Share

Fight for the Public Option

by: Marc Ash, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Shem Walker Leto receives dental care from a volunteer dental hygienist, Marie Ekins, at the massive Free Clinic at the Forum in Los Angeles on August 11. (Photo: Genaro Molina / The Los Angeles Times)

    As August comes to a close, one of the most important debates in American history will come to a point of decision making. Will Americans have the option to support their own health care system if they choose?

    It will not only be important as a political precedent or as policy statement; it will be a landmark moment socially. Will we as Americans care for Americans in illness and need? The conflict could not be more stark, the stakes any higher.

    The horror of the drowning of New Orleans played out in media images before a disbelieving nation. The enormity of what we were seeing a rational mind had to view as an anomaly, an aberration. An entire US city left to die with more than adequate resources standing by to have saved so many lives? Why? How could this be? But in places like Wise County, Virginia, and Inglewood, California, scenes hauntingly reminiscent of crowds at the New Orleans Superdome, new crowds of uninsured Americans, desperately hoping for services, thronged to open air or poorly sanitized mass clinics, hoping for any chance at health care, any chance to receive medical attention.

    What we need is not "change"; we need tradition. An American tradition of fortitude and caring. It can no longer be the responsibility of the corporations or the government; the community must lead. The time has come to fight for the public health care option.

    The dialog must be broad enough and creative enough to include moderate conservatives and religious conservatives as well. Moderate conservatives have been pushed to the margins too long, their voices cowed along with liberals. If the conservative movement is to recover, it must be prepared to re-embrace social responsibility.

    Not since Eisenhower's warning of the perils of an increasingly powerful "military-industrial-complex" in his 1961 farewell speech, has moderate conservatism really held the moral high ground. There is an overnight political resurrection to be realized if moderate conservatives can be rallied to act for public health care. Religious conservatives are, in fact, already on the move, scheduling what are being called prayer vigils in cities across the country.

    Conversely, a newly revitalized Democratic majority stands to squander the political capital they gained in the past two elections by reneging on their promise to bring about meaningful progress on health care reform. There is a notion often floated that any bill passed on health care will pass as progress, as reform. But it will not. The large health care conglomerates are corrupt and ruthlessly so. Legislation that allows those policies to continue must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

    When Hillary Clinton mounted a meaningful attempt at health care reform in the early '90s, the health care industry and their political allies on Capitol Hill were quick to point to her defeat as the final nail in her political coffin and the coffin of public health care. It wasn't dead, however, it was just buried under a Bush. Low and behold, both Hillary Clinton and public health care have risen again.

    The reason that public health care will not go away is that it's bigger than politics, bigger than policy and bigger than financial profit. There are tens of millions uninsured and more than half the population paying, but receiving substandard care. The problem is gigantic and growing rapidly.

    The time has come to say no. It must be said clearly and directly at all times in all places. Any health care legislation that does not include a public option is a fraud. There are members of Congress who are committed to preserving the public option; they need all the support they can get.

    This is a fight whose time has come.

  

»


You can send comments to Truthout Executive Director Marc Ash at: director@truthout.org.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

I have lived in England and

I have lived in England and in Holland for more than 20 years, and have benefited from social health. I am appalled at the short-sightedness of the conservative elements in the US who disregard realistic health options for the poor, thereby reinforcing the poverty in the US. Living now in the US, I can see similarities between the health care system (or lack of one) between the US and countries such as India, where the system is UNCIVIL, and the poor are left to fend for themselves and to die, with no structured government support. If the UK could change their impoverished system and take care of health needs of all, rich the poor, in 1944, then surely, the US, a so called 'super-power' can do the same for its citizens in 2009? What are the conservative elements afraid of? Why is health-for-all so threatening? The US pays more per head for health than other western countries? It does not even make economic sense. Why should pro-profit motives of insurance companies be more of a priority than health needs of individuals and communities? This is very hard to comprehend when you come from Europe.

Here's the choice: Medicare

Here's the choice: Medicare for All or Health Insurance "care" for some - affordable to the healthy and employed, but rationed to five (5) out of six (6) Americans. As Will Rodgers might have said, "Five out of six ain't bad; except that the five get exposed to whatever it is that number 6 has got." Health Care for all, or health care that doesn't cover 47 million Americans that are over 18 and under 65, who's taxes pay for Medicare for their parents and grandparents, their children covered by SCHIP, and for procedures given to charity care patients in hospitals. In other words, Health care run by the people, of the people and for the people or health care run by the bean counters of the insurance companies for the stockholders. Larry Furman

Sad to say, but the

Sad to say, but the corporations run the media and the government, which means just the people and Congressional members they pay-off are heard. So short of the citizens of this country pouring into the streets like the Orange Shirts did in the Ukraine, or the Hispanics did fighting for Immigration reform the 70-percent of us, that want a public option, will not be heard adequately or fairly. We need to go to the streets and stay there until congress does what we elected them to do - not what they are being bribed to do.

