Last week, this vid was made and Max Baucus flees from single payer question.
Amazon BLOCKED From Filming Union Voting
3 years ago
Friday, May 29, 2009
GM? is the deal a raw one
This is another interesting article from the Wall Street Journal. It is a copyrighted article that brings up many interesting points. I shall withdraw if objections made:
MAY 29, 2009
Obama's GM Plan Looks Like a Raw Deal Congress, not a secret task force, should decide the company's fate
. Article more in Opinion »Email Printer By RALPH NADER and ROBERT WEISSMAN
What public purposes animate the government's planned rescue of General Motors Corp? David Gothard Millions of people in communities across the country depend on the government getting the GM rescue right. That's why it is startling -- and mistaken -- for the future of GM to rest with a small, largely unaccountable, ad hoc task force made up of a handful of Wall Street expats.
A congressional abdication of authority of historic proportions has left the executive branch with nearly complete discretion over how to handle GM and Chrysler's restructuring. President Barack Obama has further delegated authority, giving effective control to this task force, which operates under the titular authority of a top-level interagency group headed by National Economic Council Director Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. In the days before an avoidable June 1 bankruptcy filing, it is imperative that Congress honor its constitutional duties and demand that the GM restructuring deal be sent to it for deliberative review -- before any irreversible measures, such as a voluntary bankruptcy declaration, are taken.
This means delaying any precipitous decisions until after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. The case for congressional involvement would be solid enough on constitutional and procedural grounds alone. But the secretive task force's plan raises red flags and requires Congressional examination in open hearings. With the government set to take a 70% ownership stake in GM, there are too many unanswered, troubling questions to proceed with a risky bankruptcy declaration. Here are 10 pressing issues among many:
1) Has the task force conducted any kind of formal or informal cost-benefit analysis on the costs of a GM bankruptcy and excessive closures? These may include the social effects of lost jobs (including more than 100,000 dealership jobs alone), more housing foreclosures, the government expense of providing unemployment and social relief, lost tax revenues, supplier companies that will be forced to close, damaged consumer confidence in the GM brand, and impacts on GM's industrial creditors.
2) Do GM and Chrysler really need to close as many dealerships -- which do not cost manufacturers -- as have been announced? Is the logic of closing dealerships to enable the remaining dealers to charge higher prices? If so, why is the government facilitating such a move
3) Is the task force asking for too many plants to close and the elimination of too many brands?
4) Why is the task force permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas for export back into the U.S.? Under the GM reorganization plan, the company will rely increasingly on overseas plants to make cars for sale in the U.S., with cars made in low-wage countries like Mexico rising from 15% to 23% of GM sales here. For the first time, GM plans to export cars from China to the U.S. in what is a harbinger of the company's future business model. What is the conceivable rationale for permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas -- especially in dictatorships, for export back into the U.S. -- when preserving jobs and industry is the avowed goal of this immense taxpayer bailout?
5) Why is the task force supporting GM's efforts to devise a two-tier wage structure, whereby new auto jobs no longer provide a ticket to the middle class?
6) How will bankruptcy affect GM's overseas operations, with special reference to China and GM's corporate entanglements with Chinese partners? Are they and their large profits being exempted from the conditions imposed on domestic operations? Are GM's China-based assets and profits inside or outside of the bankruptcy process?
7) Would a corporate and government-driven bankruptcy process comport with any rights of owner-shareholders to decide whether they want their company to be dissolved?
8) How will bankruptcy affect GM's obligations to parties engaged in pending or future litigation in the courts with GM regarding serious injuries suffered because of design or product defects in vehicles sold prior to the bankruptcy? Or parties engaged in "lemon" litigation?
9) What guarantees are the task force, supposedly representing the taxpayers' investment, obtaining to ensure that the GM of the future invests in safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles?
10) Why is the Obama administration signaling that, after reorganization, when the government owns 70% of GM, it will not exercise the control that attaches to ownership? Many in Congress have been eager to disassociate themselves from the perceived mess of the GM reorganization, believing it too complicated. This is a stark contrast to 1979, when Congress held extensive hearings and passed enacting legislation on the Chrysler bailout and later with the complex Conrail restructuring. If not motivated by their constitutional duty, members of Congress might perhaps listen to political arguments to assert their rightful authority. If GM and the task force take the company into bankruptcy, more than displaced workers will be demanding that Congress answer: "Why are we bailing out the auto companies and then facilitating their moving production overseas? Why aren't we leveraging the public investment to protect jobs and manufacturing capacity, as well as facilitate investments in environmentally appropriate technologies?" It need not be so. The congressional leadership still has a few days to stop the reckless rush to bankruptcy court and to assert its responsibilities.
Mr. Nader is a consumer advocate. Mr. Weissman is editor of Multinational Monitor magazine.
. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15 Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
----------------------------------------------------------------------
forcing auto industry into bankrupsy might be one of the most boneheaded economic moves in history. It is not good for anyone involved, except a handful on Wall Street it appears.
MAY 29, 2009
Obama's GM Plan Looks Like a Raw Deal Congress, not a secret task force, should decide the company's fate
. Article more in Opinion »Email Printer By RALPH NADER and ROBERT WEISSMAN
What public purposes animate the government's planned rescue of General Motors Corp? David Gothard Millions of people in communities across the country depend on the government getting the GM rescue right. That's why it is startling -- and mistaken -- for the future of GM to rest with a small, largely unaccountable, ad hoc task force made up of a handful of Wall Street expats.
A congressional abdication of authority of historic proportions has left the executive branch with nearly complete discretion over how to handle GM and Chrysler's restructuring. President Barack Obama has further delegated authority, giving effective control to this task force, which operates under the titular authority of a top-level interagency group headed by National Economic Council Director Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. In the days before an avoidable June 1 bankruptcy filing, it is imperative that Congress honor its constitutional duties and demand that the GM restructuring deal be sent to it for deliberative review -- before any irreversible measures, such as a voluntary bankruptcy declaration, are taken.
This means delaying any precipitous decisions until after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. The case for congressional involvement would be solid enough on constitutional and procedural grounds alone. But the secretive task force's plan raises red flags and requires Congressional examination in open hearings. With the government set to take a 70% ownership stake in GM, there are too many unanswered, troubling questions to proceed with a risky bankruptcy declaration. Here are 10 pressing issues among many:
1) Has the task force conducted any kind of formal or informal cost-benefit analysis on the costs of a GM bankruptcy and excessive closures? These may include the social effects of lost jobs (including more than 100,000 dealership jobs alone), more housing foreclosures, the government expense of providing unemployment and social relief, lost tax revenues, supplier companies that will be forced to close, damaged consumer confidence in the GM brand, and impacts on GM's industrial creditors.
2) Do GM and Chrysler really need to close as many dealerships -- which do not cost manufacturers -- as have been announced? Is the logic of closing dealerships to enable the remaining dealers to charge higher prices? If so, why is the government facilitating such a move
3) Is the task force asking for too many plants to close and the elimination of too many brands?
4) Why is the task force permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas for export back into the U.S.? Under the GM reorganization plan, the company will rely increasingly on overseas plants to make cars for sale in the U.S., with cars made in low-wage countries like Mexico rising from 15% to 23% of GM sales here. For the first time, GM plans to export cars from China to the U.S. in what is a harbinger of the company's future business model. What is the conceivable rationale for permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas -- especially in dictatorships, for export back into the U.S. -- when preserving jobs and industry is the avowed goal of this immense taxpayer bailout?
5) Why is the task force supporting GM's efforts to devise a two-tier wage structure, whereby new auto jobs no longer provide a ticket to the middle class?
6) How will bankruptcy affect GM's overseas operations, with special reference to China and GM's corporate entanglements with Chinese partners? Are they and their large profits being exempted from the conditions imposed on domestic operations? Are GM's China-based assets and profits inside or outside of the bankruptcy process?
7) Would a corporate and government-driven bankruptcy process comport with any rights of owner-shareholders to decide whether they want their company to be dissolved?
8) How will bankruptcy affect GM's obligations to parties engaged in pending or future litigation in the courts with GM regarding serious injuries suffered because of design or product defects in vehicles sold prior to the bankruptcy? Or parties engaged in "lemon" litigation?
9) What guarantees are the task force, supposedly representing the taxpayers' investment, obtaining to ensure that the GM of the future invests in safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles?
10) Why is the Obama administration signaling that, after reorganization, when the government owns 70% of GM, it will not exercise the control that attaches to ownership? Many in Congress have been eager to disassociate themselves from the perceived mess of the GM reorganization, believing it too complicated. This is a stark contrast to 1979, when Congress held extensive hearings and passed enacting legislation on the Chrysler bailout and later with the complex Conrail restructuring. If not motivated by their constitutional duty, members of Congress might perhaps listen to political arguments to assert their rightful authority. If GM and the task force take the company into bankruptcy, more than displaced workers will be demanding that Congress answer: "Why are we bailing out the auto companies and then facilitating their moving production overseas? Why aren't we leveraging the public investment to protect jobs and manufacturing capacity, as well as facilitate investments in environmentally appropriate technologies?" It need not be so. The congressional leadership still has a few days to stop the reckless rush to bankruptcy court and to assert its responsibilities.
