm, either).
That’s why he could never get elected… not one of them.
It’s too late to save my mom, but it is not too late to save your patients, and it would be immoral not to try to get something good wrung from the awful hands of these corrupted legislators. Thanks for giving me some strength with which to face the cynics.
(((tom)))
i’m so sorry about your mom. this is such a painful topic for so many of us. i also hope we can find a way to get something good, even if only a little step forward, for the sake of all those in need.
I know you care. I see how hard you work and admire your courage and smarts. Thanks to everyone at FDL.
Dr. Kirk, I love the way you write. I agree with everything you have written about the devil incarnate, Robert Rubin, and his henchmen. What is going on in our system is criminal as inequality robs America of its promise.
But I’ve come to believe that there needs to be a real left movement. There needs to be voices advocating for radical change. Without those movements in the 1930s, the powers that be wouldn’t have been scared enough. And some of us have to advocate for what is right. It’s the only way to sleep at night. Howard Zinn says that politicians do what it takes to win. Citizens’ duty is to do what it takes to do what is RIGHT. We all have functions.
I just marched in the Butte, Montana 4th of July parade. Normally all the politicians show up. It’s a union town. The first United Mine Workers union was here. The first Teamsters Union was here. We had a huge single payer float with a wounded Lady Liberty in a hospital bed. “Give me your poor, your wretched….yearning for….SINGLE PAYER…
We got quite a few cheers, two “Go to Canada” and a lot of blank stares. The American people have been deprived of information about this debate. And that’s not fair play.
There is a place for the voice of reason here in this discussion. There is a place for the people who want to inform the people of the idea of health care as a basic right.
montanamaven, good on ‘ya, and bless you for standing up!
I don’t have words for the loss of a parent: my heart goes out to you and your family.
Money Quote if the MSM ever decide to cover this issue fairly.
Question if we have single payer but people with traditional healthcare don’t transfer over for whatever reason whats to force the insurance companies to change their ways?
The 50 year old guy with a high school education working two jobs and does not like paper work or the 60 year old women who feels safer with the devil she knows does anyone have numbers on how many people plan not to leave their traditional plans?
Because I see the potential for the insurance companies to make a killing screwing over people who won’t leave.
New policies.
If insurance companies don’t make themselves attractive, they won’t get any new policies.
It’s not all about people switching, because most won’t and it would be political suicide to force them to…it’s about those who come of age and need healthcare or those who lose private healthcare.
Thanks, Doc.
I, too, would rather have single payer universal coverage. But there’s more than one way to attack the health insurance tumor that is robbing essential resources from health care itself.
If you don’t have the resources for a sustained, brutal, World War One-style frontal assault – which is what directly legislating a single payer system would entail – you have to rethink your strategy. (The French and British in World War One never did; they just kept losing more men.) We should not stop demanding single payer, but we should also look for ways to convert a stale-mate into a mobile war.
One way is a strong public option. It has the most potential for positive reform that this conservative Democrat president could stomach.
Achieving a credible public health insurance option as a direct competitor to today’s health insurers would be a significant victory. It would provide room for political maneuver and future reform. It would give access to health care to millions who don’t have it now. It would create a benchmark against which to judge the costs, profits and health care allowed by today’s private insurers.
Adopting the French or Dutch approaches – in the “uniquely American” way that Obama deems essential for his short-term political fortunes – would permit private insurers to co-exist along with a public insurer. We don’t need just mandated health insurance. We need mandated minimum levels of coverage in order to qualify as health insurance. Among other things, it would cover pre-existing conditions – the great profit generator for private insurers – and it could not be canceled because the insured actually uses the insurance s/he pays for. That would be like canceling life or auto accidents when the insured dies or has an accident. Allowing such things is a scam.
That means introducing real competition into the now oligopolistic health insurance market.
Whether the public insurer is chemo and radiation treatment to deal with the tumor that our private insurers have become on the body politic is the big question. It could also become merely a publicly-subsidized funnel to channel to them the most profitable, sickness-free patients. That would be the most expensive course, offering the least improvement and reform. Fighting that fight alone will be as hard.
Tom, I am so sorry for your loss – I don’t have words for the loss of a parent, but my heart goes out to you.
Thanks so much for this. My disbled son gets screwed by our insurance company almost monthly. It’s a constant battle for proper care.
If you don’t mind I would like to submit a few quotes from your diary to the opinion page of my local newspaper.
tbsa, please feel free. I wish the best of luck to you, your family, and your son.
Thank You! I will send you a copy should they publish it. I’ve have good luck with it.
Just a gentle suggestion: Dr. Kervorkian had only the desires and best interests of those he helped to commit suicide. He did not make money from what he did.