I'm very disappointed that

I'm very disappointed that Truth Out is taking this position. This is an echo of the corporate-driven Right, and will doom any hope of healthcare reform for another 12 years (you invoke Hillary...that was 1993!!). I appreciate that TO is free to depart from left-wing dogma. But this is a lousy place to do it. As a Canadian who has enjoyed "choice-free socialized" medicine for his entire life (call it Communist if you want, what do I care), I get world-class doctors and hospitals any time and every time I need something. And so the millions of others living in Canada. As for no choice....I choose my doctors, the hospitals, the type of care. The only thing I don't have to choose is the kind of insurer to pay, or whether to keep a job because giving it up would mean losing my health care coverage. The Right used fear to get you into Iraq. And now it's using fear to keep you away from health care reform.

When President Obama

When President Obama answered the question regarding how private insurance companies could compete with the” public option", I though his answer explained succinctly how it would work. The "public option" would allow choice beyond what is available now; would have to support itself like the private sector; would provide a bargaining pool to obtain the least expensive healthcare options from private insurance companies; and would be available to all who are not insured. Options, choice and cost containment.... that’s what I heard. Sounds like a good business plan to me.

Unfortunately, America is a

Unfortunately, America is a 'Me First' society. No real reform will happen as long as corporations own our government.

"Me first" is RIGHT!!! The

"Me first" is RIGHT!!! The health care "debate" being managed right now by Americans for Prosperity (Make that Americans who are now prosperous and mean to stay that way by keeping the rest of the society poor) and other wealth tanks is a sham and a disgrace. Josef Goebbels and his 1940s propaganda machines have nothing on the hate meisters stirring up shouts and threats.

I don't get it. Why drop

I don't get it. Why drop the public option? We already have a public insurance system that works (Medicare) which is actually a combination of government insurance (part A) and private supplemental insurance (B). Why not have a "hybrid" public option with a basic government insurance covering catastrophic care (e.g. above $10,000 to $30,000/year) and let the private insurance compete for providing insurance for routine care under this amount, e.g. doctor's visits, Rx, tests, outpatient, etc.??? Covering the catastrophic situations would make the insurance companies happy (because that is where they lose money) and should result in much lower premiums for routine care as well. And the routine insurance should still be sold in pools or cooperatives. When I was working, my health insurance total premiuims were $440/month as a member of just one company's employee pool and the minute got private insurance my premiums doubled and now I'm paying over $11,000/yr. Basically, everyone in the country should be in the same pool.

Now is the time to call

Now is the time to call and/or write to your senators. Send printed letters instead of e-mail.

As an American (a dual

As an American (a dual national, actually), living in Britain, I have nothing but praise for the NHS. It seems to me unconscionable that the wealthiest nation on earth shouldn't be able to set its house in order in the same respect. If this is not so, all I can say is that I jumped the right way! HUGH MAGEE

The "public option" that was

The "public option" that was being proposed was, unfortunately, really not worth fighting for. It was too small and too underfunded to offer real competition to the for-profit insurance companies. The whole "public option" thing has been a study in misdirected energy anyway. We know what the solution to our health care woes is--it's already in place in the rest of the developed world, and it's called single payer. Until we recognize that American politics is a great drama of different factions of the elite competing to see whose version of policies which benefit the elites will win--until we recognize that almost none of these guys or gals actually represent we the people--there will be no change. We must stop settling for the lesser of two evils! I agree with the previous commenter who remarked that until Americans take to the streets and stay there, we're doomed to more b.s. like this supposed debate over "health care reform."

Ash writes: "There is an

Ash writes: "There is an overnight political resurrection to be realized if moderate conservatives can be rallied to act for public health care. " Wow! He is optimistic. Doesn't seem to me like moderate conservatives carry any weight at all - if they exist at all. And the "moderate conservatives" in the Democratic Party seemed equally opposed to meaningful health care reform.

Why are private insurance

Why are private insurance companies so worried about a government option? First, no one will be forced into a government option plan. Second, if the private insurance plans are as good as they say they are, a government option shouldn't present any competition. This would mean a windfall profit for the private insurance companies. Therefore, you would think they would be leading the fight for a government option.

What could be worse than a

What could be worse than a health reform bill with no public option? A health reform bill with no public option and a mandate that everyone purchase insurance. My worst fear may have just been realized.

Perhaps it's time for progressives to start making the kind of noise the dittoheads do. Only this time we demand single payer. No more mister nice guy.

Single payer. Don't settle

Single payer. Don't settle for a watered down system that the greedy insurance companies will quickly undermine. Anything short of single payer is a guaranteed failure. Why is this so difficult? Is there a Communist hiding under every bed? If it works in Canada, it'll work anywhere. I have never had any problem choosing a doctor or a hospital or a health clinic. The insurance companies and the media will tell any lie to get you to keep getting suckered. In Canada we have a saying "No For Profit Health Care!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)

Medicare for all who want

Medicare for all who want it. Why not? We pay each month for Medicare and, if we want, we purchase additional private insurance. That gives a wonderful option. Who's afraid to fight for that? And, as somebody wrote earlier, if private insurance is good, private companies should NOT be afraid of the competition from Medicare. It's time to stop the lies and the misrepresentations. it's time to fix health CARE - not give in to health INSURANCE. Anyone look at the AIG building, and remember the massive bonuses AIG gives its bosses. AIG is big insurance. We don't want AIG running - and ruining - health care.

