A Journal of Progressive Thought

Subscribe to
CommonSense2
for FREE
Login
Search...
Archive: August 2009
Ron Stouffer and Rosie Skomitz

To Your Health

Ron Stouffer and Rosie Skomitz have been waging battles in the health care wars for 15 years. Check back every month for views, opinions and information vital to you and To Your Health.


Battle for Health Care Is Not a Spectator Sport

by Ron Stouffer and Rosie Skomitz


dsc04295.jpgLike a flower blooming in time lapse photography, Allen Minch’s sequenced photographs of the June 11 single-payer (PA Family and Business Health Care Security Act - HB1660/SB400) rally at the Capitol rotunda showed the blossom of a movement. After the initial trickle of supporters, carloads and busloads arrived filling the ground floor surrounding the steps, spilling up the steps and into the balcony. What the pictures don’t reveal is the loud clamor of citizens eager to raise their voices in support of an idea whose time has come.

The folk strains of Anne Feeney and the hard-hitting, gritty, in-your-face rock of Mike Stout opened the event and set the tone for the tumultuous outpouring of support.

As we reported last month, shouts of “Single-Payer Now!” rose to the rooftop and echoed through the halls of the Pennsylvania Legislature. The energy and enthusiasm of the more than 400 who traveled to the Capitol from all corners of the state were absolutely contagious.

Musician Mike Stout wears many hats. The entertainer is also a businessman and union member. He offers the following observations on the rally. “The crowd was fired up, militant, and ready for more action down the road…Our movement at that moment was a fist instead of a bunch of limp fingers. Organizers and speaker after speaker announced their intention to come back in the fall with 3, 5, or 10 times as many people. This is what will grab the attention of our elected representatives and unglue their ears and pockets from the insurance and big Pharma lobbyists.”

An assortment of speakers representing a variety of constituencies addressed the gathering. They all remarked on how impressed they were with the enormous and enthusiastic crowd and agreed that the health insurance industry is largely responsible for our current crisis.

healthcare-rally-009.jpgChuck Pennacchio is Executive Director of HealthCare4AllPA.org, the event’s main sponsor. Taking it to the critics and naysayers who belittle the single-payer movement as a Quixotic tilting at windmills, Pennacchio pointed out, “They said we’d never be able to write our own legislation—we wrote our own legislation. They said we could never get a House or Senate member to introduce single-payer legislation—we’ve done it three times. They said we could never get Gov. Rendell to agree to sign the legislation upon reaching his desk —he’s committed to doing it (on You Tube) three times. They said we could never get a Republican to sign on as a co-sponsor of single-payer—we’ve done it twice. They said we could never get Republican support for an economic impact study—we have commitments from 36 in both chambers. They said we could never get Republicans to give a hearing on this legislation in addition to the Democrats—we’ve done it with House Republicans three times. And everyone, to a person, said we could never get state Senator Don White, who is the gatekeeper for health care in the state Senate, to give us a hearing—Don White is giving us a hearing before the Banking and Insurance Committee in the fall.

dsc04259.jpg“Now the experts and the cynics are telling us that we’ll never get the bills passed out of the House and out of the Senate. But at our current rate of failure, after those bills pass out of the House and out of the Senate, we get to show up at the governor’s office on Halloween Day dressed in the hospital gowns you’re adorned in today. Our message to the governor on October 31st will be that the health insurance tricks are up. It’s time to treat all Pennsylvanians.”

The next speaker began, “The fastest growing health care crisis is not cancer, heart disease or obesity; it is greed at the hands of insurance companies. We’re here today to demand a cure.” That was the message delivered by David Fillman, Executive Director of AFSCME Council 13, representing 65,000 union workers. He noted that medical bills are responsible for more than 60% of personal bankruptcies and that more than 75% of those people had health insurance. Fillman decried a “perversion of profit over people; dollar signs have become more important than vital signs.”

dsc04351.jpgClaiming “This is the year of health care reform,” President Bill George, PA AFL-CIO (an event co-sponsor), called this a humanitarian cause. George spoke disparagingly of a greedy, elitist health care system that raises the cost of production in this country. He advised the crowd, “Don’t give up the ship. This is just the beginning of a new day.”

Two Pennsylvania legislators who are co-sponsors of House Bill 1660 joined the rally to show their support. West Chester Democrat Barbara McIlvaine Smith (D-156) thanked Chuck Pennacchio for his leadership and tireless efforts on behalf of single-payer legislation. She said, “Without his persistence and his energy you would not be here today.” The representative also thanked Jerry Policoff, one of the event’s chief organizers.