To compare him to the Big Insurance parasites seems, to me, unfair. The parasites are rapacious and heartless. Dr. Kervorkian gave a damn about the people he helped.
So far, I haven’t seen a strong public option that is clear cut, and obama hasn’t put one forth. I suspect that whatever comes out of this scrum will be it for at least a generation. There will be some that continue to fight for better, but most people will just say that this is the best that could be done and fold their tents. I’m not knocking those who give up because the one that gave hope has turned out to be a mirage which will turn many into more cynical paths than can be imagined.
This is what we have to overcome to win this battle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02770.html
Preemptive blame targeted toward single-payer advocates for the potential failure or failings of public option legislation seems to be making the rounds currently. I had to douse an outbreak just last night. Sad, because we all have more important things to do.
Kirk, your passionate plea for the drop-dead urgency of meaningful health financing reform, arising from direct frontline experience, is genuine, properly directed, and shared and amplified many thousandfold by strong single-payer advocates like the California Nurses Association and the doctors of PNHP.
We all know that our rigged system and compromised leaders have ensured that no single-payer legislation will pass this year. Advocates with the most impeccable single-payer bona fides, including Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, all acknowledge the urgency of passing the most “robust” public option bill humanly achievable, given the forcible exclusion of single payer from major deliberations.
But this does not mean that ongoing strong, focused advocacy for single payer — including unflinching critiques of the public option concept – are counterproductive. Quite the opposite.
Single payer advocates are often cast as “unstrategic,” but we’re actually looking several chess moves ahead, and here’s what we see. In a couple of years, people will start noticing that keeping for-profit insurers front and center in our health care system, with the “honesty” forced upon them by a public plan proving vastly overrated, continues to generate financial morbidity and mortality on a vast and only minimally moderated scale.
Antipathy toward the system passed in 2009 will dwarf that currently directly toward Medicare Part D and its donut hole. Wingnuts will shout, “See! Government can’t do anything!” And Democrats? What will Democrats shout?
Those who weren’t clear-headed, pissed, and vocal back in 2009 about how any public option would by definition be a bailout for corporate bad actors will be left doing a Ralph Kramden hamminahammina. And the teabaggers will prevail by virtue of having a clear, albeit insane, message. And the dream of transitioning the public option incrementally into something closer to, rather than farther from, single payer fades.
If you’re going to criticize single payer advocates for being pie-in-the-sky, you don’t help your case by citing “universal access,” “equal access,” and “no corporate bailouts” as your benchmarks for public option robustness. You can’t clap your hands and make the public option synonymous with single payer. Those are way beyond even the Progressive Caucus’s robustness criteria and presuppose that a public option can support the principle of health care as a human right. Even Jacob Hacker, the wonk who invented the public option ploy, admits that that’s off the table. Watch how Dennis the K simultaneously makes Hacker squirm by demonstrating what’s inherently wrong with the public option… without abandoning the effort to ensure that whatever passes this year sucks as little as possible.
I could go on, but I’m bushed.
You put it much better than I was going to
I’m seeing flawed strategy; you don’t begin with a compromised plan – you end up there. And blame placement. And frustration.
I see good people frustrated with process
I wish I had more time to expand on this right now
You are my hero.
Please…save that for the day I work up the guts to handcuff myself to Max Baucus’s ankle.
Kirk if you are masochistic enough to slog through the post of mine that selise highlighted (gracias, selise!), please note that I now recognize that I vastly overstated any “message discipline” within the Congressional Progressive Caucus with respect to the public option. On the one hand, no one’s gonna shut up CPC members like Dennis K. On the other hand, WTF is up with the CPC when only 7 congresscritters have managed to sign on to Jane’s eminently noncontroversial whip pledge?
Ralphbon, no masochism needed: I enjoyed your post, and hope lots of others have the chance to read it.
Very much appreciated, Kirk. I do hope you’ll reconsider the “single payer activists as patient-killers” theme going forward. You very aptly describe who the real patient-killers are and how corporatist Democrats may make a big show of denouncing them, but not to the point of trying to get them off the streets. Obamacare will kill people needlessly — fewer than now, but still, absolutely needlessly.
Private insurers’ fiduciary responsibility to divert precious health care dollars to shareholder dividends is the cyanide in our water. Public option advocacy amounts to a declaration that the cyanide has a right to stay there, although with the hope that various convoluted manipulations will dilute it adequately. Please try to go easier on your clean-water-holdout friends who call this for what it is.
Agreed – I painted with a broad brush. As this issue won’t be going away, I’ll keep trying to refine the message: thanks for your helpful observations.
