49th Ward Democratic Committeeman




Subscribe

  • Bloglines is a subscription service that allows you to get a world of information from daily newspapers to blogs like this one in one place. Try it and it will change your Internet life.

Thank You for Visiting!


Even In the Best Countries Things Still Aren’t Perfect

The Chicago Tribune ran a piece today that was written by Scott Canon that again takes a look at the plans other nations are using to make health care work in their respective countries. The conversation centers around the comparison of plans in Canada, England and France to each other and to the United States. Many people will disregard the plans of other nations because of the thoughts they have of the nation as a whole particularly France, but in the story the plan run by France is considered the best in the world.

"The UN's World Health Organization in 2001 ranked France's health care the best in the world based on its universal coverage, the freedoms it grants to patients and caregivers, and its responsiveness to people's needs.". . . . Read More

It is clear that every system has its problems and it is also clear that health care reform does not bring a perfect system. There will be significant improvements for those who are either uninsured or underinsured, but many of the problems for those that are insured will continue to be present

"Ultimately, all health-care systems ration care. It's a finite commodity. There's not an infinite amount of doctors, hospitals or money," Tanner said. "I think those countries that have markets at work give consumer's greater influence over making those rationing decisions." . . . . Read More

This is an interesting article that provides some insight to other nations plans in a very tightly summarize way and points out the idea that there will still be problems when reform is implemented.

Leaders in House Seek to Tax Rich for Health Plan

Paying for health care reform is an important part of any plan.  Rep. Charles Rangle of New York, NY is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee which is the committee where fiscal policy change occurs in our Congress.  He is a very powerful man.  As chair of the committee he is in a position to shape initial policy for the committee and then the entire House of Representatives to approve.  This story is about his ideas for funding which seem to enjoy some wide spread Democratic leadership support.

"House Democrats will ask the wealthiest Americans to help pay for overhauling the health care system with a $550 billion income tax increase, the chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee said Friday." . . . .  Read More


This lead paragraph from a New York Times story says it all. The question is if the House comes up with the votes to pass this, will the Senate be able to follow suit.  The pressure to do this is mounting because as the article states,

"The Senate health committee had hoped to approve its version of the health care legislation this week, but now expects to do that early next week. And Mr. Rangel and other House leaders had first said they would announce their plan to pay for the legislation on Thursday, only to be slowed by an array of disagreements." . . . .  Read More


The interesting thing about this story is that how are we going to pay for reform is being addressed before there is a reform proposal.  That makes you wonder what is going on behind closed doors and what has happened that the public does not know yet.


A Call to Action is Coming Soon - Health Care Reform "09"

Greetings readers.  Last night the Democratic Party of the 49th Ward Board of Directors and other invited guests meet to discuss the critically important health care situation that is happening in America today.  Congress appears to be moving farther and father from our position of single payer or public options towards the type of reforms that will grab headlines and accomplish notjing in terms of reform.

We decided as a Board to take actionin our corner of the country and to mobilize people and produce pressure on those who are drifting freely away from us.  In order to keep them on our side we need to work to put them in our camp, continually apply preasure that reminds them what the right position is and finally rewarding those who are supporters of reforming our failing health care system.

We have tentitively planned a forum in August that explains single payer, public option and are going to get an insiders perspective on where health care reform is, and where the Congress seems to be taking it.  We will be working on other projects so that people who care about health care reform will have an opportunity to participate and join the collective voice calling for reform.

I will be keeping you informed as the plans progress.

Dr. Maya Angelou - "We Had Him" - Honoring Michael Jackson

This is off the political path and not what is written of here, but everything in life isn't politics even for a Democratic Ward Committeeman in Chicago.  My own thoughts about Michael Jackson are that he was talented beyond the imaginations of us all and troubled in ways we will never understand. Michael Jackson was an artist that forever changed our lives and will be remembered for lifetimes to come.


The words of Dr.  Maya Angelou in tribute to Michael Jackson:

"We Had Him"

Beloveds, now we know that we know nothing.
Now that our bright and shining star can slip away from our finger tips like a puff of summer wind.
Without notice, our dear love can escape our doding embrace.
Sing our songs among the stars and walk our dances across the face of the moon.
In the instance we learn that Michael is gone, we know nothing.

