[Wednesday, June 1? Why, that's today! --lambert]
So says the Single Payer Action blog and it's thanks to activists like you.
After months of proclaiming that single payer is off the table, Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) has invited five key single payer advocates to meet with him in Washington, D.C. this week.
On Wednesday June 3, Senator Baucus will meet with Dr. David Himmelstein, Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), Dr. Marcia Angell, Senior Lecturer, Harvard Medical School and former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Oliver Fein, Associate Dean, Cornell Weill Medical School, and President of PNHP, Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association, and Geri Jenkins, president of California Nurses Association.
“Bowing to mounting pressure from single payer advocates around the nation, Senator Baucus has asked to meet with some representatives of the single payer movement,” Dr. Himmelstein said. “It’s the thirteen people who braved arrest at Senate Finance Committee hearing, the hundreds of single payer supporters who’ve shadowed Senator Baucus in his home state of Montana, and the thousands who have put pressure other members of Congress who have created this opening. We have no illusions that our discussions alone will persuade Senator Baucus to back a single payer bill. But the meeting is a clear indication that demonstrations and activism can move even our money-corrupted political culture.”
Keep the pressure on, in the venue of your choice, be it phone calls, emails, letters to the editor, blogging, silly demonstrations, serious demonstrations, unread faxes, or getting yourself carted off to jail.
- hipparchia's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
So, he's going to meet with them in private?
I hope they tape it...
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Off the Record
I had heard the meeting was going to be off the record.
Feh
Oh well, at least he won't be able to escape behind closing garage doors again.
But what's the point of having it off the record?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
because they can?
i dunno what the point really is, though i could put on my tin foil hat and suit and boots and probably come up with half a dozen scenarios.
Some acts are best performed without too much light
Like kabuki.
low light?
we'll just have to keep up the drum beat.
i expect it to be completely useless
at least from the standpoint of convincing baucus of anything.
my first guess was that baucus is hoping this will be a big enough token listening to the little single payer advocates that they'll then shut up and leave him alone.
my other guess is that he'll try to persuade them to give up their silly divisiveness and join the forces calling for a public option instead of holding out for single payer.
i'll be watching to see what happens to pnhp's message after tomorrow, but whatever it is, i'm still going to continue rabble-rousing for a complete switch to medicare for all in one swell foop.
Maybe it's a sting operation? :v)
http://www.correntewire.com/sen_baucus_s...
would that it were so
imagine the publicity if that happened.
it is a great sign
it is the first crack in the wall.
meet the lobbyists
Welcome to Versailles' revolving door
Gosh, that's crazy
Three Rs on GE's lobbying team and only one D -- why on earth would they think that would ever work in today's Washington? Guffaw.
Oh, and at the link, GE runs "a highly profitatable medical imaging unit." One more reason The Lightbringer is so oddly enthusiasitic about Electronic Medical Records.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
ouch
depressing.
always good to know everything about your enemies you possibly can though, depressing or not.
Good!
I'm hoping with our pressure we can get, at least, a public option included. Whenever I call or write, I make sure to stress "We can't afford not to have single payer" to keep the pressure on for a government option of some kind.
As long as the public option is available to
everyone. I will never forget the day MA finally got the Connector. I went immediately to my computer to enroll in the MA state health plan, which I assumed would be available to anyone. Turns out my income wasn't low enough, and the private options were absurd. If the public option is not for everyone it's worthless.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
Well argued
That sums it all up. And when the foxes are put in charge of the chicken coop, absurd things happen -- except from the standpoint of the foxes, of course. There's that.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Mass could you write about the Mass Details?
Since so many politicians brag about the Massachusetts plan, I'd be really interested to know the cost of those various plan levels. Like that "gold insurance" with no deductibles or co-pays... On that affordablility range, What are the monthly premiums for that?
And the High Deductible plans ... how much do those cost?
The reason I'm wondering is that I consider High Deductible plans to be extortion. Right now my husband and I are paying nearly $900 a month (which we can't continue next year - it's crazy) and we've got $3000 deductibles for each of us each year.