As a wise activst I know has observed, the disagreement is about tactics, rather than values or ideology.
I do disagree with this metaphor, and with what strikes me as a binary assumption behind it:
I’ve actually stood before So Cal’s Water Lords – the Metropolitan Water District – when they invited PSR-LA to explain the very real risks of perchlorate in water supplies. That was several years ago, and today Southern Californians still don’t know the Colorado River water MWD imports is so heavily contaminated with perchlorate as to pose a risk of fetal abnormalities in babies born to moms who drink tap water.
Perchlorate’s a rocket fuel: the contamination in the Colorado comes from a source south of Las Vegas (Morton Thiokol, IIRC). UNder the Bushies, the Feds sabotaged public health efforts by setting “limits” for perchlorate so high as to guarantee fetal toxicity – which takes the form of the brain damage once called “cretinism”.. You see, perhclorate interferes with our bodies’ uptake of iodine, and deficiency in that element causes this clinical condition.
Because SoCal requires the Colorado river water to survive, I don’t know if we’d ever see MWD free of perchlorate. Because the harm perchorate causes happens now, I’d gladly accept a CA state limit on perchlorate that’ sgreater than zero, but less than the level that causes fetal brain damage. Accepting that interim goal in no way concedes the contaminant has a “right” to stay there – but it does forestall certain harm now, while I await the poltical power that would so alter SoCal land use as to enable MWD to use no Colorado River water.
So – with affection and respect – the model described in the quote above appears to me so leaky that it doesn’t hold water.
One can want totally clean water – as I do – and not surrender that goal nor concede a “right” to any contaminant, while still working actively to attain all possible decreases in risk right now.
That’s where I am with health care: single payer would be better, but this summer I’ll settle for robust public option as described above.
I hope I won’t seem rude in asking the following.
I support single payer and public option, and I’ll take whichever I can get this summer while awaitiing the best possible option. Will those who support single payer join me in pursuing harm reduction via public option now, without casting aspersions on the interim step we can attain this summer? This isn’t an abstact question: without the active support of articulate, motivated single payer advocates this summer, public option may not succeed. Will those who most wish for single payer join me in saving as many of my patients’ lives as we can possibly do this year? OR will they keep their powder dry, reject public option as the enemy of the good single payer – and in so doing very possible withold the support that will save lives this summer?
The choice is not mine, but for those who most passionately desire single payer. What will they choose – and who will perish if they continue to withold support from less perfect, yet still lifesaving, interim steps towards their ideal goal?
Kirk, I’m honored you took the effort to decimate my leaky metaphor, and I swear that’s not snark. So, to your question:
Let’s talk harm reduction and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Baucus bill, I’m sure, would save some lives. Tighter regulation of the insurance industry, without a public option, would save some lives. The co-op thing if instituted, I’m sure, would save some lives.
So if the public option gets kiboshed, are you going to — consistent with the principle of harm reduction — accuse Dr. Dean, the signers of Jane’s too-slowly accreting whip list, and other public-option line-in-the-sanders (including, of course, Sanders) of trying to kill some of your patients?
If the answer is no, aren’t you letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (or more precisely, letting the meager be the enemy of the paltry)?
My own judgment, and I think yours, is that it would be better to scrap the effort and start over than to let the Axis of Baucus institute systems that will serve as dead ends, rather than thru streets, to the change we actually need.
The minority of single payer advocates who make the same argument about any public option system have arrived honorably at a comparable judgment. That happens not to be my position, which is closer, possibly identical, to yours. But it’s far too easy for a public option system to serve as a dead end rather than thru street. The PNHP people argue this point powerfully and rigorously.
The public option concept deserves aspersions. In my view, if a public option bill creates mechanisms and structures that will allow a transition to the reform we actually need, it deserves, on top of aspersions, passage. The internecine debates on the details are heated and passionate precisely because they affect medical and financial morbidity and mortality on vast scales. We can all try to go less ad hominem on each other’s asses in the process. But it’s hard sometimes, especially regarding people (eg, Obama and Sibelius), who pretend that the change we’re going to get this year is all the change we need.
Bless you Dr. Murphy, you are my on the front line hero.
Thanks so much for reminding us of the ultimate corporatist control of the political process. It’s all so sickening.
As a long time advocate for the homeless, poverty income disabled and working poor with various neuropathies (tho usually diabetic and back injury forms) I share your anguish for your patients. THe lack of timely and appropriate care is scandalous, but the powers that be in the medical community operating in both public and private sector institutions, as I have experienced it, quite content with the status quo that enrages and sickens me.
So, bless you, bless you, bless you for caring and writing.