Representative Bill Kortz (D-38), an Allegheny County Democrat and an announced candidate for U.S. Senate who will challenge Arlen Specter in the primary said, “It is critical that you raise your voices here today. We have to stay in this fight because it’s the right fight. Continue to let your voices be heard.”

dsc04267.jpgRepresenting the California Nurses Association and a strong proponent of single-payer health care was Donna Smith whom you know from Michael Moore’s SiCKO. Referring to the words ‘There is a time to pray and there is a time to fight’ engraved on the front of the Pennsylvania Capitol, Smith said, “We have passed in our program and we have passed in this movement the time for prayer. It is time to fight!” Recognizing the difficulty the Washington crowd is having in producing meaningful health care reform, she urged, “If they will not do single-payer for us in Washington, you must do it here (in PA).”

Echoing the sentiment that Washington is tone deaf to the clamor for single-payer health care, Dr. Walter Tsou, who testified before Congress in June in favor of single-payer said, “This is not a humane health care system, and people who think we should build the next system based on an inhumane system should actually have their heads examined. We can do better than that.” To those who claim such change is too radical, Dr. Tsou responds, “I come from Philadelphia where revolutionary ideas are celebrated. Our most radical document starts with these words: ‘We the People’ not ‘We the Insurers’. It’s time for our generation to have our own revolution.”

Someone who sees the sad results of our sick health care system every day is Patty Eakin, President of the PA Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals (an event co-sponsor). Eakin works as an Emergency Room nurse in Philadelphia. She said, “We have to get rid of insurance companies. They are killing us and taking money away from the care of patients.”

Jeff Garis of Penn Action advised the rally crowd, “We are people who do the impossible. We are going to need to mount a fight like we have never done before.” He said the important thing is to engage the help of people who have never been involved before - reach out to everyone and ask them to join us in this fight. Garis acknowledged the fact that the health insurance industry (including Blue Cross and Blue Shield) is spending millions to fight us, and we must fight back.

The Pennsylvania League of Women Voters has endorsed the PA single-payer legislation and co-sponsored the rally. Speaking on behalf of the League, Janice Horn said the PA legislation (House Bill1660/Senate Bill400) addresses the health care goals of the League of Women Voters because it provides access and quality and it’s affordable, efficient, and economical.

dsc04286.jpgRev. Sandra Strauss, Director of Public Advocacy for the PA Council of Churches (an event co-sponsor), repeated the message that Washington doesn’t get it. “Obama believes the country does not want a big disruption in the current system. Clearly, the people disagree. Absent from the national dialogue is any kind of accountability on the part of health insurance companies. Past promises have consistently been abandoned,” she said. Rev. Strauss urged the rally-goers to contact their state legislators and demand passage of the PA legislation. “How many more people,” she asked, “must die or suffer permanent damage because the system has failed them? How many must lose their homes or be driven into bankruptcy before elected officials here and in Washington will reject complicity in a system that lines the pockets of a few to the detriment of the many? We can do better.”

We can achieve single-payer health care reform if we get back to our communities, talk to people, and organize, declared Lorenzo Canizares, board member of Keystone Progress (an event co-sponsor). The statistics he cited paint quite a dismal picture—50 million Americans have no health insurance; 50% of housing foreclosures were due to medical bills, including people who have health insurance; 2% of the people make life impossible for 98% of the people. Canizares passionately proclaimed, “What happened here today is a show of power.”

dsc04375.jpgHealthCare4AllPA.org has undertaken a massive research project to collect data from across the state to determine health care coverage savings that single-payer legislation would provide for municipalities, counties, and school districts in Pennsylvania. Erie coordinator Cindy Purvis, who is overseeing the research, presented dramatic results for overall savings for Pennsylvania taxpayers of $847 million per year. With more counties left to research, expect the savings to grow as more information comes in. Judy Gordon of Bucks County displayed a large symbolic check for $335 million payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, representing the savings to the state for the cost of providing health insurance coverage to its employees.

In a bit of political theater, about a dozen rally participants accompanied Cindy Purvis and Judy Gordon to the governor’s office to present the symbolic check representing the $335 million savings to the Commonwealth. After considerable urging from Purvis and Gordon, Gov. Rendell’s press secretary, Chuck Ardo, accepted the check on behalf of the governor. What a great photo op!