Mr. Nader is a consumer advocate. Mr. Weissman is editor of Multinational Monitor magazine.
. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15 Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
----------------------------------------------------------------------
forcing auto industry into bankrupsy might be one of the most boneheaded economic moves in history. It is not good for anyone involved, except a handful on Wall Street it appears.
Senate after they tossed single payer folks in jail
At the last senate finance committee hearings, after they removed the single payer folks and carted some off to jail; they heard testimony that taxing worker's meager healthcare benefits would be a good idea.
This is from today's Wall Street Journal and is interesting reading.
This is from today's Wall Street journal and is a copyrighted editorial. I shall withdraw if objections made:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355286037664421.html#
REVIEW & OUTLOOK MAY 29, 2009 Taxing Health Care
Obama and Democrats owe John
Politicians wouldn't be politicians if they didn't trim their sails to the
prevailing winds. Even so, the emerging 180-degree turn by Democrats on taxes
and health insurance is one for the record books.
AP
Democrats have spent years arguing that proposals to equalize the tax treatment
of health insurance are an outrage against the American people. Workers pay no
income or payroll taxes on the value of job-based plans, but the same hand isn't
extended to individuals who must buy coverage on their own. Last year liberals
mauled John McCain for daring to touch the employer-based exclusion to finance
more coverage for the individually uninsured. He was proposing "a
multitrillion-dollar tax hike -- the largest middle-class tax hike in history,"
said Barack Obama, whose TV ads were brutal.
But now Democrats need the money to finance $1.2 trillion or more for their new
health insurance entitlement. Last week Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus
released his revenue "policy options" and high on the list is . . . taxing
health benefits. Or listen to White House budget director Peter Orszag, who
recently told CNN's John King that the exclusion "was not in the President's
campaign plan, it wasn't in our budget. Clearly, some Members of Congress are
putting it on the table and we are going to have to let this play out."
Mr. King tried again. "Let this play out. But would the President sign a bill
that includes a pretty significant tax increase? That would be a tax increase."
Mr. Orszag: "We're not going to be -- I think it's premature to be commenting on
individual items . . . There are lots of ideas that are being put on the table."
Translation: You betcha he'd sign it.
The tax exclusion is such a big revenue prize because Mr. Baucus is scrubbing
every other tax nook and cranny and only coming up with rounding errors. A
sampler:
- Impose an excise tax on hard alcohol, beer and some kinds of wine. That would
be in addition to a sin tax on beverages sweetened with sugar or high-fructose
corn syrup, such as soda. Mr. Baucus doesn't offer revenue estimates, though the
Congressional Budget Office says a $16 per proof gallon alcohol tax might raise
$60 billion over 10 years, and another $50.4 billion at three cents per 12
ounces of sugary drink.
- End or limit the tax-exempt status of charitable hospitals, which only costs
currently a mere $6 billion a year.
- Make college students in work-study programs subject to the payroll tax. Also
targeted are medical residents, perhaps on the principle that they'll one day be
"rich" doctors. CBO has no score on these.
- Reducing Medicare reimbursement rates for supposedly "over valued physician
services," such as diagnostic imaging. CBO says that requiring doctors to get
prior clearance could save $1 billion in 10 years.
- For individuals with high-deductible insurance plans, contributions to health
savings accounts would no longer be tax deductible. That would penalize patients
who choose plans that encourage them to be informed consumers. CBO says that
banning HSA payments entirely would yield all of $10 billion.
By contrast, the employer-based exclusion offers a huge money pot -- an
estimated $226 billion in 2008. Yet as liberal MIT economist Jonathan Gruber
recently told Mr. Baucus's committee, "no health expert today would ever set up
a health system with such an enormous tax subsidy to a particular form of
insurance" (his emphasis). It creates a coverage gap between workers who receive
it from their employers and those who pay -- or can't afford to pay -- with
after-tax money.
The tax exclusion is also one reason health costs continue to rise. It
encourages workers to take an extra dollar of compensation in fringe benefits
instead of cash while also routing low-deductible health spending through third
parties. Some 84 cents of every medical dollar is spent by someone other than
the patient. The insured have no incentives to make cost-conscious decisions
about care.
So reforming the exclusion would inject a dose of discipline into American
medicine. But for most Democrats the goal isn't to create a more rational
health-insurance market. They simply want the revenue for another government
program. Mr. Baucus won't target gold-plated employer insurance plans in
general, because union-negotiated benefits are usually gold-plated. Rather, he
may cap or phase out the exclusion by income, starting with workers earning more
than $200,000. Insurance options that don't conform to government diktats
(health savings accounts) would also lose any tax advantage. This would do
nothing for market efficiency, but it would be one more stealth tax increase.
Democrats owe an apology to Mr. McCain, and it'll be fascinating to see if they
will now suffer a political backlash of their own making. Having told the
country that this tax reform is really a tax increase, Democrats are opening
themselves to the same attacks they leveled against Republicans.
They could avoid that fate if they used the tax exclusion money to finance, say,
a tax credit for the uninsured. That would be a genuinely bipartisan reform. But
liberals won't accept that because they want to take one giant step toward
government-run health care. And the only way they can pay for it is by taxing
everything in sight, including your current health insurance.
-------------------------------------
Taxes and death. Without single payer health insurance, death is a real probability for many an American.
This is from today's Wall Street Journal and is interesting reading.
This is from today's Wall Street journal and is a copyrighted editorial. I shall withdraw if objections made:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355286037664421.html#
REVIEW & OUTLOOK MAY 29, 2009 Taxing Health Care
Obama and Democrats owe John
Politicians wouldn't be politicians if they didn't trim their sails to the
prevailing winds. Even so, the emerging 180-degree turn by Democrats on taxes
and health insurance is one for the record books.
AP
Democrats have spent years arguing that proposals to equalize the tax treatment
of health insurance are an outrage against the American people. Workers pay no
income or payroll taxes on the value of job-based plans, but the same hand isn't
extended to individuals who must buy coverage on their own. Last year liberals
mauled John McCain for daring to touch the employer-based exclusion to finance
more coverage for the individually uninsured. He was proposing "a
multitrillion-dollar tax hike -- the largest middle-class tax hike in history,"
said Barack Obama, whose TV ads were brutal.
But now Democrats need the money to finance $1.2 trillion or more for their new
health insurance entitlement. Last week Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus
released his revenue "policy options" and high on the list is . . . taxing
health benefits. Or listen to White House budget director Peter Orszag, who
recently told CNN's John King that the exclusion "was not in the President's
campaign plan, it wasn't in our budget. Clearly, some Members of Congress are
putting it on the table and we are going to have to let this play out."
Mr. King tried again. "Let this play out. But would the President sign a bill
that includes a pretty significant tax increase? That would be a tax increase."
Mr. Orszag: "We're not going to be -- I think it's premature to be commenting on
individual items . . . There are lots of ideas that are being put on the table."
Translation: You betcha he'd sign it.
The tax exclusion is such a big revenue prize because Mr. Baucus is scrubbing
every other tax nook and cranny and only coming up with rounding errors. A
sampler:
- Impose an excise tax on hard alcohol, beer and some kinds of wine. That would
be in addition to a sin tax on beverages sweetened with sugar or high-fructose
corn syrup, such as soda. Mr. Baucus doesn't offer revenue estimates, though the
Congressional Budget Office says a $16 per proof gallon alcohol tax might raise
$60 billion over 10 years, and another $50.4 billion at three cents per 12
ounces of sugary drink.
- End or limit the tax-exempt status of charitable hospitals, which only costs
currently a mere $6 billion a year.
- Make college students in work-study programs subject to the payroll tax. Also
targeted are medical residents, perhaps on the principle that they'll one day be
"rich" doctors. CBO has no score on these.
- Reducing Medicare reimbursement rates for supposedly "over valued physician
services," such as diagnostic imaging. CBO says that requiring doctors to get
prior clearance could save $1 billion in 10 years.
- For individuals with high-deductible insurance plans, contributions to health
savings accounts would no longer be tax deductible. That would penalize patients
who choose plans that encourage them to be informed consumers. CBO says that
banning HSA payments entirely would yield all of $10 billion.
By contrast, the employer-based exclusion offers a huge money pot -- an
estimated $226 billion in 2008. Yet as liberal MIT economist Jonathan Gruber
recently told Mr. Baucus's committee, "no health expert today would ever set up
a health system with such an enormous tax subsidy to a particular form of
insurance" (his emphasis). It creates a coverage gap between workers who receive
it from their employers and those who pay -- or can't afford to pay -- with
after-tax money.