Obama appears poised to cave on the public option: http://online.wsj.com/article/…..And_Policy
You beat me to it! Are we screwn or what?
OK, I admit it. I find this argument offensive. Single payer advocacy is not going to kill or harm any of Kirk’s patients. The lack of single payer universal healthcare on the other hand will result in the deaths and damaged lives of tens of millions of Americans.
We are not faced with a choice between a “robust” public option and single payer. Indeed if our political Establishment were serious about a robust public option, there would be very little keeping them back from just supporting single payer. But, in fact, they aren’t. Their idea for a public option is weak or none. So the logic of my killing Kirk’s patients because I support single payer escapes me.
As for the political dynamics, just look at how none of the leaders in the House, the Senate, or the White House are leading on a strong public option. If they were, they would be telling us what such an option would look like. This alone should tell you that the fix is already in and that the public option is just a sop for the rubes and is meant to extend crap coverage to those that the insurance companies don’t want anyway.
Hugh, I so repsect your views and the time you’ve spent educating us all at FDL, and I apologize for causing offense. FWIW, that was not my goal or intention, though the result is obviously my responsibility. Again, my apologies.
I agree with your point that single payer advocacy in and of itself won’t harm a hair on any patient’s head. Where my concern arises is that we all have finite amounts of time, energy, and passion. The concern that prompted my diary arises from the limits those finite reserves imply.
As George Monbiot pointed out regarding the suicide pact that just limped through the House, we in America live in a failed state: corporatist
campaign moneybribery buys a system that gives a minority political view a stranglehold on national policy. Hell, the same failure of legitimate representation has a stranglehold on my beloved California.I agree with you that our “leaders ” show only tepid support fr public option: that’s what FDL’s whip efforts are targeted to enlarge. Sadly, the votes for single payer are far fewer..to the extent they exist at all.
I so want to believe that all single payer advocates are plugging away to get public option this year, and are devoting their finite energy towards that objective this year. For some folks, I’m sure that is so. Yet for others, I’m quite certain that is not the case. Some of my closest peeps – awesome activists who brought down Hurwitz in the Headwaters Forest fight and defeated the global megacorps in Seattle 10 years ago – some of these really talented organizers are working for single payer, but not working for public option this year. That tactical decision is the decision that prompted my post, and the concerns behind it.
Whether single payer or other reforms actually improve health care and the health insurance mechanism we use to pay for it is, like the devil, in the details. I might have trusted Mrs. Clinton to write a decent bill; I don’t trust this Senate or a third of the representatives to do any better.
Citizen watchfulness and responsiveness may make the difference between getting some measure of reform instead versus a surer, more lucrative forced market for private insurers.
I don’t understand the doctor’s objections. I went without health care for seven years because I couldn’t afford insurance AND I was not poor enough for state aid. Any type of assistance would have been welcomed and I think single-payer, if we can get it, would be best. When I hit 65 I finally got Medicare, which is great but it only pays 80% and it doesn’t cover glasses or the dentist. The fact that thousands of people die every year because they can’t afford a doctor is shameful. Perhaps if we took the billions that we spend to maintain military bases around the world, and waste on planes that don’t fly and guns that don’t shoot, we could provide health care for our citizens.
In reply to #26:
If we were willing to call our healthcare expenses “TAXES” rather than “PREMIUMS,” they’d decrease by 50% and everyone would be covered, just as in Europe.
wigwam, that’s brilliant: if I give you credit, may I borrow it?
Of course! And thanks.
I’m so grateful this diary has brought so much discussion together, and I thank the folks who’ve taken time to comment. I’m hoping more commenters will join us this afternoon, and I’m looking forward to the chance to discuss the ideas we’ve shared above.
Politics is the art of the possible. We are struggling with enormously wealthy and somewhat frightened people, willing to do anything to keep the money flowing their way. We have to work harder than we can think just to keep awful things from happening.
I don’t know of any single-payer advocates who are trying to torpedo reform, but we do have a perhaps more nuanced interpretation of what constitutes reform. The fact of the matter is, single-payer is extremely unlikely to happen at the national level, and has a fighting chance at the state level. So the most informed advocates of single-payer I know have no problem pushing the national congress-critters towards some sort of reform (while letting them know that they are full-fledged single-payer supporters) while continuing to advocate for single-payer at all levels. Sheila Kuehl, perhaps the most informed advocate of single-payer (besides Don McCanne), says it well:
“To shore up those in Congress and in the White House who are trying to preserve a public option in the face of a tsunami of opposition from the insurance companies, I recommend, at least, going to http//www.barackobama.com and using the action center there to make calls, write letters to the editor, sign up for events, tell stories, etc. It works in our favor, as well, if, in every call and letter, you say that single payer makes much more sense for the country, however, if we don’t get it this year, there must, at least, be a public option, etc. etc. This helps to ratify how many single payer supporters are out there as well as adding to the voices raised in support of the public option.”