Entertainer Mike Stout pitched this call for action for the upcoming rally on October 20. “When the state House and Senate are back in session and in attendance, we should join together once again, bigger and louder, and invade the rotunda once more with at least five times as many people. Then we head straight into their offices with our demands for single-payer health care. Let them know that if they are not a candidate for single-payer, then we will work against them for someone who is. When we are a powerful fist with one punch screaming ‘Single-payer health care is the only way to achieve universal health care for all’, only then will we break through the doors of power and break the chain of traditional failure on this issue so critical to our well-being.”

dsc04241.jpgWell said, Mike. It is crucial, dear reader, that you understand that this is not a spectator sport. You must be in Harrisburg on October 20 to make single-payer happen. (The rally starts at 11 a.m.) It’s fun, and you’ll feel so good about contributing to the effort. Then do what we did on June 11. Have lunch at a restaurant along the Susquehanna River and savor the positive energy of the day. See you in Harrisburg in October!





Email this article...
or Socialize with
 



Discussion
7 Responses to “Battle for Health Care Is Not a Spectator Sport”

Comment Pages:  1 2 » —or— Show All Comments



juant comments:

Questions to those of you convinced that single payer is the answer:

1. Is healthcare meant to be a right of birth to all who reside in the US?
2. By contrast, is it a right of citizenship?
3. Do you know where to draw the lines in defining those healthcare concerns that ought to be covered by a program? Or, is there any limit?
4. Do you believe the US government is capable of competently running such a program?
5. Do you believe that it’s impossible now to modify the laws and regulations governing healthcare insurance such that market-based competition could still be the basis for pricing and allocation?
6. Would you prefer a socialist (if it makes you feel better, a democratic-socialist) solution to the pricing and allocation of all basic human needs in the US?

I’m asking because I want to know if debate is even worth the effort.

Thanks.


Bob Johns comments:

Read the pre “Q”’s

1. Humans,for initial encounter.
2. Re:Question 1.
3. Who would you turn away? Would Jesus have charged a “Co-pay” to a lepper?, and why? “Back to ya”
4. Depending on the extent that Republi-cons are involved.
5. No.
6. Single payer is not as close to socialism as co-opps are, much closer,The provider, the doctor is certanly still in business.What do the “wealthcare” companies contribute?Oh yeah, a middle man!
There is no reason, to “debate”a pitbull,empty cans make “ALL” the noise!


Stefan Kosikowski comments:

Here’s my two cents!

1.) How can one believe healthcare is not a right and still be human?

2.) Irrelevant.

3.) Good question… the line should be based on necessity, so NO to botox injections, tummy tucks, and all those things that are purely cosmetic. Pay for that with your own money.

4.) Stupid question… the government won’t be running it; doctors, hospitals, and patients will be in charge… but if you want to make some silly ideological argument, than remember that the government won two world wars and put men on the moon. This whole stupid “hate the government crap” is based on WHO PROFITS… nothing more!

5.) Yes, impossible, because the private model is a profit based system. Do you even understand corporate law? It is ILLEGAL under corporate laws to sacrifice profit for the common good or anything else. Got to protect those share holders, you know.

6.) Call it anything you like, profit is wonderful for anything you have a choice in buying or not, but profit is immoral for that which is necessary for human existence. Yes, this is too much for Americans to handle, but anytime you try to regulate private for-profit business, you end up bilking the tax payers to pad corporate profits. Why do you think our taxes keep rising, but the services we receive for these payments keep shrinking? Our money (common treasury) is being stolen by greedy rich bastards.

Hope this helps you understand the liberal perspective…


Stefan Kosikowski comments:

Health care industry contributes heavily to Blue Dogs

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74426.html

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration and Democrats wrangled over the timing, shape and cost of health care overhaul efforts during the first half of the year, more than half the $1.1 million in campaign contributions the Democratic Party’s Blue Dog Coalition received came from the pharmaceutical, health care and health insurance industries, according to watchdog organizations.

The amount outstrips contributions to other congressional political action committees during the same period, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit watchdog organization. The Blue Dogs, a group of fiscally conservative lawmakers, successfully delayed the vote on health care overhaul proposals until the fall.

“The business community realizes that (the Blue Dogs) are the linchpin and will become much more so as time goes on,” former Mississippi congressman turned lobbyist Mike Parker told the organization’s researchers.

On average, Blue Dog Democrats net $62,650 more from the health sector than other Democrats, while hospitals and nursing homes also favor them, giving, respectively, $5,680 and $5,550 more, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks the influence of money in politics.

The contributions came at a time when health care and pharmaceutical companies were mounting a campaign against a government-run public health insurance option, fearing cost controls and an impact on business.


juant comments:

Dear Stefan, Bob, and any others interested,

I know this response is slow, but life is busy (the kids keep getting hungry). I hope you’re still interested.