The tax exclusion is also one reason health costs continue to rise. It
encourages workers to take an extra dollar of compensation in fringe benefits
instead of cash while also routing low-deductible health spending through third
parties. Some 84 cents of every medical dollar is spent by someone other than
the patient. The insured have no incentives to make cost-conscious decisions
about care.
So reforming the exclusion would inject a dose of discipline into American
medicine. But for most Democrats the goal isn't to create a more rational
health-insurance market. They simply want the revenue for another government
program. Mr. Baucus won't target gold-plated employer insurance plans in
general, because union-negotiated benefits are usually gold-plated. Rather, he
may cap or phase out the exclusion by income, starting with workers earning more
than $200,000. Insurance options that don't conform to government diktats
(health savings accounts) would also lose any tax advantage. This would do
nothing for market efficiency, but it would be one more stealth tax increase.
Democrats owe an apology to Mr. McCain, and it'll be fascinating to see if they
will now suffer a political backlash of their own making. Having told the
country that this tax reform is really a tax increase, Democrats are opening
themselves to the same attacks they leveled against Republicans.
They could avoid that fate if they used the tax exclusion money to finance, say,
a tax credit for the uninsured. That would be a genuinely bipartisan reform. But
liberals won't accept that because they want to take one giant step toward
government-run health care. And the only way they can pay for it is by taxing
everything in sight, including your current health insurance.
-------------------------------------
Taxes and death. Without single payer health insurance, death is a real probability for many an American.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
GOP and Third World health care in Missouri
As many of you already know, the GOP in Missouri are quite satified with keeping Missouri healthcare in the third world zone. Indeed, to deny some of the poor and working poor health care is a proud goal of the folks in the statehouse in Missouri. Good work folks for once again you have stuck it to the most vunerable of Missouri folks and protected your insurance buddies bottom lines.
Note for the rest of the nation and world: GOP in Missouri do have the guts to stand up for the rich and for business interests and do a fine job at that. Hell, they even had a proposal to refund the stimulus program money to the citizens of Missouri instead of building hospitals, roads, bridges, schools and the like. It is hard to imagine some of the Missouri leaders of the GOP as being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, but like the national GOP they stand united to protect their business buddies.
These are from the folks at Fired Up! Missouri http://www.firedupmissouri.com/
Note for the rest of the nation and world: GOP in Missouri do have the guts to stand up for the rich and for business interests and do a fine job at that. Hell, they even had a proposal to refund the stimulus program money to the citizens of Missouri instead of building hospitals, roads, bridges, schools and the like. It is hard to imagine some of the Missouri leaders of the GOP as being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, but like the national GOP they stand united to protect their business buddies.
These are from the folks at Fired Up! Missouri http://www.firedupmissouri.com/
-----------------------------------------------
another worthy healthcare piece from Fired Up Missouri
Monday, May 25, 2009
Bill Moyer's vid b May, 09 single payer healthcare
---------
this is the second snip of the Bill Moyer's Journal discussion of single payer health care. Again, this is copyrighted materials and I shall withdraw if objections
made.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html
May 22, 2009Washington's abuzz about health care, but why isn't a single-payer plan an option on the table? Public Citizen's Dr. Sidney Wolfe and Physicians for a National Health Program's Dr. David Himmelstein on the political and logistical feasibility of health care reform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one of three
this is the second snip of the Bill Moyer's Journal discussion of single payer health care. Again, this is copyrighted materials and I shall withdraw if objections
made.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html
May 22, 2009Washington's abuzz about health care, but why isn't a single-payer plan an option on the table? Public Citizen's Dr. Sidney Wolfe and Physicians for a National Health Program's Dr. David Himmelstein on the political and logistical feasibility of health care reform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one of three
------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Bill Moyers 5-22-09 Donna Smith interview
-----------------
Below is snip from Bill Moyer's Journal. It is an excellent interview and asks some rather timely questions: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch.html
May 22, 2009
Bill Moyers speaks with advocate Donna Smith about how our broken system is hurting ordinary Americans.
================
this is copyrighted materials and I shall withdraw if objections made. This will be topic for discussion the next Soar meeting in June. Second snip will be in next post and it is copyrighted interview as well.
The purpose of including these vids is for informational purposes. Many folks are interested in "What happened to single-payer" health proposals and it will be remembered at election time for some of folks running for reelection.
Below is snip from Bill Moyer's Journal. It is an excellent interview and asks some rather timely questions: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch.html
May 22, 2009
Bill Moyers speaks with advocate Donna Smith about how our broken system is hurting ordinary Americans.
================
this is copyrighted materials and I shall withdraw if objections made. This will be topic for discussion the next Soar meeting in June. Second snip will be in next post and it is copyrighted interview as well.
The purpose of including these vids is for informational purposes. Many folks are interested in "What happened to single-payer" health proposals and it will be remembered at election time for some of folks running for reelection.
----------------------------------
Friday, May 22, 2009
Watch PBS tonight---Bill Moyer's Journal--health care
Many of you already know this:
Bill Moyers' Journal Friday evening, May 22, PBS (check local listings) Why single-payer health care isn't among the health-care reform plans under consideration. Guests include Donna Smith (California Nurses Association), Dr. Sidney Wolfe (Public Citizen) Dr. David Himmelstein (Physicians for a National Health Program).
-----------------------------------------
Why single payer is not covered in senate and Obama healthcare discussions? My opinion and solely my opinion:
incompetence and ignorance (single payer details are not widely known). We can always question some of the congressfolks competence by the way for intelligence is not a major factor in getting elected.
Most of the folks making decisions are members of oligarchy (s) of power--Wall street, Insurance companies, HMOs and on and on. Hard to crack down on your country club buddies.
You can add, none wish to be the foes of the big boys of Wall Street and we all know "voters have short memories".
Equally hard is to turn down those lobbists of the healthcare industry that spend billions to make sure that American Insurance bottomlines are the best in the world. After all, we all know that politicans take money from total strangers and owe them nothing in return.
---by the way, some of the insurance companies hit with record fines the last few years. Know who pays? Not the insurance companies, you do via higher costs. They can deduct fines off taxes and raise prices to cover expenses and deduct them as well. Sounds linke someone earned a big bonus.
Of course, the companies whom have insurance companies administer the funds know the shell game; but being part of the contry club elite--they do nothing except shift higher costs to the workers.
In a way, the insurance, drug and HMOs are taxing you all (and me too) for the gutless ones on capitol hill wishes to lie about taxes. Big business can and does tax you as well as the government.
Bill Moyers' Journal Friday evening, May 22, PBS (check local listings) Why single-payer health care isn't among the health-care reform plans under consideration. Guests include Donna Smith (California Nurses Association), Dr. Sidney Wolfe (Public Citizen) Dr. David Himmelstein (Physicians for a National Health Program).
-----------------------------------------
Why single payer is not covered in senate and Obama healthcare discussions? My opinion and solely my opinion:
incompetence and ignorance (single payer details are not widely known). We can always question some of the congressfolks competence by the way for intelligence is not a major factor in getting elected.
Most of the folks making decisions are members of oligarchy (s) of power--Wall street, Insurance companies, HMOs and on and on. Hard to crack down on your country club buddies.
You can add, none wish to be the foes of the big boys of Wall Street and we all know "voters have short memories".
Equally hard is to turn down those lobbists of the healthcare industry that spend billions to make sure that American Insurance bottomlines are the best in the world. After all, we all know that politicans take money from total strangers and owe them nothing in return.
---by the way, some of the insurance companies hit with record fines the last few years. Know who pays? Not the insurance companies, you do via higher costs. They can deduct fines off taxes and raise prices to cover expenses and deduct them as well. Sounds linke someone earned a big bonus.
Of course, the companies whom have insurance companies administer the funds know the shell game; but being part of the contry club elite--they do nothing except shift higher costs to the workers.
In a way, the insurance, drug and HMOs are taxing you all (and me too) for the gutless ones on capitol hill wishes to lie about taxes. Big business can and does tax you as well as the government.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Teach-In Capitol Hill 5-19-09 end Bus tour
Below are the remarks of Leo Gerard, president of the USW at the end of the Bus tour. This is the "Teach-In" on cap hill.
Note to Leo, some in congress are pretty slow students ( no disrespect to slow students in schools intended).
Note to Leo, some in congress are pretty slow students ( no disrespect to slow students in schools intended).
-----------------------------------
Opinion: Bus tour was good idea, but the tour should have been done long ago.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Missouri end of session
Morning folks.
This is from St. Louis Post and recounts the deeds of the Missouri leglislature.