I thought that the best possible scenario would see single payer as one of several options. The single payer system we create through public will and public funds would still have to effectively compete in performance levels and effectiveness against corporate programs or it will become a program of last resort, which I do not believe is the objective. Presumably a competitive single payer system (like the VA System already is) will be able to avoid the problematic scenario that Kirk lays out.
Masaccio, tegrat, and Blub, thanks for stopping by. Masaccio, thanks for pointing out we are dealing with frightened people. Despite nearly two decades practice with anxiety disorders, that insight had wholly eluded me (and still would, if not for your comment).
Tegrat, thanks for your very nuanced analysis: you have stated this far more precisely than had I. You learned me.
And Blub, I agree with your best possible scenario: I’m hoping all of us (and the indigent folks I’ve seen the last six years) live to see it. What I should have expressed far more clearly is my hope that progressives seeking single payer will – this summer – put their energy into pushing for the best possible public option as a step en route to single payer…a destination I devoutly hope we all attain.
So long as progressives can fully push for what we can get this year – and then come back to keep fighting for single payer – I’d not be concerned that any of the indigent folks I’ve seen (or the millions of uninsured/underinsured I’ll never see) will perish.
I don’t know who the good doctor thinks he is arguing with. Most of us would prefer single payer, but are instead fighting for a strong public option. If we don’t get even that, then the insurance companies will continue to deny care: most medical bankruptcies happen to people who have insurance. If “health reform” means that everyone’s required to buy private insurance, but private insurance companies are then allowed to take that money and deny care, forget it; no reform would beat bad reform.
Back in the 80s, my family nearly lost its life savings (with several high-school-age kids who were counting on that money for college) and wound up turning to Medicaid to get my brother’s medical bills paid (after a long hospitalization he died at age 18). The family narrowly avoided bankruptcy and my father sunk into depression that lasted the rest of his life (which wasn’t long). We had health insurance, but my father had changed jobs and my brother’s heart condition was ruled as an improperly reported pre-existing condition.
This kind of thing doesn’t exist in other countries, but it’s common here.
Hi JoeBuck -
I’m so sorry for your family’s loss: what you describe is simply a crime. THe fact our nation treats anyoone that way is an obscenity.
I think my comment 34 and yours may have crossed. I’m not trying to argue with any specific person here at FDL. Rather, I’m trying to use FDL’s megaphone to reach a segment of activists/progressives who will push for single payer we won’t get this year, but withold their talents, energy, and passion from the fight for a robust public option we possible coould have theis year.
As earlofhuntington points out, the devil will be in the details – that’s where I see us needing all activist hands on board to fight for the details that will comprise a robust public plan. Articulating goals as I have here will be one part of that work; another part will be real-time work on FDL’s part to keep folks aware of what pushes required week-by-week (or day by day) to attain those goals.
(((joe)))
regardless of whatever healthcare reform happens or doesn’t happen, imo there is no reason we can’t make it illegal for insurance companies to refuse coverage (or charge more for) pre-existing conditions. and while we’re at it make it illegal for insurance companies to drop people because they get sick.
kirk – reform doesn’t just mean that some people are helped. it can also mean that some people are harmed. the decision to support any particular reform is based on trying to figure out if the good outweighs the bad. here for example, is some info on the results of the 2006 MA reform (if this report is wrong, or there is counter evidence, please let me know. i have seen nothing to challenge it). my bolds:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0114-08.htm
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/…..is_no_.php
more here from pnhp and public citizen:
http://pnhp.org/mass_report/mass_report_Final.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/hrg/hea…..m?ID=18399
i really want to be persuaded that the good outweighs the bad for reform plans. but we still don’t know what the plans are, so i’m left with advocating for a plan that i am persuaded will work (single payer) while trying to get more info on what public option plans are being written and trying to understand the ramifications.
it really doesn’t help that there has been a year of propaganda from hcan re “obama’s plan” without actually addressing the substantive policy issues. i really hate being on the receiving end of campaign slogans and talking points when there isn’t either the understanding or willingness to treat the topic as deserving of honest discussion and debate. it makes me more skeptical and even distrusting of the process and possible outcomes. (thanks to scarecrow and others here for being the very rare exceptions).
so please, persuade me. i already know this is a life and death issue. what i don’t know is everything else.