No clocks can tell our time and no oceans can rush our tides.
With the abrupt absence of our treasure, though we are many, each of us is achingly alone; piercingly alone.
Only when we confess our confusion can we remember that he was a gift to us and we did have him.
He came to us from the Creator, trailing creativity in abundance.
Despite the anguish of life, he was sheethed in Mother Love and family love and survived.
And did not more than that, he thrived.
With passion and compassion. Humor and Style.
We had him.

Whether we knew who he was or did not know, he was ours and we were his.
We had him.
Beautiful, delighting our eyes. He raked his hat.
Slant over his brow and took a pose on his toes for all of us and we laughed and stomped our feet for him.
We were enchanted with his passion because he held nothing; he gave us all he had been given.

Today in Tokyo, beneath the Eiffel Tower.
In Ghana's Black Star Square, in Johannasburg, and Pittsburgh.
In Birmingham, Alabama and Birmingham, England.
We are missing Michael Jackson.
But we do know we had him.
And we are the world.

-Dr. Maya Angelou; read by Queen Latifah at the Michael Jackson Memorial Service on 07/07/09.

The Second Battle in the Fight to Reform Health Care Reform

So what would be next once an overall plan for health care reform is reached? Beyond the components that would be included in the coverage come the cost. How would it get paid for? Who would do the paying? Would it be proportionate based on income levels and/or geography or would certain group and states pay more than others?

 

These are important questions that could bring forth the next big fracturing of Congress. It might not be red vs. blue, but big income earning states vs. smaller income earning states. In a story from the Los Angeles Times reporter Janet Hook takes a look at these issues just over the next horizon and provides some insight into the health care reform debate.

 

"Some of the "bluest" states that propelled Obama into the White House are among those most likely to pay more in taxes to fund expanded health insurance coverage and make other changes to the system, analysts say. People in states such as Illinois, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York have a higher share of wealthier taxpayers and residents who get generous healthcare plans through work -- and both sets of people may be tapped to raise money for the healthcare overhaul." . . . . . Read More

 

This could be another barrier in the fight to reform or beleaguered health care system.

The Evil Giant Shows Benevolence

In a story in the Los Angeles Times David Lazarus reports that Walmart, (one of the most disliked companies in America) has take a step that could be the one step that insures that all companies have to provide health insurance to their employees.  What is an even more surprising position is that the retail giant has also taken the position that every American must have access to low cost insurance.  As if there could be even more surprises up their sleeve there is some reason to believe that they will also support a public option as part of the health care reform legislation.

 

"It's pretty clear that we're advocating for reform," Greg Rossiter, a company spokesman, told me. "We've said for some time that we support healthcare reform. It needs to be comprehensive and it needs to happen."

If those remarks caused you to do a double take, you're not alone.

This is Wal-Mart, right? The same company that's drawn fire from unions and municipalities for not providing sufficient coverage to its own 1.4 million U.S. workers?

The same company that just a few years ago was fighting aggressively against similar proposals at the state level?

"Wal-Mart has been working hard to improve its image on healthcare," said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a Washington think tank. "They've moved from being a bad guy to a good guy." . . . . Read More

 

The poll on the side of the article shows that Walmart enjoys only a mid-teen level of belief from the readers that they are just doing the right thing.  In joining with Andy Stern of SEIU and John Podesta of the Center for American Progress (and formerly of the Obama transition team) in a joint letter to President Obama they have chosen to side with the good guys in health care reform.

 

Be it self interest or not, this is the kind of momentum needed to bring real reform to this country.  As much as I find Walmart a company I simply find exploitive I have to say that this was a good thing for them to do.  