My purpose in the initial post was to find common ground. Upon reflection, I should not have concluded with my statement about debate being worth the effort. It was incendiary, as were some of your responses, which is unproductive.

The questions I initially presented aren’t perfect, but they’re the best I can do right now so please indulge me using them as the basis for response:

1. Is healthcare meant to be a right of birth to all who reside in the US?
You both claim this as a basic human right. I can’t argue with your morality on that point. However, aren’t there economic realities that limit our capacity? The devil is in the details, so maybe we should put this aside for the moment and see below.

2. By contrast, is it a right of citizenship?
You both exclaim that citizenship is irrelevent, presumably on the basis of human morality. Okay, nevermind the economic challenges and let’s proceed; I agree it’s the moral thing to do.

3. Do you know where to draw the lines in defining those healthcare concerns that ought to be covered by a program? Or, is there any limit?
You apparently disagree on this. Bob accuses me of being un-Christian if not everyone gets what they need as a matter of human existence (truthfully, is that a meaningful comparison on you part or are you relegating me to the religious-right based on my queries?). Stefan is hitting closer to my home in calling for a threshold by which to measure necessity. Problem: there will be as many definitions of necessary as there are citizens. For proof, just consider one of the major obstacles to cross-state association healthcare programs: varying definitions of “critical” or “coverable.” What flies in CT is rejected in TX.

4. Do you believe the US government is capable of competently running such a program?
Bob diminshes his response with reference to “republicons.” There’s no room for namecalling if we hope to move the debate forward. Stefan, your response is incredibly naive and this question may get to the heart of the debate. I don’t understand how you can claim that the system will be run by the informed parties (doctors, hospitals, patients, etc) when it seems completely clear to me that the plan includes a(nother) government agency set in charge of assigning compensation values to a broad range of services. Do you really think the private sector insurance companies will be in business several years from now if they are expected to compete with a tax-payer-subsidized government health program? And if it’s acceptable to you that they should dissolve and the government become the primary payor of health benefits, do you really believe that any of the projections of this cost are accurate? This entire debate is naive and unrealistic. Stefan, the government put us on the moon and won two world wars at what cost? I’m as proud as anyone of those accomplishments, but if you attempt to correlate our government’s successes in those cases to the case of national healthcare you’re making a specious argument. The economies of producing those great accomplishments cannot be legitimately applied to a model for nationalized healthcare.

5. Do you believe that it’s impossible now to modify the laws and regulations governing healthcare insurance such that market-based competition could still be the basis for pricing and allocation?
Bob’s response is “no.” Stefan’s response is more involved, but if I understand you correctly your answser is also “no.” I used the term “impossible,” which complicates the question and I think we’re not communicating well. I assume that you both believe that the current laws and regulations are hopeless, and an entirely new system such as single-payor is needed. Please correct me if needed. Assuming I’m reading you correctly, this segment of the debate goes to our fundamental differences in the belief of private enterprise as the most efficient means of production. Stefan asks if I’m at all familiar with corporate law, and the answer is “no,” admittedly I’m not. I think I understand that you, Stefan, are ideologically opposed to capitalism. Correct? However, I do believe there is room for debate over the value of corporate-protectionism under a capitalist system. I would support an argument that accuses corporate America of selfishness and myopia. I am not clear how much we differ on this point.

6. Would you prefer a socialist (if it makes you feel better, a democratic-socialist) solution to the pricing and allocation of all basic human needs in the US?
Bob, I don’t understand your point. You and I agree that the insurance companies being in the middle is a bad scenario. They are making huge profits and regular Joe is suffering in the process. And the taxpayer is suffering to the extent that government is making payments to the private companies whose CEOs are living very well. I get this argument, but I don’t see how a government replacement for this system is the best solution. Stefan, I am inclined to be sympathetic toward your response because I, as a small business owner, am struggling greatly just to meet payroll and pay the mortgage (living the dream, they say). But, you’re calling for a moral dividing line that may be impossible to establish in a diverse society. One man’s interpretation of unreasonable profit is another man’s view of “I finally got that investment to pay off.” This may be a class-related discussion and I don’t know how to address it.

Finally, thanks for your responses. I found Bob’s reaction to my admittedly-unnecessary statement about the value of debate to be “more of the same” angry crap that stops honest debate. I apologize for my part in that. I found Stefan’s response to be more mature than what my “jab” deserved and I thank you for that. We all have something to learn from Stefan about conducting this difficult business with respect and good intent.

Wishing you the best,

Juan

Comment Pages:  1 2 » —or— Show All Comments


Submit a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.