I totally agree that “reform” is all too often a fig-leaf for just giving the megacorps another pound of flesh, and I agree that’s what the MA plan did. That’s also what Medicare Part D did to many.
I guess that’s why I’m focusing on public advocacy for a set of clear goals: universal access, equal access, no megacorp subsidies.
I’ve now seen three different social campaigns: forest protection; toxin free schools/ food /homes; and health care. For the reasons you’ve described so well, I’m leery of calling for health care reform ’cause I too don’t know what that means.
What I learned from the forest and freedom from toxin campaigns (state and Federal) is that legislative vehicles are like sausage casings: they can be stuffed with all sorts of contents, and the contents may be swapped out. Save for HR 193, I don’t see any vehicles that bring the goals set forth above.
On a micro-level, this summer the fight I’m anticipating will be to swap out less robust provisions in HELP for the more robust provisions in HR 193.
What makes you think this will happen?
Seriously, what concrete indications point to this?
What’s the last bill signed into law by Obama that you supported? Ledbetter is the last one I remember. Bailing out the car companies? Was the stimulus after that? Which what we’re seeing right now is that it wasn’t enough to adequately address the problems it was meant to solve. He argued against Habeas Corpus rights for detainees. He’s keeping Gitmo open. He’s argued for expanded presidential powers. He’s expanded the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan. He’s ordered his first coup d’état in Honduras, days before our Independence Day weekend (how’s that for irony). He’s gone back on his transparency pledge. His “reform” of the financial industry is a joke. The recently passed so-called ground-breaking global warming bill is nothing more than a subsidy for the transnationals. His support for “clean” coal. He purposely excluded the SP advocates in his WH summit on Health care
What is the last example of good judgment for the good of the many that he’s made?
This is Change ™ ?
John, I wholly agree with your take on Obama: I’m just shy of despising him. As you point out, he’s already betrayed his Oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. He’s such a moral leper that despite his experience as a Constitutional Law lecturer, he seeks ways to execute detainees who’ve never seen a legitimate court. He’s embarked on a hopeless, illegal land war in Afganistan and Pakistan, showing he is a fool as well as a dupe of our permanent warfare lobby and the death corporations who suck our taxdollars for endess wars.
His climate plan alone is a suicide pact that will claim his own daughters’ lives, and that’s enough for him to go down in the very limited history our species will have as a major criminal against humanity. Once Michelle awakens to that fact, may he never enjoy a moment of peace in his home or marriage.
I don’t think he gives a shit about anyone but the corporatists to whom he bowed down when he came to celebrate the Hamilton Project’s spawning: I wouldn’t trust him with the contents of my used catboxes.
Yet on this issue – because he’s really nothing but another ambitious coward – I think 72% percent of the American public are going to stuff his corporatist face with his sorry ass. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Success on public option wil come despite him, not because of him.
What’s a “corporatist”?
The corporations are hardly universal in their opinions on this issue- they don’t represent only one point of view.
I am very disappointed about Rahm’s comments. They show poor negotiating skills. Once one announces that one is willing to settle for less- one lowers the floor and one will never get more- will almost always get much less.
If this is the way Obama negotiates, the goopers were right to claim that he wasn’t ready to be the head of state. Putin would rip him a new one.
Great question, rw – I should have defined the term. Here’s what I meant:
“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.” Benito Mussolini
We don’t have the goosesteps, but we do have the merger of corporate and government power.
I did not mean to come off so harshly, but my perspective is this. Single payer was never allowed on the table and so isn’t going to happen. A public option is only being permitted in at the margins. It will not be allowed to compete with private plans and will be used largely as a dumping ground for people the insurance companies don’t want. Having passed something on healthcare, the Democrats will hope not to revisit the issue in a serious way until 2016 or 2020.
What may throw their calculations off is that the economy is likely to suffer a series of shocks and worsen significantly: this fall when commerical real estate tanks, the suckers market peters out, and foreclosures continue to go up, in 2011 when the stimulus ends and the levels of aid to the banks become untenable, in 2012-2014 when a lot of loan refinancing will need to happen and probably won’t.
My point here is that it looks like only worsening economic conditions will force our political Establishment to act on healthcare and economic issues, and it will do so then only to head off revolution. I am not a tinfoiler but the convergence of the criminal incompetence of our political leadership regardless of party and the inexorable math that underlies our economic problems is going to create very hairy conditions in this country between now and 2015.
No worries, Hugh – your critique was instructive and constuctive.
Totally agree with your assessment of our likely future: I’m hoping sucess with this effort will make life easier for all as that dismal scenario unfolds.
I certainly agree that the weak slop offered up by the dems is not good enough. I hate the Obama approach to negotiating.
