Nine More Go to Jail for Single-Payer

[davidswanson]

Following a pattern of civil resistance in Washington D.C. and around the country, citizens in Des Moines Iowa on Monday risked arrest to press for the creation of single-payer healthcare, the establishment of healthcare as a human right, and an end to the deadly practices of Iowa's largest health insurance company, Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Dr. Margaret Flowers, who has herself gone to jail for single-payer in our nation's capital, was on hand to speak in Des Moines. She called me with this report. Nearly a month earlier, on June 19, 2009, Des Moines Catholic Workers had delivered a letter (PDF) to Wellmark addressed to its CEO John Forsyth requesting disclosure of Wellmark's profits, salaries, benefits, denials and restrictions on care. The letter had not been acknowledged by Monday, and the Catholic Workers and their allies decided to take action again.

Thirty people arrived in the Wellmark lobby in Des Moines and asked to see Forsyth or any of the members of the board of directors or the operating officers. They were told that none were available, and instead the police arrived. Nine of the 30 refused to leave and were arrested. Flowers did not yet know what the charges will be but suspected trespassing. The nine latest supporters of single-payer to go to jail for justice are:

Mona Shaw, Renee Espeland, Frankie Hughes (age 11), and Frank Cordaro, all from Des Moines Catholic Workers; Leonard Simmons from Massachusetts; Robert Cook; Eddie Blomer from Des Moines; Kirk Brown from Des Moines; and Chris Gaunt from Grinnell, Iowa.

These nine and others like them around the country represent, I think, the incredible potential to energize the American public on behalf of a struggle for the basic human right of healthcare, a potential being blocked by the work of activist organizations that reach out from Washington to tell the public that single-payer is not possible, rather than reaching into Washington from outside to tell our public servants what we demand.

Here's a blog from Digby acknowledging the reduction of the public option from where it started to next-to-nothing. It's not clear whether Digby thinks it would have been smarter to start with single-payer, in order to end up with a better compromise than what you get by initially proposing the weakest plan you'll settle for. But Digby argues that proposing single-payer from the start would not have given single-payer itself any chance of succeeding, and this is proven -- Digby says -- from the fact that the public option is having such a hard time succeeding.

I can't prove this is wrong. Everything Digby writes is smart and to the point. But this does omit an important factor or two. Namely: single-payer turns an obscure wonkish policy mush into a clear and comprehensible civil rights issue. Even with it blacked out and shunned by the White House and astroturfing activist groups, single-payer still has people sacrificing and going to jail for it. Nobody goes to jail for a public option.* Nobody even knows what it is. Nobody will even know whether they got it if a bill is passed until experts debate the point for them -- at which point it's too late. Making healthcare a right rather than a legislative policy energizes people, and that potential has hardly been tapped and should not be written out of consideration.

John Nichols understands this, as does Glen Ford from Black Agenda Report.

Even defenders of a public option depict it as a step toward single-payer, while missing the potential of single-payer activism in the short term to improve the public option. So, all agree that in the long run a movement for single-payer is needed. It can begin with phone calls this week in support of these measures and with a massive presence on July 30 in Washington, D.C.



Image shows a previous protest at Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield by Des Moines Catholic Workers.



* Note: Joe Szakos of Virginia Organizing Project went to jail this week for a public option, but nobody he'd organized went with him. His action, like that in Iowa, was protesting an insurance company, an entity that would be eliminated only by single-payer.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. This needs to be in the headline news!

[Enthusiast]

43. It won't see the light of day.

Just like the anti Iraq War demonstrations, during the Bush Administration, the complicit M$M ignores them, so they, effectively, go away. What a country! Best in the world! No improvement needed!

[Hannah Bell]

2. kr.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. This needs to be in the headline news!

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

[pleah]

5. K&R My heroes.

[Laelth]

6. K&R for some true heroes. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[foginthemorn]

7. done.

[truedelphi]

8. How is health care not a matter of civil rights? We pay more than any other nation

And yet end up with rationed care, while the CEO's of these companies make as much as 3,300 hospital employees at one hospital combined!

Something must change.

I am loving the statement
But this does omit an important factor or two. Namely: single-payer turns an obscure wonkish policy mush into a clear and comprehensible civil rights issue

[Oregone]

11. The CEOs really aren't the most outrageous part of it all.

At least they "work" for their pay. After all, their compensation is a justified expense to the shareholders (meaning normally through restructuring, efficiency reforms, or political contacts, they bring in more money than they are paid).