Well, where are we supposed to get that sort of money when we spend nearly a thousand a month just to be in the plan?
So, I'm wondering if it's any better in Massachusetts? They've got an "affordability" number - but what does that number get you? A high deductible policy? Or actual access to health care?
The cheapest option for my husband and myself
was $400 a month each. The most expensive, I believe was $800 a month each, maybe more. These were the ones available through the Connector.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
So (as I feared) our situation wouldn't change much
If they really use the MA plan as a model for "affordability".... I mean we're at $450 for a High Deductible policy.
If the "public plan" they're talking about costs that much, it's useless.
Not surprising that they're very careful to NOT define "affordability" - that's sick.
The MA public plan is wonderful.
It pays for everything and prescription co-pays are like a dollar for most things. There is a very affordable sliding scale. I was denied access to it because I my husband earns too much. It's like a silo. They keep very low wage earners in one, and then the moment you make above that number your shifted to the sucky private silo.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
Sounds exactly like welfare
Which is how it is designed to sound. Watch them chip away at it, until it is no longer wonderful.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Exactly. That's why FDR designed social security exactly as he
did. Because it isn't welfare. Everyone puts in and everyone gets back essentially what they put in, which is why I shudder at those who argue for eliminating the cap or having the rich subsidize SS. Do that, and the political floor it rests on will collapse. There are so many smarter ways to tax the rich.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
Removing the cap would do no such thing.
.
JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
sounds exactly like welfare to me too
if you dig down into the details, most of the 'public option' options [including, it would seem, ted kennedy's plan] include keeping medicaid and designating more people as poor enough to qualify for that. only people who are making too much money to qualify for medicaid but are still low-to-moderate-income will get a subsidy to help them buy a private plan through a health insurance exchange.
if you live a fairly generous state like massachusetts, medicaid can be pretty good, but if you live in state whose govt has been taken over by the lying, thieving robber barons like mine, medicaid can be pretty bare bones.
i'll give jacob hacker a little credit, his idea of a public option was to eliminate medicaid entirely and fold the poor into the health insurance exchange, with subsidies.
as for chipping away, even that mass public plan is being chipped away, according to pnhp, with money that used to go to providing entirely free care to the poor now going to subsidies to them to buy plans that require some copays, deductibles, etc.
Yeah, it's crap.
That's why I'd rather nothing than the national MA plan. At least then states could establish their own single payer, which I know won't work in the long run, but I'd rather that then being stuck in the MA plan indefinitely. Take Massachusetts for instance. The non-binding referendum for single payer received more votes than Obama on election night. It has thus made it to binding up in 2010(I think). Which means MA would be constitutionally obligated to pass single payer here. If we let this national scam go through it will supersede state efforts.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
I should say in the
districts where the ballot question was asked.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
now that's bipartisanship i can believe in!
The non-binding referendum for single payer received more votes than Obama on election night.
yeah, state single payer plans are probably doomed to fail, given the way state budgets have to be run generally. i'd like to see [i think] more states like california, here the voters want single payer, the state legislatures pass single payer [twice now!], and some asshole governor comes along and vetoes it [again]. that way the voters could show they're serious about wanting single payer, but we wouldn't be saddled with the specter of any of the plans failing in the wake of stupid state budgeting.
of course, what i'd really like is for obama to wake up one morning and decide to channel tommy douglas.
Which means MA would be constitutionally obligated to pass single payer here.
way cool. i think i knew that, but if i did, i'd forgotten it. if mass is constitutionally obligated to institute single payer in 2010, and that could explain the rush to bring us obauckennewydencare in 2009.
By "Gold Plan"
Do they mean a plan that would actually pay for some health care?
Simple answers to simple questions
No.
They mean a plan where who has the gold, rules.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Check out this critique from the director of a health center
http://commonhealth.wbur.org/bill-walcza...
IMHO, whether the plan for "mandates" came from Hillary (mandates for all) or Obama (mandates for some... at least that's what he said during the campaign), we always needed to push for true single-payer. And so we do.