I don't understand why many

I don't understand why many liberals still insist on single-payer. It simply will not happen in this country. It is off the table and is not being considered by anyone who is involved in making the decisions about health care reform. It is a waste of time and energy to go on crying out for it and it makes us look like the fringe loonies progressives are accused of being anyway. We have a huge national investment in the private insurance sector, and it is just not going to be dismantled because 5% of the people stamp their stubborn feet for single-payer. We should be supporting the possible, not the impossible. Voices for the public option are heard. Voices for single-payer are tuned out.

Is it possible to OUTSOURCE

Is it possible to OUTSOURCE health care to another country ... like Canada? U.S. corporations seem to have outsourced everything else.

Single-payer. Irony of

Single-payer. Irony of photo:dental care is not covered, even under Medicare, which I have. Nor glasses. Single-payer. "Public Option", is not enough, and so far, is vague.....

My wife is a doctor and I'm

My wife is a doctor and I'm no dummy. Single payer is the only solution worth making the trouble for at this point. Even with a single payer system, there will be cadillac plans available to those who like what they have just fine. Less common will be the easy money for insurance companies, and the wasted lives of those they have enslaved, nearly ubiquitous in the US. Healthcare, so-called, is a source of anguish and early demise at present: unaffordable, unreliable, untenable. Let's get it right this time, and pass legislation called single payer, or legislation that looks so much like single payer that no one need hesitate to describe what it is.

drlisa, I couldn't have said

drlisa, I couldn't have said it better myself! The Democrats, even the Progressive Caucus, have deceived us. The public option is no option at all. The only solution is single payer, whether state-by-state, gradual expansion, or all at once.

I believe a 'public option'

I believe a 'public option' is essential to health care reform if we are not going to get a national single-payer system (and we are not.) I surmise that the struggle for and against is maybe 50-50 now. We may not get it. (It's interesting politics being played out by the Obama administration. With the perceived backing off on the public option, there may ultimately be a better chance of eventually getting it--depriving the opposition of the issue providing breathing space and then push for it later, etc.) The most important development, however, in my opinion is revealed in the article "A Real Win for Single-Payer Advocates" published in Truthout in July (link below.) file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Steve/My%20Documents/Healthcare/A%20Real%20Win%20for%20Single-Payer%20Advocates_7.17.09.htm If this amendment from the House Committee on Education and Labor can be preserved with the Senate as well in health care legislation, we as a country may well be on our way to single payer in a way similar to the Canadian experience. This could well be the back door entry not for a public option, but for the real solution of single payer, state by state. I think to trend is for real change here. I think that it's extremely unlikely that we will suffer an utter defeat like 1993 (and every other past attempt at reform.) We may well look back from a future of real reform to this one amendment that started it all.

Forget the public option.

Forget the public option. Since all Reps. have vowed to vote no on any kind of health care bill, Obama may as well go for broke and give the people what they want - Single Payer health care. Socialized medicine, communist medicine, Zoroastrian medicine, call it what you want. Just give us the best plan out there. If all the other industrialized countries in the world think its great, why wouldn't it be good for America. Let all the insurance companies go to hell. Its been organized crime from them from the beginning and its time to shut them down. All the hard working people who work in the insurance industry can be retrained to work in the alternative energy industry. Forget the republican party even exists. If they ever had an idea it died of loneliness.

@hark. Note that at least

@hark. Note that at least half of these comments come from proponents of Single Payer. Your number of 5% might be a good guess-- even a generous one-- given corporate media coverage. But polls show that 72% of Americans want Single Payer, so long as you don't CALL it 'socialist' or some other purposefully incendiary and off-putting term. We want Single Payer. It's off the politicians' table; our job is to get it back ON it. Not to back off because politicians are scared. It's the people's job to keep the politicians honest.

Single payer outline: 1.

Single payer outline: 1. Everyone who gets a paycheck will have a payroll deduction for universal coverage. 2. Republicans who rant about where the money is coming from will now have to keep jobs in America and create more jobs in America for those deductions. 3. Deductions will be a fixed percentage of gross pay. 4. It cannot be an end of year tax because too many rich people will have lawyers finding ways to not pay the tax. 5. There can be no loopholes for any reason. 6. Politicians will also have their paychecks deducted based on the same percentage to show citizens they are with us. 7. When pigs fly.

Let those who profit pay. It

Let those who profit pay. It is that simple.

We need to own this debate.

We need to own this debate. How about instead of a public option say that we need an American Health Plan. It matters how we talk about this. Read this:
The Policy-Speak Disaster for Health Care
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t | Perspective