Written by Russell Mokhiber, of SinglePayerAction.org
Most people, when they arrive in Washington, D.C., see it for what it is – a cesspool of corruption.
Two reasonable reactions to the cesspool.
One, run away screaming in fear.
Two, stay and fight back and bring to justice those who have corrupted our democracy.
Unfortunately, many choose a third way – stay and be transformed.
Instead of seeing a cesspool, they begin seeing a hot tub.
The result – profits and wealth for the corporate elite – death, disease and destruction for the American people.
Nowhere does this corrupt, calculating transformation do more damage than in the area of health care.
Outside the beltway cesspool/hot tub, the majority of doctors, nurses, small businesses, health economists, and the majority of the American people – according to recent polls – want a Canadian-style, single payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital, national health insurance system.
Inside the beltway cesspool/hot tub, the corrupt elite will have none of it.
They won’t even put single payer on the table for discussion.
Why not?
Because it will bring a harsh justice – the death penalty – to their buddies in the multi-billion dollar private health insurance industry.
The will of the American people is being held up by a handful of organizations and individuals who profit off the suffering of the masses.
And the will of the American people will not be done until this criminal elite is confronted and defeated.
(Remember, virtually the entire industrialized world – save for us, the U.S. – makes it a crime to allow for-profit health insurance corporations to make money selling basic health insurance.)
Before we confront and defeat the inside the beltway cesspool/hot tub crowd, we must first know who they are.
To wit, we present the Top Ten Enemies of Single Payer (listed here in alphabetical order):
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP, one of DC’s most powerful lobbying groups, has worked inside the beltway for years to defeat single payer. Why? AARP makes about a quarter of its money selling insurance through its affiliate, United Healthcare Group, the nation’s largest for-profit insurance company. AARP must defeat single payer – which if enacted, would wipe out that revenue stream.
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). The private health insurance industry. Public enemy number one. The health insurance corporations must die so that the American people can live. Of course, facing the death penalty, AHIP is the most aggressive opponent to single payer. No compromise with AHIP.
American Medical Association. With a shrinking base of doctors (only 25 percent of doctors nationwide belong) – the AMA is the most conservative of the doctors’ organizations. I just returned from a health care policy forum at the Center for American Progress. As usual, not one of the panelists mentioned single payer. Only during the question period did a self-identified patient/citizen ask the single payer question. And a pit bull-like Nancy Nielsen, president of the AMA, ripped into the questioner. “Sounds more like a statement than a question,” Nielsen said. “And clearly you have a point of view about that. And I don’t happen to share that point of view.” Clearly she doesn’t. But just as clearly, the majority of doctors, probably even a majority of doctors who belong to the AMA, support single payer. Nielsen is in denial and must be defeated.
Barack Obama. He was for it when he was a state Senator in Illinois. Now, ensconced in the corporate prison that is the White House, he says single payer is off the table. To get off the list, Obama needs to put single payer back on the table.
Business Roundtable. Dr. David Himmelstein, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), was at a health care forum a couple of years ago sponsored by the Business Roundtable. And the moderator asked the audience – made up primarily of representatives of big business – to indicate their preference of health care reforms. And the majority came out in favor of single payer. Why then is the Business Roundtable opposed? Himmelstein put it this way: “In private, they support single payer, but they’re also thinking – if you can take away someone else’s business – the insurance companies’ business – you can take away mine. Also, if workers go on strike, I want them to lose their health insurance. And it’s also a cultural thing – we don’t do that kind of thing in this country.”
Families USA. A major inside the beltway liberal foundation and long-time foe of single payer. It’s chief executive, Ron Pollack, was once an advocate for single payer. But no more. In November 1991, Pollack was at a Washington hotel debating Yale University professor Ted Marmor in front of then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Marmor was making the argument for single payer. Pollack against. A November 1994 article in the Washington Monthly, co-authored by Marmor, reported the result this way: “After the two advocates finished, Clinton looked thoughtful, pointed to Marmor and said, ‘Ted, you win the argument.’ But gesturing to Pollack, Marmor recalls, the governor quickly added, ‘But we’re going to do what he says.’ Even considering the Canadian system, everyone in the room agreed, would prompt GOP cries of ‘socialized medicine’ – cries that the press would faithfully report.”