Yep
Hillary's plan was a few steps further to the right thing, that's all.
We fought for what, six months, and then the mandate happened, so with Hillary we would have been starting from that point. Starting from the higher baseline is important if Versailles
wants to get something done this year.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Totally agree. Hillary's thinking seems to have
been let anyone opt-in to a Medicare like plan, which is actually an old Democratic idea. Then, once the earlier adapters prove it works, most everyone will dump their private coverage and join. However, I think her single biggest campaign mistake was assuming the public wasn't just ready for the straightforward Medicare-for-All. I think that was absolutely her ticket to the WH because despite the FKD Americans generally see her as the political expert on health care.
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
Yep
And the small group, nuts and bolts, here's the plan approach she took after February -- the one that won her the majority of Democratic voters, let us remember -- would have worked very well to put that idea over.
The problem with the public option is that it doesn't save enough money because it doesn't make the administrative costs go away.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
the problem with the public option
is that it saves enough money to make the big-money donors to max baucus nervous.
thank you!
Whenever I call or write, I make sure to stress "We can't afford not to have single payer"
too many people have been conned into asking their congress critters to ask for a public option, and many of those aren't even asking for a strong public option.
I don't think most people understand
That often the hospital they "choose" for cancer treatment right at the beginning can determine whether they live or die. The only choice that matters is the "choice" to go to the best hospital for the illness you have.
If Kennedy/Baucus/Obama can't come up with something that makes those choices (say, MD Anderson) possible for everyone then it's NOT Universal Health Care for Everyone.
that's an excellent point
my guess is that the best care, such as md anderson for cancer, is still going to be reserved for those with money.
They're pretty careful to keep that conversation off the table
I want to know how much those guys think I should spend for "insurance" that won't let me go the whatever doctor/hospital I want to go to.
At the time my mother got liver cancer in the early 1980s it was considered fatal. But, my father found a doctor at MD Anderson who was pioneering the treatment where they run a tube right into the tumor & flood it directly with chemo. And it worked.
She's been cancer free ever since.
I totally don't understand people who think only rich or special people should have access to that level of health care.
they're very careful to keep a *lot* of conversations
off the table, or at least out of view of the general public.
I want to know how much those guys think I should spend for "insurance" that won't let me go the whatever doctor/hospital I want to go to.
i can give you a brief rundown of what i've seen while surfing the internet so far....
the definitions of affordable range from 3%-4% of income for total out of pocket spending [copays + deductibles + premiums + etc] to 10% of income just for premiums [copays, deductibles, etc would be additional].
as for what you [don't] get for that, some people are pulling for a truly medicare-like plan, where you can go to any doctor or hospital of your choice, and that any doctor or hospital will have to take your insurance if they want to continue getting paid by medicare [not a horrible plan], but the most talk [or maybe just the loudest for now] seems to be centered around making the 'affordable' option some kind of faux-hmo complete with all the gatekeeping and in-network/out-of-network that goes along with that.
I totally don't understand people who think only rich or special people should have access to that level of health care.
i do. they're jerks.
i'm really glad to hear about your mom's experience. thanks, heartwarming stories always appreciated!
had an interesting conversation in Redneck world today
I live, as I have said over and over, in the bleeding-scarlet heart of Bush country (damn it).
Over supper tonight I had a conversation that started out with why Chrysler's in the tank, and wended awry.
One of the conversants was a teacher, currently employed with a Texas public school, who pointed out that retired teachers in Texas have not received a raise in their pensions since 2000. Some of them are living on $600.00 per month -- because they taught in tiny districts with low pay for 20 to 40 years, and retired more than 20 years ago. For her, the issue with bailouts was, what about old folks whose health care and pensions are now being taken away as a result of the bankruptcy?
For another, it was that union employees had such great health care, it's still better (despite all their losses recently) than most Americans can afford. To which I responded, "Why is it bad that they have good health care? Shouldn't we all have good health care?"
Well, but that would be difficult to afford, she said.