How major bills fared in Missouri Legislature
Saturday, May. 16 2009
PASSED
STIMULUS PROJECTS Allocates $381 million in federal stimulus funds for capital projects and other expenses, including $12 million for Metro and $12 million for China freight hub at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
(HB22)BUSINESS INCENTIVES Boosts Quality Jobs subsidies for businesses that provide health insurance. Doubles annual tax credits available for developer Paul McKee’s project in St. Louis. Caps historic tax credits.
(HB191)HELMETS Removes the requirement that motorcycle riders wear a helmet, provided they are over the age of 21 and not on an interstate highway.
(SB202)SEWER FEE Bars Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District from charging homeowners a stormwater fee if they don’t use district’s sanitary sewers and their runoff doesn’t flow to district storm sewers.
(SB242)EDUCATION Allows merit pay for St. Louis teachers and makes a variety of changes to elementary and secondary education. (SB291)ASSESSOR Seeks voter approval of constitutional amendment requiring the St. Louis County assessor to be elected.
(SJR5)FEE OFFICES Requires competitive bidding for fee offices that issue drivers licenses and delays mandatory vehicle inspections for new cars.
(HB683, HB381)FUNERALS Strengthens state oversight of prepaid funeral industry.
(SB1)VETERANS TAX CUT Exempts 15 percent of a veteran’s military pension from state income taxes in 2010, with the exemption growing each year until it reaches 100 percent in 2016.
(HB82)UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION Expands unemployment benefits by 13 weeks this year and increases the amount of unemployment benefits paid to jobless workers using $133 million in federal stimulus funds.
(HB1075)BINGO Allows more frequent bingo games and lowers bingo taxes.
(HB620)PATERNITY Allows men to contest paternity up to two years after the accusation. (SB141)TEXTING WHILE DRIVING Prohibits drivers 21 and younger from sending, reading or writing text messages while driving.
(HB62)CRIME Stiffens penalties for some sex crimes, removes a provision of law that allows defendants in domestic violence or rape cases to have their names removed from public records, bans beer bongs on certain Missouri rivers and changes other crime-related provisions.
(HB62)ONLINE GOVERNMENT DATA Requires the state to maintain the Missouri Accountability Portal and provides each legislator a key to Capitol Dome.
(HB544)COURTS Makes changes to judicial system, most of them technical. Provisions that would have changed the makeup of judges in St. Louis area did not make the final bill. (HB481)
---------------------------
Did Not Pass
AMEREN Would have allowed utility to charge consumers for new nuclear plant while it is under construction and changed other Public Service Commission regulations.
(SB228)ACCESS MISSOURI Would have equalized scholarships for students at public and private four-year institutions instead of giving private college students larger grants.
(HB792)MISSOURI PROMISE Would have allowed all public high school students to participate in A-plus scholarship program and expanded program to cover third and fourth years of college for eligible students.
(SB558)TAX CUT Would have reduced state individual income tax rate to 5.5 percent from 6 percent on earnings over $9,000.
(SB71)ADVANCE VOTING Would have allowed voters to cast ballots for two-week period starting three weeks before the election.
(HB59)VOTER ID Would have changed constitution to require state voters to present photo IDs to vote. (HJR9)PAYDAY LOANS Would have capped the interest on payday loans.
(HB150)AUTISM Would have required insurance companies to cover autism treatment for those under 18.
(SB167)ZOO FEE Would have allowed St. Louis Zoo, St. Louis Art Museum, Missouri History Museum and St. Louis Science Center to charge admission for people from outside the district. (SB508)ETHICS Would have outlawed the practice of lawmakers working as political consultants; instituted a one-year freeze on lawmakers from lobbying; and made various changes to campaign finance law.
(HB648)INCOME TAX Would have proposed constitutional amendment replacing individual and corporate income tax with a sales tax on goods and services.
(HJR36)CHILD CARE Would have imposed stricter regulation on child care facilities.
(HB383)RED LIGHT Would have regulated red light camera use.
(HB241)MINIMUM WAGE Would have frozen minimum wage for tipped workers.
(HB258)HEALTH CARE Would have expanded subsidized health care to low-income adults and used $146 million in hospital taxes and federal funds to pay for it.
(SB306, HB156)ABORTION Would have created crime of coercing an abortion and strengthened waiting period law
. (HB46)JUDGES Would have sought voter approval of constitutional amendment changing how the state’s top judges are selected by giving more power to the governor and Legislature. (HJR10)OPEN MEETINGS Would have strengthened training and penalty elements of Sunshine Law and also exempted police internal affairs reports.
(HB316)CONSTRUCTION BONDS Would have sought voter approval of constitutional amendment to issue $800 million in bonds for higher education and other state buildings. (HJR32)SECRET BALLOT Would have proposed constitutional amendment requiring secret ballot for union formation in response to bill in Congress that might give employees choice on issue.
(HJR37)GUNS Would have included university campuses in the list of places concealed weapons are allowed and expanded the “castle doctrine” to include apartments.
(HB668)SUDAFED Would have required a prescription to obtain common cold and allergy medicine by declaring pseudoephedrine a controlled substance.
(HB496)VACANCIES Would have required special elections to fill midterm vacancies in the offices of lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and U.S. senator. (HB681)
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/18FBAB0AE2767ECC862575B8000B25B3?OpenDocument
-----------------------
bill number at the end and not beginning . Mixed bag with more not getting done than getting passed. Some not passed are victory by the way for folks in the state.
For all the celebration, dems did not get commanding lead to reform Missouri. Nor are all the dems on the same page as the voters on some of the issues.
Some bills never saw the light of day like the ones supporting universal health care
This is from St. Louis Post and recounts the deeds of the Missouri leglislature.
How major bills fared in Missouri Legislature
Saturday, May. 16 2009
PASSED
STIMULUS PROJECTS Allocates $381 million in federal stimulus funds for capital projects and other expenses, including $12 million for Metro and $12 million for China freight hub at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
(HB22)BUSINESS INCENTIVES Boosts Quality Jobs subsidies for businesses that provide health insurance. Doubles annual tax credits available for developer Paul McKee’s project in St. Louis. Caps historic tax credits.
(HB191)HELMETS Removes the requirement that motorcycle riders wear a helmet, provided they are over the age of 21 and not on an interstate highway.
(SB202)SEWER FEE Bars Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District from charging homeowners a stormwater fee if they don’t use district’s sanitary sewers and their runoff doesn’t flow to district storm sewers.
(SB242)EDUCATION Allows merit pay for St. Louis teachers and makes a variety of changes to elementary and secondary education. (SB291)ASSESSOR Seeks voter approval of constitutional amendment requiring the St. Louis County assessor to be elected.
(SJR5)FEE OFFICES Requires competitive bidding for fee offices that issue drivers licenses and delays mandatory vehicle inspections for new cars.
(HB683, HB381)FUNERALS Strengthens state oversight of prepaid funeral industry.
(SB1)VETERANS TAX CUT Exempts 15 percent of a veteran’s military pension from state income taxes in 2010, with the exemption growing each year until it reaches 100 percent in 2016.
(HB82)UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION Expands unemployment benefits by 13 weeks this year and increases the amount of unemployment benefits paid to jobless workers using $133 million in federal stimulus funds.
(HB1075)BINGO Allows more frequent bingo games and lowers bingo taxes.
(HB620)PATERNITY Allows men to contest paternity up to two years after the accusation. (SB141)TEXTING WHILE DRIVING Prohibits drivers 21 and younger from sending, reading or writing text messages while driving.
(HB62)CRIME Stiffens penalties for some sex crimes, removes a provision of law that allows defendants in domestic violence or rape cases to have their names removed from public records, bans beer bongs on certain Missouri rivers and changes other crime-related provisions.
(HB62)ONLINE GOVERNMENT DATA Requires the state to maintain the Missouri Accountability Portal and provides each legislator a key to Capitol Dome.
(HB544)COURTS Makes changes to judicial system, most of them technical. Provisions that would have changed the makeup of judges in St. Louis area did not make the final bill. (HB481)
---------------------------
Did Not Pass
AMEREN Would have allowed utility to charge consumers for new nuclear plant while it is under construction and changed other Public Service Commission regulations.
(SB228)ACCESS MISSOURI Would have equalized scholarships for students at public and private four-year institutions instead of giving private college students larger grants.
(HB792)MISSOURI PROMISE Would have allowed all public high school students to participate in A-plus scholarship program and expanded program to cover third and fourth years of college for eligible students.
(SB558)TAX CUT Would have reduced state individual income tax rate to 5.5 percent from 6 percent on earnings over $9,000.
(SB71)ADVANCE VOTING Would have allowed voters to cast ballots for two-week period starting three weeks before the election.
(HB59)VOTER ID Would have changed constitution to require state voters to present photo IDs to vote. (HJR9)PAYDAY LOANS Would have capped the interest on payday loans.
(HB150)AUTISM Would have required insurance companies to cover autism treatment for those under 18.