It won’t get better if we quit the field.
Kirk,
Your post has brought out the A Team of commenters for my daily education at FDL. Thank you all for sharing the invaluable insight that “edumacates” me on a daily basis.
This issue is make or break for me. Without a robust public option aiming toward single payer I fear deep disillusionment among our community and throughout the general population.
I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the discussion, but I fear you are too kind: the great comemnters who’ve shared their thoughts have come together (I believe) not because of my post, but because of their passionate commitment to ensuring we all take care of one another.
my disillusionment is pretty high already.
Wow folks – good news from Marisa on the top of the front page: Roll Call’s reporting Harry Reid (yep, that Harry Reid) ordered Baucus to quit seeking Rethug votes (and to drop Orszag’s corporatist scheme to tax private health benefits)!
I’m not fond of compromising with the corporatocracy either, but I’m reminded of what happened with the Medicare prescription drug bill. I was opposed to the compromise that was passed because it prohibited Medicare from bargaining for prescription drug prices, and it included the infamous coverage gap. I resigned from AARP when they supported it. I’m on Medicare myself, however, and I’m now benefiting from the flawed compromise bill that was passed. More importantly, people poorer than myself are able to get critical prescriptions. It has not been possible yet to change it into something that is less of a windfall for drug companies, but so be it (for now).
I think the single payer campaign will be helpful in getting a public option, however, not a hindrance to it.
The commenters here who are sp advocates seem to be saying that they cannot/will not support the public option because it is worse than a bill without it. And because it’s a public plan and not sp, then they will not work for the bill, and won’t help whip for the bill, and will stand aside as any possibility of a strong public plan — e.g., like Stark or other patterned on Medicare — is stripped out.
Is that where people are? And would you also urge progressive Congress people to oppose any bill that doesn’t have sp, even if it has a public plan?
I really like you, but this is a strawman argument
Please respond to the person who specifically says they will not support anything less than sp
My argument is with strategy – not tactics. Why start with an amorphous compromised position (public option – which bill???) on this issue? What makes anyone think that if they pass a weak bill that it will get stronger (robust) in the conference committee – which is where it’ll have to happen. Or what am I missing?. Has that ever happened? Recently? With this leadership?
Where have they passed a weak bill and had it get more robust in conference committee?
i don’t blame you, but as a person rather in need of some very expensive health care [after having been robbed of both my money and my health by the insurance industry], i’m angry that public option advocates are voting their proxies against my survival.
after much thought, much reading, and much discussion of all the pros and cons, i’m fully convinced that i have nothing to lose by holding out for single payer.
HR 193, which Selise mentions above, seems to make medicare available to all Americans beginning in 2011, with some adjustments I haven’t parsed out yet. Do you think single payer will be here by then?
not at the rate we’re going, that’s for sure.
it’s entirely possible to control costs and provide actual care for everyone, no matter what the payment method — single payer, multi-payer, private insurance, public insurance, national health service, you name it.
what all these disparate methods have in common is that:
[1] they do not rely on competition to control costs, instead the governments basically all set the prices that doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc can charge;
[2] health care is mostly nonprofit;
[3] the payers basically do not tell the doctors how to practice medicine;
[4] they are extremely generous in lowering financial barriers to health care, whether through subsidies or through little-to-no cost-sharing;
[5] they do not assume that people regularly over-consume health care [really, how many people do you know who actually like going to the doctor?], or that fraud is rampant, and therefore they don’t spend much time or money hounding patients or providers about their usage rates. nb: germany, france, japan, switzerland, canada, australia all have primarily fee-for-service systems [even more than we do in most cases] and they all manage to spend far less than we do and deliver more care per capita than we do.
do you see any of the above principles at the core of either the house or the senate bills? no, you do not. the kleptocrats have once again made sure that money will flow from poor people to rich people, and all the sturm and drang about the path it will take [via one exchange or many, via individual or employer mandates, via public option or private, via…] is just that, hissy fits. there are no provisions anywhere to either force or entice insurers to pay for anywhere near adequate care.