Health Care for America Now. The largest coalition of liberal groups promoting a choice between a public plan and private insurance companies. “They are saying – we can’t do single payer because Americans don’t want it,” said Kip Sullivan of the Minnesota chapter of PNHP. “That’s based on junk research conducted by Celinda Lake for the Herndon Alliance. It is bad enough to say we can’t do single payer because the insurance industry is too powerful to beat. But it is just plain insidious to say we can’t do single payer because the American people don’t want it. In fact, polling data indicates that two-thirds of Americans support a single payer system. And that level of support exists despite the fact that there is little public discussion about it.”
Kaiser Family Foundation. One of the most prestigious liberal inside the beltway think tanks on health reform policy. Saul Friedman is a reporter for Newsday. In February, Friedman wrote an article for Newsday arguing that single payer is suffering from a conspiracy of silence. And he says Kaiser is the most culpable of the co-conpsirators. Kaiser, funded initially by insurance industry money, regularly keeps single payer off the table, Friedman says. When single payer advocates released a study in January asserting that Congressman John Conyers’ single payer bill (HR 676) could create 2.6 million new jobs and would cost far less than the private insurance currently paid for by individuals and employers, “the Kaiser Family Foundation’s daily online report on health care developments at kff.org didn’t mention it,” Friedman reported. “Nor has Kaiser, the most comprehensive online source of health care information, made any mention of single-payer or the Conyers bill since it was introduced in 2003, despite widespread support for such a plan according to Kaiser’s own polls.” After a number of insistent inquiries, Kaiser told Friedman that they would publish charts in March comparing the Stark and Conyers bills. They never did.
The Lewin Group. The go-to consulting firm for health reform studies. The most recent study, released last week and widely quoted in the press, of the public plan option, showed that the insurance industry would lose 32 million policy holders if a public plan is enacted. Lewin’s health reform policy guru, John Sheils, told the Associated Press: “The private insurance industry might just fizzle out altogether.” What the mainstream press didn’t report was that The Lewin Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingenix, which is in turn owned by UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest health insurance corporation. Lewin Group has conducted studies on single payer at the state level – and their studies consistently show that single payer is the most efficient cost saving system. But Lewin Group has never done a study on HR 676 – which would create a single payer for the entire country and drive The Lewin Group’s parent – UnitedHealth Group– out of business. When asked why Lewin Group never has done a study on HR 676, Sheils said – “the President didn’t propose single payer, did he?” No, he didn’t. That’s why he too is on this list. (Sheils says The Lewin Group has studied national single payer. He points to a recent comparison of the different health reform proposals floating on Capitol Hill – including one by Congressman Pete Stark (D-California). Stark’s bill would give every American the option of opting into Medicare. But that’s not single payer, because it keeps the private insurance industry in the game. Sheils counters that he modeled the Stark bill as single-payer. “The employer coverage option under the Stark bill is made so unfavorable that no employer would do it. We have everyone in Medicare, with the resulting savings.” Sheils says that of all the plans studied, the Stark bill saves the most money.)
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PHRMA). PHRMA chief executive Billy Tauzin says that under single payer, the government would become a “price fixer.” By which he means, the government, as a single payer, will have the power to negotiate drug prices downward, thus costing the drug corporations millions in excess profits. In recent years, PHRMA has infiltrated liberal sounding groups like America’s Agenda – Health Care for All. PHRMA’s Vice President for Government Affairs and Law, Jan Faiks, now sits on the board of America’s Agenda and PHRMA contributes money to the group – which has worked in recent years to undermine single payer at the state level. (America’s Agenda Mark Blum won’t say how much money PHRMA gives to his group.)
We have met the enemy.
And they ain’t us.