(SB167)ZOO FEE Would have allowed St. Louis Zoo, St. Louis Art Museum, Missouri History Museum and St. Louis Science Center to charge admission for people from outside the district. (SB508)ETHICS Would have outlawed the practice of lawmakers working as political consultants; instituted a one-year freeze on lawmakers from lobbying; and made various changes to campaign finance law.
(HB648)INCOME TAX Would have proposed constitutional amendment replacing individual and corporate income tax with a sales tax on goods and services.
(HJR36)CHILD CARE Would have imposed stricter regulation on child care facilities.
(HB383)RED LIGHT Would have regulated red light camera use.
(HB241)MINIMUM WAGE Would have frozen minimum wage for tipped workers.
(HB258)HEALTH CARE Would have expanded subsidized health care to low-income adults and used $146 million in hospital taxes and federal funds to pay for it.
(SB306, HB156)ABORTION Would have created crime of coercing an abortion and strengthened waiting period law
. (HB46)JUDGES Would have sought voter approval of constitutional amendment changing how the state’s top judges are selected by giving more power to the governor and Legislature. (HJR10)OPEN MEETINGS Would have strengthened training and penalty elements of Sunshine Law and also exempted police internal affairs reports.
(HB316)CONSTRUCTION BONDS Would have sought voter approval of constitutional amendment to issue $800 million in bonds for higher education and other state buildings. (HJR32)SECRET BALLOT Would have proposed constitutional amendment requiring secret ballot for union formation in response to bill in Congress that might give employees choice on issue.
(HJR37)GUNS Would have included university campuses in the list of places concealed weapons are allowed and expanded the “castle doctrine” to include apartments.
(HB668)SUDAFED Would have required a prescription to obtain common cold and allergy medicine by declaring pseudoephedrine a controlled substance.
(HB496)VACANCIES Would have required special elections to fill midterm vacancies in the offices of lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, and U.S. senator. (HB681)
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/18FBAB0AE2767ECC862575B8000B25B3?OpenDocument
-----------------------
bill number at the end and not beginning . Mixed bag with more not getting done than getting passed. Some not passed are victory by the way for folks in the state.
For all the celebration, dems did not get commanding lead to reform Missouri. Nor are all the dems on the same page as the voters on some of the issues.
Some bills never saw the light of day like the ones supporting universal health care
Friday, May 15, 2009
even more from ED Show on Obama's refjection of single payer options
This is from yesterday's Ed Show. Some issues near and dear mentioned, like Obama's rejection of single payer healthcare and that auto industries vs Wall Street; there seems to be a double standard. Good to know the president is siding with corporate special interests on healthcare and break up the UAW so early in his administration.
I wonder if I can get a refund of monies donated to his campaign, "Change We Can Believe IN" ?
"One Term" Obama, I kinda like that.
I wonder if I can get a refund of monies donated to his campaign, "Change We Can Believe IN" ?
"One Term" Obama, I kinda like that.
==============================================
I wonder what number flip-flop this makes for Obama or do we lump it into the general upholding of corporate interests over the American people catagory?
Thank you folks at "ED SHOW" for following this story. Most of the media has long ago abandoned single payer healthcare for their ad-master folks no doubt feel that to cover the story would cost coprotate sponsor monies.
========================================
This is his story yesterday on Auto double standards. Yes, Obama folks and congress seem a little more disposed to favor Wall Street and the hell with the workers and people. Another "Change you can Believe"
I wonder how the dems believe their reelection assured with so many displaced autoworkers, steelworkers and probably displaced machinists shortly?
------------------------------
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Healthcare timeline May 13, 2009
Ed show had this evening a snip about Obama's healthcare time table. This is the clip.
Also, some of today's healthcare single payer action in story.
Also, some of today's healthcare single payer action in story.
-------------------------------------------------
More on healthcare yesterday
Today is a day of action for some single-payer healthcare folks. Do not expect media to cover too much detail.
This is from MSNBC yesterday for it was eventful. Arrests of single payer folks in Senate, praise of the "healthcare" concessions promised by insurance, drug and HMO folks and more.
If the promise of the insurance companies are like the promises made by cancos to employees, then watch your behinds for they are going to be assulted. Somehow the assurances of the congress and their Wall Street buddies makes me a bit uneasy.
Note: this material is copyrighted and I shall withdraw if objections made. The purpose is for discussion:
This is from MSNBC yesterday for it was eventful. Arrests of single payer folks in Senate, praise of the "healthcare" concessions promised by insurance, drug and HMO folks and more.
If the promise of the insurance companies are like the promises made by cancos to employees, then watch your behinds for they are going to be assulted. Somehow the assurances of the congress and their Wall Street buddies makes me a bit uneasy.
Note: this material is copyrighted and I shall withdraw if objections made. The purpose is for discussion:
------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The senator respects us, then jails single-payer folks and proposes to tax health benefits
The senator respects the single payer folks. That is no doubt why he has excluded us from healthcare talks and why he had supporters jailed. Then, they listen and nod as folks say they should tax our meager health care benefits like good sycophants. I thought John McCain lost the election, but no doubt his taxing our health benefits live with some democrats.
That congress should fawn over Wall Street folks, that is no surprise for they have done so often; but these folks take it to new levels. I have a few adjectives for these folks, but I doubt google would let me say them on their networks.
This is a vid of the latest round of folks getting jailed for speaking up for single payer healthcare. This is the last of the senate Finance committee meeting, but other congressional committees have upcoming healthcare meetings.
The congress and Obama should pat themselves on the back for the fine job they have done for the HMOS, insurance companies and drug companies.
Protecting the bottom line and perks of Wall Street, that is what our government is about these days. Change?
Again, what did we vote for the last election ? I wonder if some dems actually believe that some of us are not going to hold accountable the fearless leaders in 2010 and 2012. In Missouri, if a good deal of supporters of HR676 switch support from the dems to say the Greens; wonder what the dem count will be in congress from my state. That might well occur in other areas of the nation.
Soar 11-3 does respect the single payer folks whom represented us in congress (briefly, until jailed) and our hats off once again.
That congress should fawn over Wall Street folks, that is no surprise for they have done so often; but these folks take it to new levels. I have a few adjectives for these folks, but I doubt google would let me say them on their networks.
This is a vid of the latest round of folks getting jailed for speaking up for single payer healthcare. This is the last of the senate Finance committee meeting, but other congressional committees have upcoming healthcare meetings.
The congress and Obama should pat themselves on the back for the fine job they have done for the HMOS, insurance companies and drug companies.
Protecting the bottom line and perks of Wall Street, that is what our government is about these days. Change?
Again, what did we vote for the last election ? I wonder if some dems actually believe that some of us are not going to hold accountable the fearless leaders in 2010 and 2012. In Missouri, if a good deal of supporters of HR676 switch support from the dems to say the Greens; wonder what the dem count will be in congress from my state. That might well occur in other areas of the nation.
Soar 11-3 does respect the single payer folks whom represented us in congress (briefly, until jailed) and our hats off once again.
thanks again you tube
---------------------------------------------
Monday, May 11, 2009
Healthcare meeting dates and committees in congress
\------------------
this is from AFL-CIO and deals with dates, times, committees in congress on healthcare:
Congressional Schedules for Passage of Health Care Reform Legislation
(as of April 25, 2009)
Listed below is an outline of the Senate and House committee schedules on health care reform as is best known/estimated at the moment.
I. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
A. Three lead committees in the House of Representatives are working on a coordinated track (the ‘tri-committee’)
• Key Committees and Chairpersons
Ways and Means: Charles Rangel, Chairman
Energy and Commerce: Henry Waxman, Chairman
Education and Labor: George Miller, Chairman
• Committees are working to develop a single bill/bill outline that will serve as the starting point for each committee’s work
Each committee has jurisdiction over different components of the legislation and would act only on areas within their jurisdiction
• It is recognized that the product of each committee would be different as a result of amendments made in mark-ups
• In the House, committee action is expected to begin in each committee’s relevant subcommittee
Ways and Means: Pete Stark, Health Subcommittee Chairman
Energy and Commerce: Frank Palone, Health Subcommittee Chairman
Education and Labor: Robert Andrews, Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee Chairman
• The House is anticipating moving the legislation under ‘regular order’, which means the minority party will have ample opportunity to offer amendments
B. Current schedule for passage of health care reform legislation by House
• April: Committee hearings and drafting legislation
• May: Committee hearings and drafting legislation
• June: continue with hearings
CBO estimates (comprehensive) on legislation expected by early June
• June: Mark-up in subcommittee
• Post July 4th recess: Full committees mark-up legislation (possibly July 6 - 14)
• Mid-July: Committee work combined into a single bill for floor consideration
• Mid/late-July: Votes in full House on legislation
• August recess (8/1 – 9/4): Conference committee work to combine House-passed and Senate-passed legislation
• September: Votes by full House and Senate on conference report/single bill
HC Cong Schedules April-Sept 2009.doc Page 1 of 2 HC Cong Schedules April-Sept 2009.doc Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES SENATE
Although discussions are taking place across the two lead committees (Finance and HELP) of the Senate, the current expectation is that the two lead committees will begin their work with different legislation (committee ‘marks’) and combine their committee products post-committee / pre-Senate floor action.