—–
as for hr 193 and hr 676… which one has 3 cosponsors and which one has 83 cosponsors [as of this writing]? hint: it’s not 193. implementation dates? hr 193 specifically says jan 1, 2011; hr 676 says the first jan 1 that comes one full year after the law is passed, which would make it effective jan 1 2011, if it were passed this year.
no health care reform that actually benefits people, no matter how it’s paid for, is ever going to pass without a very real and believable threat of massive civil unrest of some kind, whether general strikes in the workplace, huge unruly demonstrations, nurses and doctors getting arrested in droves, something… we haven’t got the kind of money it takes to buy off congresscritters, but we do have the raw numbers of warm bodies that it takes to disrupt the overall comfort of their money-protected lifestyles.
hmmm, great thread. about as stirring and credible an advocacy of public option as is possible. counterpoints strong and well phrased, this discussion is a keeper, and the issues will be revisited as long as the process drags on.
coming from another direction, this guy has some concrete suggestions for major reform that could be added to the discussion:
http://market-ticker.denninger…..-Fool.html
he’s primarily a bearish financial blogger, former CEO, lifelong republican, radicalized by the idiocies of government in the last 20 years or so.
2 points I haven’t heard discussed are:
The issue that I have with “strong public option” is that it is a euphemism for something, somthing unspecified to be named later.
The for-profit health insurance industry can only be profitable if it is allowed functional monopolies (and thus unlimited pricing) AND the ability to exclude old, sick, or potentially sick subscribers. To have a profitable insurance business, you have to have more subscribers that don’t file claims than subscribers that do. This works for fire insurance. Not for health. You can’t profit when the percentage of subcribers who eventually claim is 100% and when, statistically, they all claim roughly the same lifetime amount. So you have to unload sick subscribers and court healthy ones if youare to make money.
Once you mandate any one of the variously mentioned features of a minimally robust “public option”–such as non-discriminatory pricing and mandated acceptance of all applicants–you break the business model and no longer have a for-profit industry. The profiteers fold.
In fact, if the major for-profit insurers are as heavily leveraged and as exposed to risky derivatives as other financial institutions, ANY change to the status quo might precipitate their collapse.
So, whether we go for the only rationale approach–a single-payer system–or a truly robust “public option,” we end up with single-payer. One way it is planned, the other way it is an accident. But single-payer it is either way.
If the above reasoning is even remotely correct, we have to ask what this “robust public option” is supposed to be. Perhaps it is Congress’ way of sneaking in single-payer without the industry lobbyists noticing. But I doubt it. The industry knows what is at stake. So I have to suspect that the “robust public option” is intended to be public and an option in name only, that it is meant to perpetuate the status quo at any cost.
I’d like to be wrong. But we need to be careful when speaking euphemistically. Force each and every mention of the “robust public option” to enumerate the exact requirements that make it robust, public, and a viable option. The option should have to be at least as universal, at least as non-discriminatory, at least as n non-restrictive, and at least as cost-effective as single-payer. If it is and private firms can by some miracle compete with this truly robust public option while making a profit, good for them. But we cannot tolerate the continuation of the status quo.
Hey DOC……
Newsflash……… people are already dying under this corrupt system. A system not unlike King George of England’s mercantile relationship with colonist. Exploit them for profit.
Would someone explain why so many corporations in the health services are tax exempt corporations while being listed as public charities? Maybe they need to have a tax liability, as do the rest of us?? Blue Cross Blue Shield a tax exempt corporations lessening the burdens of government, while acting just like “EXXON MOBILE.” Four BCBS commercials during prime time TV following four Exxon Mobile commercials???? BCBS a tax exempt public charity?? ABSURD!!!!!
Why not use the tax code to control corporate health’s cost? You can’t, many are tax exempt. But the idea floated is “mandated healthcare” using the tax code to penalize citizens who fail to enter into a lopsided contracts with tax exempt health insurers and providers!!! This is corporate servitude. A corporations adolescent nocturnal emission. Protect corporations while Americans die. Protect slave owners and their economic interests in spite of the plain language of the bill of rights, Dred Scott understood clearly the suspension of logic and reason needed to decide people where property.
The same dysfunction is happening in the healthcare realm. Protect corporations just as the Dred Scott vs Sanford decision protected the disgusting institution of slavery! Does anybody GET IT!
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS………….subject to the dictates of corporate America who buy law then shove it down the throats of Americans under the color of unconstitutional law!
Adverse Selection and legalized discrimination????????
Corporations are not people and corporations will seek to monopolize and control at all cost men. It is the nature of man to control others therefore it is the rule of law which protects liberties, and men from the unfettered excesses driven by profit motive that reduce people to mere servitude. Mandated Healthcare Corporate Protectionism: A Life Tax and Corporate Sodomy
BTW, Doc have not the American people subsidized the health service industry enough?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Here’s an interesting, er, counter-factual implication in the Murphy’s rambling post:
So, single payer is a creation of Beltway think tanks? What a crock. It’s public option that’s the creation of Beltway think tanks — HCAN’t, all the rest of ‘em.
I’ll leave the emotional blackmail argument to one side. Even for a “public option” (or is it “public plan”) that’s shameful and insulting.