France and the Netherlands Showing Us Yet Another way to Provide Care

In today's Boston Globe there is a piece by Jonathon Cohn in which he discusses the health care systems of France and the Netherlands and compares the positive and negative aspects of their systems versus our system. As he indicates, most Republicans and I would add conservative Democrats will always lead their arguments with the point that Americans do not want a health care system where care is rationed. They quickly paint all systems other than ours as being either the British or the Canadian plans. If one looks at these two plans in Canada or England one can quickly see that the Brits have socialized medicine in a literal sense and the Canadians have a system that is one of the most highly government structured health care systems in the world.

The systems in France and the Netherlands are something more similar to what we know as Medicare with supplemental insurance options in France and the Netherlands runs its insurance through private companies. One of the biggest problems in the United States is that there are some very strong and highly motivated health insurance companies with big profits, lots of share holders and many employees who are not looking out for what is best for Americans, but for what is best for themselves and their personal wealth.

The article makes clear that there are some significant benefits to the French and Dutch citizens including better care, shorter wait times for the ER being just a couple. This excerpt provides insight into the relationship that patients have with their primary providers:

"In both the Netherlands and France, most people have long-standing relationships with their primary care doctors. And when they need to see these doctors, they do so without delay or hassle. In a 2008 survey of adults with chronic disease conducted by the Commonwealth Fund - a foundation which financed my own research abroad - 60 percent of Dutch patients and 42 percent of French patients could get same-day appointments. The figure in the US was just 26 percent.

The contrast with after-hours care is even more striking. If you live in either Amsterdam or Paris, and get sick after your family physician has gone home, a phone call will typically get you an immediate medical consultation - or even, if necessary, a house call. And if you need the sort of attention available only at a formal medical facility, you can get that, too - without the long waits typical in US emergency rooms." . . . . Read More

The piece makes some of the weaknesses known as well, including an average of two months to see a specialist and concludes with the idea that while these nations have some problems as well regarding costs rising they are significantly less expensive than the cost Americans pay for care.

 

Happy Independence Day!

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

The Declaration of Independence and a list of its signers.

Could the Israeli Plan Be the Answer for America?

In The search for models of providing health care at the nation level one frequently mentioned is Canada.  The European models are often mentioned as well.  One I have not heard mentioned much is the hybrid plan that Israel utilizes that consists of a public/private partnership.

 

In Israel all citizens are provided with health care based on the passage of a 1995 law that required that all citizens of Israel be covered.  There are four plans or choices and they are funded by government.  In addition to the basic plan the 4 providers have options that members can purchase for supplemental health care coverage.

"The basic philosophy in Israel is that the government ought to take care of financing to ensure access and equity while the nongovernmental sectors ought to take care of most of the healthcare delivery - that takes care of responsiveness and choice," he said.

"Our government also plays an important regulatory role to make sure that the insurers and hospitals are acting in the best interest of the population."  . . . . Read more

This is an interesting concept.  It has its flaws and the article in the Jerusalem Post indicates that it could not be exactly replicated in the United States, but it is a step toward single payer that might be better than what is on the table currently.  On the course we are following in Congress it seems at this point that most options are going to be better than where they are headed.

Single-Payer Is Off the Table. Want It Back On?

What Republicans are adamantly opposed to is the idea of adding a public plan to that exchange. They portray it as a “government takeover” of the health care system, or even as socialized medicine. Those are egregious mischaracterizations.

There is no serious consideration in Congress of a single-payer governmental program that would enroll virtually everyone. Nor is there any talk of extending the veterans health care system, a stellar example of “socialized medicine,” to the general public.

The debate is really over whether to open the door a crack for a new public plan to compete with the private plans. Most Democrats see this as an important element in any health care reform, and so do we. . . . . MORE

The above is quoted from an editorial in the New York Times, NYT, on June 20.  It has made clear what has been said repeatedly, single payer is not even an option being discussed in the Congress.  In spite of the fact that millions of Americans want this policy, it is not even on the table.  It is not going to be on the table anytime soon if people do not stand up and demand that it be the solution.  Even if at this point it is unlikely to be a realistic option, it is a message that has to be heard.

 

If you care about single-payer then you must stop waiting for something to happen on its own and take action to help make it at least known what you as a voter demand of your government.  It is up to the you, the public at large, to take on this issue and make the voices of single-payer heard.