A. Finance Committee
• April / May: Finance Committee is rolling out reform in 3 pieces, each with roundtable discussions with 6 to 9 experts and open to public, followed by closed-door walk through with Members
􀂾 Delivery system reform:
􀂃 Roundtable: April 21 (held)
􀂃 Walk through: April 29
􀂾 Coverage:
􀂃 Roundtable: May 5
􀂃 Walk through: May 12
􀂾 Revenue/Financing:
Roundtable: May 14 or 20th
Walk through: May 20 June 2
• April / May: Drafting of legislation by committee
􀂾 Congressional Budget Office currently working on estimating portions of legislation
• June: Mark-up of legislation in Committee
􀂾 Finance Committee does mark-up of conceptual language (not legislative language) after 48 hours notice/release of language
• Late-June: The legislation from the Finance and HELP Committees would be combined into one bill
B. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee
• April and May: Continue with hearings and drafting legislation
􀂾 Congressional Budget Office currently working on estimating portions of legislation
• May 22: File bill language (Chairman’s mark)
􀂾 HELP Committee does mark-up of bill (legislative) language after 72 hours notice/release of language
• May 29: Receive amendments from Committee Members
• June 1: Begin Committee mark-up of legislation
• Late-June: The legislation from the HELP and Finance Committees would be combined into one bill
C. Full Senate Action
July: Votes by full Senate on health care reform legislation
August recess (8/1 – 9/4): Conference committee work to combine House-passed and Senate-passed legislation
September: Votes by full House and Senate on conference report/single bill
this is from AFL-CIO and deals with dates, times, committees in congress on healthcare:
Congressional Schedules for Passage of Health Care Reform Legislation
(as of April 25, 2009)
Listed below is an outline of the Senate and House committee schedules on health care reform as is best known/estimated at the moment.
I. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
A. Three lead committees in the House of Representatives are working on a coordinated track (the ‘tri-committee’)
• Key Committees and Chairpersons
Ways and Means: Charles Rangel, Chairman
Energy and Commerce: Henry Waxman, Chairman
Education and Labor: George Miller, Chairman
• Committees are working to develop a single bill/bill outline that will serve as the starting point for each committee’s work
Each committee has jurisdiction over different components of the legislation and would act only on areas within their jurisdiction
• It is recognized that the product of each committee would be different as a result of amendments made in mark-ups
• In the House, committee action is expected to begin in each committee’s relevant subcommittee
Ways and Means: Pete Stark, Health Subcommittee Chairman
Energy and Commerce: Frank Palone, Health Subcommittee Chairman
Education and Labor: Robert Andrews, Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee Chairman
• The House is anticipating moving the legislation under ‘regular order’, which means the minority party will have ample opportunity to offer amendments
B. Current schedule for passage of health care reform legislation by House
• April: Committee hearings and drafting legislation
• May: Committee hearings and drafting legislation
• June: continue with hearings
CBO estimates (comprehensive) on legislation expected by early June
• June: Mark-up in subcommittee
• Post July 4th recess: Full committees mark-up legislation (possibly July 6 - 14)
• Mid-July: Committee work combined into a single bill for floor consideration
• Mid/late-July: Votes in full House on legislation
• August recess (8/1 – 9/4): Conference committee work to combine House-passed and Senate-passed legislation
• September: Votes by full House and Senate on conference report/single bill
HC Cong Schedules April-Sept 2009.doc Page 1 of 2 HC Cong Schedules April-Sept 2009.doc Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES SENATE
Although discussions are taking place across the two lead committees (Finance and HELP) of the Senate, the current expectation is that the two lead committees will begin their work with different legislation (committee ‘marks’) and combine their committee products post-committee / pre-Senate floor action.
A. Finance Committee
• April / May: Finance Committee is rolling out reform in 3 pieces, each with roundtable discussions with 6 to 9 experts and open to public, followed by closed-door walk through with Members
􀂾 Delivery system reform:
􀂃 Roundtable: April 21 (held)
􀂃 Walk through: April 29
􀂾 Coverage:
􀂃 Roundtable: May 5
􀂃 Walk through: May 12
􀂾 Revenue/Financing:
Roundtable: May 14 or 20th
Walk through: May 20 June 2
• April / May: Drafting of legislation by committee
􀂾 Congressional Budget Office currently working on estimating portions of legislation
• June: Mark-up of legislation in Committee
􀂾 Finance Committee does mark-up of conceptual language (not legislative language) after 48 hours notice/release of language
• Late-June: The legislation from the Finance and HELP Committees would be combined into one bill
B. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee
• April and May: Continue with hearings and drafting legislation
􀂾 Congressional Budget Office currently working on estimating portions of legislation
• May 22: File bill language (Chairman’s mark)
􀂾 HELP Committee does mark-up of bill (legislative) language after 72 hours notice/release of language
• May 29: Receive amendments from Committee Members
• June 1: Begin Committee mark-up of legislation
• Late-June: The legislation from the HELP and Finance Committees would be combined into one bill
C. Full Senate Action
July: Votes by full Senate on health care reform legislation
August recess (8/1 – 9/4): Conference committee work to combine House-passed and Senate-passed legislation
September: Votes by full House and Senate on conference report/single bill
Just like clockwork: Health Groups Vow Cost Controls
--------------------------------
Just like clockwork, the insurance industry comes to the rescue to cut off single-payer debate and influence events in the upcoming healthcare debate in congress. Their chump-change "reforms" and timing is great, one has to give them that.
Chump change? Compared to HR676, this is insurance reform and not healthcare reform. HR676 would save at least twice that amount and cover all Americans with a better policy than the great majority have now.
That some of the Obama folks would give "positives" shows a suckup to the insurance, HMOs and drug companies. Their "voluntary" plan leaves much to be desired in my opinion.
This is from Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002222.html?sub=AR
------------
Health Groups Vow Cost Control$2 Trillion in Savings Offered Over Decade, White House Says
By Michael A. Fletcher and Ceci ConnollyWashington Post Staff WritersMonday, May 11, 2009
Volunteering to "do our part" to tackle runaway health costs, leading groups in the health-care industry have offered to squeeze $2 trillion in savings from projected increases over the next decade, White House officials said yesterday.
The pledge comes amid a debate over how, or whether, to overhaul the nation's health-care system, and Obama administration officials predicted that it will significantly increase momentum for passing such changes this year.
The groups aim to achieve the proposed savings by using new efficiencies to trim the rise in health-care costs by 1.5 percent a year, the officials said. That would carry huge implications for the national economy and the federal budget, both of which are significantly affected by health-care expenses.
Representatives from half a dozen health industry trade groups are scheduled to make a formal offer today in a White House meeting with President Obama.
"I don't think there can be a more significant step to help struggling families and the federal budget," a senior administration official said in a conference call with reporters. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the offer remains tentative.
The White House projects that the savings after five years under the proposal would mean about $2,500 a year in lower health-care bills for a family of four. Within 10 years, the savings would "virtually eliminate" the nation's budget deficit.
Despite such heady predictions, many aspects of the plan remain unclear. The groups did not spell out yesterday how they plan to reach such a target, and in a letter to Obama they offer only a broad pledge, not an outright commitment.
In addition, White House officials said, there is no mechanism to ensure that the groups live up to their offer, only the implicit threat of public embarrassment. And it would be difficult to track whether they come up with the promised savings, other than the imprecise measure of comparing current projections of health-care cost increases with future actual costs.
Nonetheless, White House officials were optimistic about the offer from industry officials, who previously tried to put up obstacles to health-care reform.
The trade groups making the pledge represent a broad spectrum of health-care interests, including the American Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and the Service Employees International Union.
"We are developing consensus proposals to reduce the rate of increase in future health and insurance costs through changes made in all sectors of the health system," the groups wrote to the president. "We are committed to taking action in private-public partnership to create a more stable and sustainable health care system."
The groups declined to elaborate on their proposal yesterday, saying they wanted to meet with Obama before doing so.
Much of the proposal tracks with ideas Obama included in his draft budget, and the goal of slowing the rise in health-care costs by 1.5 percent a year was first articulated by the administration. Lawmakers, however, are considering more draconian cuts.
"As restructuring takes hold and the population's health improves over the coming decade, we will do our part to achieve your administration's goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points the annual health care spending growth rate," the groups wrote.
Their offer is the latest attempt by the health-care industry to secure a seat at the bargaining table, as Democrats consider legislation that would simultaneously hold costs in check and extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.