I said, maybe if we put some people in the insurance industry out of a job, like so many of the people building things in this country have been put out of a job, this would be better. I didn't necessarily want to put the guy who sells insurance in the street, I said; I wanted to put the guy at the insurance office who thinks my doctor doesn't know what medicines I need out of a job.
There was agreement all around the table. In fact, before that branch of the conversation came to its close, there were anecdotes regarding how insurance company employees are doing everything from overruling doctors to practicing medicine without a license.
The guys in the finance arms of GM (GMAC) and Chrysler (Chrysler Credit) also came in for some knocks based on their golden parachutes and severance packages. The teacher pointed out that somebody had to teach the guys who got those jobs how to read, how to add, how to multiply, how to write -- or they wouldn't have those jobs.
But what tied the bow on the evening for me was when I said I thought the unions, despite all their social tendencies, had forged opportunities for people to make a living wage at their jobs building things.
I was the only person at the table who didn't have a relative currently working (and desperately envied for the benefits appurtenant thereunto) in a union shop -- not in Texas. One worked for Burlington Northern Santa Fe; one worked for a Boeing plant (not as a contractor); one worked for the post office; one worked for a union paper in the Northwest.
The consensus 'round the table was that Unions made employers take care of people who worked for them. Unions made it possible to get from the bottom of the economic ladder to the middle, and afford college for kids so they could get to the top. Unions brought us benefits nobody wanted to deny, including the possibility of retiring.
Made me feel lots better; but at nearly 50, I'm the youngest person at that table by at least half a dozen years.... We all agreed on a couple of things: Teachers and police officers, retired or not, deserve a living remuneration -- and it makes no sense when somebody who plays pro sports can rake in multimillion dollars annually (as well as somebody who uses other people's money to bet on the stock market), but somebody whose job really makes a difference in people's lives can't afford the co-pay to take their kid to the doctor.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
nicely played
i live in bush country too y'know. jeb! and this part of the state isn't called the redneck riviera fer nuthin.
my conversations tend to go along the lines of yours [though we all know fewer people with union jobs than you do, so that part's harder to relate to]. most people, once you start a conversation along those lines, are just like the ones you're describing here.
alas, some people though, really do believe that the rich deserve all they've got and that the poor deserve all they've got. i used to shake my head at the poor people who swallowed this line, but i've come to realize that mostly they're a mixture of [a] people who are into self-flagellation, and [b] people who are expecting to be rich one day [or at least much better off] and therefore don't think of themselves as 'the poor'.
'twas fun, and a nice surprise
not all the folks there tonight were teachers or educators, but all of them knew what it's like to work for State of Texas wages (I'm public health, I got a pass for not being a teacher).
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
they're jerks
They have completely convinced themselves that people who were not "clever" enough to end up with all the bennies deserve what they get. If you didn't happen to choose a career direction that led to Gold-plated health care plus, your own fault. If, as an academic scientist, you didn't "choose" a research specialty that Republicans were willing to fund, same.
That's kind of an operating definition of "jerk" to me.
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
that definition works for me
this is exactly how the jerks i know seem to think.
Obama's Letter to Baucus and Kennedy
Obama released a letter today in which he says he strongly supports a public option as one of the options in a 'one-stop-shopping' market for people buying health insurance.
Writing a letter and talking it up are two different things. But at least it seems that Baucus cannot easily ignore it.
Hah!
The site administrators approved me, the reckless fools! [Or is that feckless rules? Well, either way...]
As nearly as I can tell, you look to be in good company over here! What a marvelous resource you'all have constructed.
I've gotcha' bookmarked, and will swing by from time to time. Seems the timing of my last salutation could've been better. How nice it is to see you again, though, even if I was being dressed down by BOTF's resident smoke monster.
Do all oceans have walls?
tk! welcome!
it's a great place.
smoke monsters are routinely banned here, we're pretty serious, even as we add
dashesheaps of extreme snarkitude to most things. now that you've crashed the gates, you also have top posting privileges, and i for one am hoping for something good [and wordy! wordy is allowed!] in your areas of expertise.[but snarky comments on my posts will always be welcomed]