Ashok Chainani
said:
 |
Principal, ACE Strategic Reimbursement These comments about the need for a SIngle Payer System are right on; there's however one point that needs to be clarified. A signle payer system will still need "Third Party Administrators (TPAs) as Medicare by itself cannot a manage the entire MEdicare population single-handed. EVen since the enactment of the Part D (prescription drug program) effective 2006, Medicare had to contract with private payers to administer the PArt D program. On a similar note under a Single Payer System, the current payers would be needed to serve as TPAs; so the won't be completely eliminated but rather be paid a fee to administer the Medicare program for all enrollees. Of course in that capacity they will not be able to make the profits they make today. |
Thomas Christian
said:
|
... If we cut out the middle man there will be money left for our health care; the insurance companies have been ripping us off long enough. |
reindeer
said:
|
... Why can't we ALL have the guaranteed health care that seniors have? Why do we have to wait until age 65 to get health care that is publicly financed and privately delivered? Why should insurance companies get to fleece us when we are young and healthy, then dump us on the taxpayer when we are older and less healthy? Why are we even considering the continuation of this obscene practice?! Coverage does NOT equal care. We need to get the health insurance cartel out of the health care equation. Continued toleration of the 30% administrative waste caused by having 1,200 insurance companies is an economic suicide pact. Insurance is for accidents. Health care is no accident! Support health care for people, not for profit, by supporting H.R.676, single-payer, universal health care. The Congressional Budget Office projects that single-payer would reduce overall health costs by more than $225 billion despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans. No other plan projects this kind of savings. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/11/741100/-The-Truth-About-Health-Care-Reform). Single-payer Medicare for all is the ONLY real healthcare reform. Everything else is just putting lipstick on a pig. |
Michelle Bandor
said:
 |
... I received, in today's mail, a 5 x7 postcard telling me that our Indiana "Senator Evan Bayh is working to lower health care costs and make sure everyone can get and keep health insurance--even if they get sick or lose their job." The mailer also asked me to "Thank Bayh for fighting for health care reforms we need...." Guess who paid for this mass mailing? Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and Familes USA. Can I now say without reservation that my Senator--a Democrat--has been bought and paid for? Grrrrrrr..... |
Ashok Chainani
said:
|
... I AGREE WITH MANY OTHERS THAT THE BEST WAY TO PAY A TRIBUTE TO PATRIARCH OF THE KENNEDY FAMILY IS TO PASS HEALTHCARE REFORM NOW! |
Jon Raymond
said:
|
... Single payer is one of the best ways to go. But I'd like to point out that the term "single payer" refers to the finance aspect of universal healthcare. I believe the term has been overused to repel thoe who would otherwise support universal healthcare for all. In France, the number one country for healthcare, everyone is covered and the government plays a strong role in regulating the industry. For one, they set the amounts that doctors will charge for any given procedure and this is placed on the wall of the doctors' offices. They have many payers involved. But they are all non-profit. In fact every other industrialized nation does not have any for-profit insurance involved in any way. The problem with the U.S. is that the profit driven system is adverse to provide affordable and equal health care for all. It translates to a "loss" in the for-profit industry when they have to pay out claims. But this is not the case in non-profits, especially if they are government funded. So while single payer, meaning only the government insures everyone, is a good plan, we should not discount the possibility of allowing non-profits in, but there has to be tough government regulation and control to go along with that. So I think we should all consider using the term "universal health care for all", instead of "single payer". After all, it is more accurately our goal to provide health care for all, whether there is one or more payers involved is not really the point of contention, is it? |
Richard McGinnis
said:
|
... Thomas Cristian says it simply and trutyfully. "If we cut out the middle man there will be money left for our health care; the insurance companies have been ripping us off long enough. " 200 Billion in annual Profits is more than excessive. Time for change.......? |
Brunbach
said:
|
... I had to check this sight out for myself to see if it was true...unfortunatly it is. Single payer health care does not work in other countries and will not work here. The biggest reason is that if we are forced to buy insurance by the government than we might as well throw out the constitution, nowhere in it does it give the gov. the right to tell us to buy something we don't want. Also with the addition of the abortion part it is directly going against my and many peoples religious beliefs...can we say "seperation of church and state"...not really since that is not in the constitution to begin with. It says that the gov. will not acceept or mandate a particular religion and make everybody that religion. (Sounds kinda like the muslims need to read our constitution...oh, that's right it doesn't matter what our laws say if it contradicts their beliefs.) Wait a minute...that's the same way a liberal thinks...that's scary if you ask me. |
Top Ten Enemies of Single Payer