Drugmakers, insurers, hospitals and the American Medical Association were among the harshest critics of a similar reform plan by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The insurance lobby, for instance, sponsored the "Harry and Louise" ads that ultimately turned popular sentiment against reform efforts.
But the explosive cost of health care has since strangled pay raises for most workers and slowed profits for many business, causing the industry to dramatically shift its posture. Earlier this year, it offered a major concession, offering to abolish policies that deny coverage because of preexisting coverage. In return, insurers said they want Congress to enact legislation that requires every American to have insurance.
During the presidential campaign, Obama opposed such an "individual mandate." But many Democrats back the concept, comparing it to a requirement that all drivers have auto insurance.
The prospect of millions of new customers has been a major enticement for other industry players as well. Drug manufacturers, suffering declining profits as consumers switch to cheaper generic medications, have put money and lobbying muscle behind universal coverage, expecting that the newly insured will become new customers.
"It is a recognition that the fictional television couple, Harry and Louise, who became the iconic faces of those who opposed health-care reform in the '90s, desperately need health-care reform in 2009," Obama said in remarks prepared for his event with industry officials today. "And so does America."
White House officials said many of the cost reductions would be "crucially dependent" on legal changes being contemplated in Congress as part of a health-care reform package.
The groups will have to streamline administrative costs, better coordinate care and bundle payments to achieve the projected savings. If they can slow the spiraling increases in health-care costs, it would greatly improve the prospects for expanding coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans.
Experts estimate that extending coverage to every American will cost $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over the next decade, much of the money going to start-up expenses. Over the longer term, Obama and some analysts expect to accrue savings from technological improvements and more appropriate, less unnecessary care.
The United States spends about $2.2 trillion a year on medical care, representing about 16 percent of the nation's overall economy. And the federal government has a big interest in lowering the cost of health care, given the hefty expense of its Medicaid and Medicaid coverage.
Obama has not been shy about framing his health initiatives in a broader economic context, calling reform integral to reining in federal budget deficits and to raising the take-home incomes of ordinary Americans.
Such comments tap into the most potent political argument identified by pollsters. Many Americans express concerns about the number of citizens who do not have coverage, but surveys show that the top complaint among voters is the rising cost of care.
"We cannot continue down the same dangerous road we've been traveling for so many years, with costs that are out of control, because reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a necessity that cannot wait," Obama said in the prepared remarks.
Advocates for expanding health-care coverage applauded the industry's avowed commitment yesterday.
"We are glad to see major industry trade groups approach the president with an offer to get health-care costs under control in a system that covers everyone, and we appreciate their emphasizing the urgency of health-care reform," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, which calls itself a national grass-roots organization pushing for expanded health-care coverage.
Just like clockwork, the insurance industry comes to the rescue to cut off single-payer debate and influence events in the upcoming healthcare debate in congress. Their chump-change "reforms" and timing is great, one has to give them that.
Chump change? Compared to HR676, this is insurance reform and not healthcare reform. HR676 would save at least twice that amount and cover all Americans with a better policy than the great majority have now.
That some of the Obama folks would give "positives" shows a suckup to the insurance, HMOs and drug companies. Their "voluntary" plan leaves much to be desired in my opinion.
This is from Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002222.html?sub=AR
------------
Health Groups Vow Cost Control$2 Trillion in Savings Offered Over Decade, White House Says
By Michael A. Fletcher and Ceci ConnollyWashington Post Staff WritersMonday, May 11, 2009
Volunteering to "do our part" to tackle runaway health costs, leading groups in the health-care industry have offered to squeeze $2 trillion in savings from projected increases over the next decade, White House officials said yesterday.
The pledge comes amid a debate over how, or whether, to overhaul the nation's health-care system, and Obama administration officials predicted that it will significantly increase momentum for passing such changes this year.
The groups aim to achieve the proposed savings by using new efficiencies to trim the rise in health-care costs by 1.5 percent a year, the officials said. That would carry huge implications for the national economy and the federal budget, both of which are significantly affected by health-care expenses.
Representatives from half a dozen health industry trade groups are scheduled to make a formal offer today in a White House meeting with President Obama.
"I don't think there can be a more significant step to help struggling families and the federal budget," a senior administration official said in a conference call with reporters. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the offer remains tentative.
The White House projects that the savings after five years under the proposal would mean about $2,500 a year in lower health-care bills for a family of four. Within 10 years, the savings would "virtually eliminate" the nation's budget deficit.
Despite such heady predictions, many aspects of the plan remain unclear. The groups did not spell out yesterday how they plan to reach such a target, and in a letter to Obama they offer only a broad pledge, not an outright commitment.
In addition, White House officials said, there is no mechanism to ensure that the groups live up to their offer, only the implicit threat of public embarrassment. And it would be difficult to track whether they come up with the promised savings, other than the imprecise measure of comparing current projections of health-care cost increases with future actual costs.
Nonetheless, White House officials were optimistic about the offer from industry officials, who previously tried to put up obstacles to health-care reform.
The trade groups making the pledge represent a broad spectrum of health-care interests, including the American Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and the Service Employees International Union.
"We are developing consensus proposals to reduce the rate of increase in future health and insurance costs through changes made in all sectors of the health system," the groups wrote to the president. "We are committed to taking action in private-public partnership to create a more stable and sustainable health care system."
The groups declined to elaborate on their proposal yesterday, saying they wanted to meet with Obama before doing so.
Much of the proposal tracks with ideas Obama included in his draft budget, and the goal of slowing the rise in health-care costs by 1.5 percent a year was first articulated by the administration. Lawmakers, however, are considering more draconian cuts.
"As restructuring takes hold and the population's health improves over the coming decade, we will do our part to achieve your administration's goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points the annual health care spending growth rate," the groups wrote.
Their offer is the latest attempt by the health-care industry to secure a seat at the bargaining table, as Democrats consider legislation that would simultaneously hold costs in check and extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.
Drugmakers, insurers, hospitals and the American Medical Association were among the harshest critics of a similar reform plan by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The insurance lobby, for instance, sponsored the "Harry and Louise" ads that ultimately turned popular sentiment against reform efforts.
But the explosive cost of health care has since strangled pay raises for most workers and slowed profits for many business, causing the industry to dramatically shift its posture. Earlier this year, it offered a major concession, offering to abolish policies that deny coverage because of preexisting coverage. In return, insurers said they want Congress to enact legislation that requires every American to have insurance.
During the presidential campaign, Obama opposed such an "individual mandate." But many Democrats back the concept, comparing it to a requirement that all drivers have auto insurance.
The prospect of millions of new customers has been a major enticement for other industry players as well. Drug manufacturers, suffering declining profits as consumers switch to cheaper generic medications, have put money and lobbying muscle behind universal coverage, expecting that the newly insured will become new customers.
"It is a recognition that the fictional television couple, Harry and Louise, who became the iconic faces of those who opposed health-care reform in the '90s, desperately need health-care reform in 2009," Obama said in remarks prepared for his event with industry officials today. "And so does America."
White House officials said many of the cost reductions would be "crucially dependent" on legal changes being contemplated in Congress as part of a health-care reform package.
The groups will have to streamline administrative costs, better coordinate care and bundle payments to achieve the projected savings. If they can slow the spiraling increases in health-care costs, it would greatly improve the prospects for expanding coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans.
Experts estimate that extending coverage to every American will cost $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over the next decade, much of the money going to start-up expenses. Over the longer term, Obama and some analysts expect to accrue savings from technological improvements and more appropriate, less unnecessary care.
The United States spends about $2.2 trillion a year on medical care, representing about 16 percent of the nation's overall economy. And the federal government has a big interest in lowering the cost of health care, given the hefty expense of its Medicaid and Medicaid coverage.
Obama has not been shy about framing his health initiatives in a broader economic context, calling reform integral to reining in federal budget deficits and to raising the take-home incomes of ordinary Americans.
Such comments tap into the most potent political argument identified by pollsters. Many Americans express concerns about the number of citizens who do not have coverage, but surveys show that the top complaint among voters is the rising cost of care.
"We cannot continue down the same dangerous road we've been traveling for so many years, with costs that are out of control, because reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a necessity that cannot wait," Obama said in the prepared remarks.
Advocates for expanding health-care coverage applauded the industry's avowed commitment yesterday.
"We are glad to see major industry trade groups approach the president with an offer to get health-care costs under control in a system that covers everyone, and we appreciate their emphasizing the urgency of health-care reform," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, which calls itself a national grass-roots organization pushing for expanded health-care coverage.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
more on the arrest of single-payer health folks-congress
The following is from the PNHP folks: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/may/why_we_risked_arrest.php
PNSP (Physicians for a National Health Program) have promoted positive healthcare reform for a long time. Soar 11-3 considers these folks allies in the fight to correct injustice of the current healthcare system and an injustice to our allies is considered an injustice to all the group.