But when you push that expense aside, you realize the even more outrageous part is that everything leftover from over charging (aka profit), gets divied up and deposited into the accounts of the shareholders for doing absolutely-fucking-nothing. Their ability to have purchased ownership is normally attributed to nothing more than being a great descendant of a slave owner.

So healthcare costs more because the descendant of a slave owner or robber baron wants another home in the Hamptons.

[gorfle]

13. Um...

But when you push that expense aside, you realize the even more outrageous part is that everything leftover from over charging (aka profit), gets divied up and deposited into the accounts of the shareholders for doing absolutely-fucking-nothing. Their ability to have purchased ownership is normally attributed to nothing more than being a great descendant of a slave owner.

Have you ever had a savings account? A 401K?

[Oregone]

14. Yes, its called capitalism

Its the ability of private investors to own the means of production, such that they can profit by doing no labor. Its a fucked economic model when it comes to services such as health care. Its outrageous that health costs entail paying extra, such that non-laboring "owners" can have a steady stream of income for nothing.

High paid CEOs are merely there to ensure shareholders can have even more profits.

A lot of people own a tiny amount of the healthcare industry in 401Ks BTW. Most of wealth/capital is owned by a small fraction of the population (top 1% own 40% of wealth). If everyone profited from their ownership in private business as much as they pay extra to ensure profits for all shareholders, it would make this all a wash. Its not a wash at all.

Capitalism is simply not the ONLY model for every economic activity or service on the face of the planet. People are slowly learning this about insurance. More will learn it about the actual health care providers. The bottom line is that health costs are simply to high to fuck around with paying extra for middle-men or shareholders, especially when it comes at the cost of cutting off millions from care due to unaffordibility.

[truedelphi]

16. Wish there were more on DU like you.

Look at this interchange - and the attitude coming from the other poster that as long as we get some kind of bill done this year, we can relax and expect "incremental changes" to kick in later.

http://tinyurl.com/l73ef9

[Oregone]

22. The circumstances surrounding the reform are beyond nuanced

:(

People are going to great lengths with logic and belief to defend their chosen leaders. The debate about the debate on the Democratic side alone can often be disgusting to follow

[Enthusiast]

45. Disgusting ain't the word for it.

:cry: :puke:

[gorfle]

19. I gotcha.

I see, I thought you were talking about investing in general.

No, I agree with you that there should be no profit in health care insurance. In fact, I don't think we should have health care insurance at all. I want a single-payer system that pays for all American's health care.

[Oregone]

21. Single-Payer is insurance, FYI

Just universal non-profit insurance funded (normally) net progressively.

And unfortunately, as single-payer countries are learning, it is not enough to keep up with growing costs of health care (because it is taking over their budgets). Eventually, more single-payer countries will have to focus on actual delivery (rather than payment), and begin to examine methods to put some doctors on public funded salary. I say that more from a pragmatic outlook than a progressive one. Fee for service, even paid for with single-payer, will overwhelm budgets across the globe in 20-30 years

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

9. The US s/b for the people, but it is "for the corporations"

instead.

And it should be "on nation", but instead it is "one corporation".

[Oregone]

10. Good for them. Single payer is a pragmatic start

Its not enough, but at least it would be a step in the right direction

[Eyerish]

12. K&R

[Vidar]

15. K&R

[JimWis]

17. K&R

[jwirr]

18. Good for them. I know that I have often blamed the Catholic Church

for a lot of the mess we are in but that is due to Operation Rescue and like programs. These people deserve to be commended.

[G_j]

20. K&R

[redqueen]

23. Can we get a little more support for the Weiner Amendment around here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6161470&mesg_id=6161470

Please?

[glinda]

24. The biggest joke is the idea of "opening up competition" with Insurance Companies and HC Companies.

[truedelphi]

25. And sadly we are not the ones who can afford to laugh

At that joke.

[glinda]

42. We are the butt end of that joke.

[steelmania75]

26. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

27. knr nt

[thedeanpeople]

28. k&r

[maryf]

29. How many here would risk arrest? K&R

see you in DC...

[spin]

30. K&R (n/t)

[Oldtimeralso]

31. K & R and proud to help n/t

[davidpdx]

32. They arrested an 11 year old, man that's fucked up

The kid has a future as a activist though.

[Enthusiast]

46. Maybe they can taser his butt.

:banghead:

[anonymous171]

33. K&R. nt

[farmboxer]

34. It's the insurance companies that should go to jail!

Money over human lives.

Looks like some of our Dem Senators want to make the insurance companies happy while telling "We The People" to go to Hell!

I expect it from Republican criminals, but Dems?

[midnight]

35. Putting these people in jail is so outrages. They want

health care,single payer, to be exact, so we throw them in jail. This logic is completely wrong. But Karl Rove ignores subpoenas from congress and he is not in jail?

[upi402]

36. Heroes and patriots!

:patriot:

[bjobotts]

37. Without a not for profit public optioin there is no reform.Spending mil/day to block reform proves

its worth. The greedy profiteering ins companies know what a success a public plan would be and are doing everything to block it sparing no expense...Why? Because they are just concerned citizens who care so much for the American people.

[natrat]

38. obama is bs,the senate is bullshit ,corportations own us

AP Sources: Bipartisan group omitting Dem goals

By DAVID ESPO (AP) – 13 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Officials say that a bipartisan group in the Senate is edging closer to a health care compromise that omits a government insurance option that President Barack Obama favors. Nor is it expected to require businesses to offer coverage to their employees.

Like health care bills drafted by Democrats, the proposal under discussion by a group of lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to any applicant. It also would prevent firms from charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

But it jettisons other core Democratic provisions in an attempt to gain a bipartisan flavor. The officials who described the talks spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to speak publicly.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new government health insurance plan sought by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could coexist with private insurers without driving them out of business, an analysis by nonpartisan budget experts suggests.

The estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — seen as good news by Democrats — comes as leaders pushed Monday to make progress on health care overhaul before lawmakers go home for their August recess.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says a floor vote is still possible in the next few days, and Democrats called a meeting of all their House members late Monday afternoon. In the Senate, a small group of lawmakers from both parties were resuming negotiations in search of an elusive compromise.

Obama's ambitious timetable for his top domestic priority has slipped as Democratic dissension has slowed the legislative work.

The White House and congressional Democrats were angered two weeks ago when the budget office director, Douglas Elmendorf, told Congress that the House bill lacked mechanisms to bring health care costs under control.

Now, Democrats are using the budget office's suggestion that a government-run insurance plan would not destroy private insurers to rebut one of the main charges against their proposal — that it would lead to a federal takeover of the private health insurance marketplace.

The controversy seems far from settled, given uncertainty over projections of how a revamped health care system would work.

Polls have shown that Americans support the idea of a public coverage option as part of health care overhaul. The insurance industry and employer groups say it could drive private insurers out of business, particularly if the government plan had the power to pay medical providers below-market rates.

More than 160 million workers and family members now get health insurance through an employer. A widely cited study by the Lewin Group, a private health research firm, estimated that more than 100 million people would sign up for the public plan proposed by House Democrats, making it the dominant insurer in the land.

But the budget office, in a letter Sunday to a senior Republican lawmaker, said its own estimate for the same legislation is "substantially smaller."

CBO estimates that only 11 million to 12 million people would sign up for the public plan — making it a much smaller player in the market. The government coverage would be available alongside private plans through a new kind of insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. CBO estimated about 6 million of those enrolled in the public plan would be workers and family members of employers that joined the exchange.

The reasons the estimates are so far apart have to do with different underlying assumptions.

The CBO estimated that the public plan would offer premiums about 10 percent lower than private plans; the Lewin analysis estimates the premiums would be at least 20 percent lower. The CBO estimates that only individuals and workers in companies with fewer than 50 employees would join the exchange, while Lewin estimated the exchange would eventually be open to all workers.

As if to underscore how such estimates can vary, the Urban Institute public policy center also ran calculations — and came up with different numbers. The Urban Institute estimated that about 47 million people would sign up for the public plan, if companies with fewer than 50 workers were allowed to join.

[KoKo]

39. This needs to be on DU Frontpage...K&R...

[OwnedByFerrets]

40. An even 100 recs

I do disagree with the assertion that insurance companies would be eliminated by single payer. The insurance companies in countries who have single payer are doing quite well, thank you.

[PHIMG]

41. Watch the single payer teach in online -- link here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6162051

[Better Believe It]

44. K & R