If these folks or another of the larger single-payer groups does not get a seat at the senate healthcare discussion table, I suspect more "civil disobedience" might well occur. Tuesday might be an a day to watch C-Span.
----------------------
Posted on May 8, 2009
Why we risked arrest for single-payer health care
By Margaret Flowers, M.D.May 8, 2009
On May 5, eight health care advocates, including myself and two other physicians, stood up to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the Senate Finance Committee during a “public roundtable discussion” with a simple question: Will you allow an advocate for a single-payer national health plan to have a seat at the table?
The answer was a loud, “Get more police!” And we were arrested and hauled off to jail.
The fact that a national health insurance program is supported by the majority of the public, doctors and nurses apparently means nothing to Sen. Baucus. The fact that thousands of people in America are dying every year because they can’t get health care means nothing. The fact that over 1 million Americans go into bankruptcy every year due to medical debt — even though most of them had insurance when they got sick — means nothing.
And so, as the May 5 meeting approached, we prepared for another one of the highly scripted, well-protected events that are supposed to make up the “health care debate” using standard tools of advocacy. We organized call-in days and faxes to the members of the committee requesting the presence of one single-payer advocate at the table of 15. Despite thousands of calls and faxes, the only reply — received on the day before the event — was, “Sorry, but no more invitations will be issued.”
We knew that this couldn’t be correct. We had heard Sen. Baucus say on that very same day that “all options were on the table.” And so, the next day, we donned our suits and traveled to Washington. We had many knowledgeable single-payer advocates in our group. And as the meeting started, one of us, Mr. Russell Mokhiber, stood up to say that we were here and we were ready to take a seat. And he was promptly removed from the room.
In that moment, it all became so clear. We could write letters, phone staffers, and fax until the machines fell apart, but we would never get our seat at the table.
The senators understand that most people want a national health system and that an improved Medicare for All would include everybody and provide better health care at a lower cost. These facts mean nothing to most of them because they respond to only one standard tool of advocacy: money, and lots of it.
The people seated at the table represented the corporate interests: private health insurers and big business and those who support their agenda. The people whose voices were heard all represented organizations which pay huge sums of money to political campaigns. These interests profit greatly from the current health care industry and do not want changes that will hurt their large, personal pocketbooks.
And so, we have entered a new phase in the movement for health care as a human right: acts of civil disobedience. It is time to directly challenge corporate interests. History has shown that in order to gain human rights, we must be willing to speak out and risk arrest. We must engage in actions that expose corporate fraud and corruption. We must make our presence known.
And that is why the eight of us, knowledgeable health care advocates and providers, most of us parents, some of us grandparents, spoke out one-by-one at the Senate Finance Committee. And it is why we will continue to speak out and encourage others to do the same. Our voices must be strong enough to drown out the influence of corporate dollars.
Health care must become the civil rights movement of this decade. The opportunity is here. And we can create a single-payer national health care system.
Yes, we can.
------------------------
Dr. Margaret Flowers is a pediatrician in Baltimore and co-chair of the Maryland chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). Her statement was co-signed by Mark Dudzic, Labor Campaign for Single Payer; Russell Mokhiber, Single Payer Action; Carol Paris, M.D., PNHP; Katie Robbins, Healthcare-NOW!; Pat Salomon, M.D., PNHP; Adam Schneider, B’more Housing for All;
----------------------------------------------
PNSP (Physicians for a National Health Program) have promoted positive healthcare reform for a long time. Soar 11-3 considers these folks allies in the fight to correct injustice of the current healthcare system and an injustice to our allies is considered an injustice to all the group.
If these folks or another of the larger single-payer groups does not get a seat at the senate healthcare discussion table, I suspect more "civil disobedience" might well occur. Tuesday might be an a day to watch C-Span.
----------------------
Posted on May 8, 2009
Why we risked arrest for single-payer health care
By Margaret Flowers, M.D.May 8, 2009
On May 5, eight health care advocates, including myself and two other physicians, stood up to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the Senate Finance Committee during a “public roundtable discussion” with a simple question: Will you allow an advocate for a single-payer national health plan to have a seat at the table?
The answer was a loud, “Get more police!” And we were arrested and hauled off to jail.
The fact that a national health insurance program is supported by the majority of the public, doctors and nurses apparently means nothing to Sen. Baucus. The fact that thousands of people in America are dying every year because they can’t get health care means nothing. The fact that over 1 million Americans go into bankruptcy every year due to medical debt — even though most of them had insurance when they got sick — means nothing.
And so, as the May 5 meeting approached, we prepared for another one of the highly scripted, well-protected events that are supposed to make up the “health care debate” using standard tools of advocacy. We organized call-in days and faxes to the members of the committee requesting the presence of one single-payer advocate at the table of 15. Despite thousands of calls and faxes, the only reply — received on the day before the event — was, “Sorry, but no more invitations will be issued.”
We knew that this couldn’t be correct. We had heard Sen. Baucus say on that very same day that “all options were on the table.” And so, the next day, we donned our suits and traveled to Washington. We had many knowledgeable single-payer advocates in our group. And as the meeting started, one of us, Mr. Russell Mokhiber, stood up to say that we were here and we were ready to take a seat. And he was promptly removed from the room.
In that moment, it all became so clear. We could write letters, phone staffers, and fax until the machines fell apart, but we would never get our seat at the table.
The senators understand that most people want a national health system and that an improved Medicare for All would include everybody and provide better health care at a lower cost. These facts mean nothing to most of them because they respond to only one standard tool of advocacy: money, and lots of it.
The people seated at the table represented the corporate interests: private health insurers and big business and those who support their agenda. The people whose voices were heard all represented organizations which pay huge sums of money to political campaigns. These interests profit greatly from the current health care industry and do not want changes that will hurt their large, personal pocketbooks.
And so, we have entered a new phase in the movement for health care as a human right: acts of civil disobedience. It is time to directly challenge corporate interests. History has shown that in order to gain human rights, we must be willing to speak out and risk arrest. We must engage in actions that expose corporate fraud and corruption. We must make our presence known.
And that is why the eight of us, knowledgeable health care advocates and providers, most of us parents, some of us grandparents, spoke out one-by-one at the Senate Finance Committee. And it is why we will continue to speak out and encourage others to do the same. Our voices must be strong enough to drown out the influence of corporate dollars.
Health care must become the civil rights movement of this decade. The opportunity is here. And we can create a single-payer national health care system.
Yes, we can.
------------------------
Dr. Margaret Flowers is a pediatrician in Baltimore and co-chair of the Maryland chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). Her statement was co-signed by Mark Dudzic, Labor Campaign for Single Payer; Russell Mokhiber, Single Payer Action; Carol Paris, M.D., PNHP; Katie Robbins, Healthcare-NOW!; Pat Salomon, M.D., PNHP; Adam Schneider, B’more Housing for All;
----------------------------------------------
More GOP healthcare madness in Missouri
Some folks follow Missouri politics. This is the most recient GOP blockage of Medicaid in the state. Too bad our prisons are full, a few in the statehouse could benefit from the experience and stay. We the citizens would most certainly benefit.
--------------------------------
http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/1186821.html
Posted on Fri, May. 08, 2009
Bill’s defeat another bitter pill for Missouri’s poor
The Missouri legislature is about to cost the state a golden opportunity.
Because of intransigence by House Republicans, a deal that would enable 35,000 low-income citizens to obtain health insurance at no cost to state government is on the ropes.
Along with the relief it would bring to families, the deal would mean fewer uninsured patients in hospital emergency rooms, where medical care is costliest.
It would mean lower health insurance premiums for workers and employers, as hospitals and doctors would have fewer reasons to pass on the burden of uninsured care.
But by an 85-75 vote, almost entirely along party lines, the House this week refused an offer by Missouri hospitals to pay the state an additional $52.5 million a year. The money would come from federal funds that hospitals receive for treating uninsured patients.
By accepting the hospitals’ money, Missouri would qualify for $93 million a year in extra federal health funds.
While the Senate passed a bill to make use of what amounts to a $145.5 million-a-year gift, House Republicans balked. In a stormy debate, GOP members made clear their distaste for helping low-income Missourians with health care, which they repeatedly referred to as “welfare.” Their argument is uncharitable and foolish.
The proposal that Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration worked out with the Missouri Hospital Association would have offered Medicaid benefits to parents who earn up to 50 percent of the poverty level.
That amounts to an annual income of $11,025 for a family of four. Employer-provided health care at that salary level is scarce, and private health insurance is out of reach.
The legislature has one week to come up with an alternate plan that would enable the state to make use of the funds offered by the hospitals.
Any plan must make health care more accessible to low-income Missourians. The House just turned down a straightforward proposal to accomplish that.
House Republicans will be to blame if the session ends with the state forgoing $145.5 million, and 35,000 persons are left without hope of medical insurance.
© 2009 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.kansascity.com
------------------------------
in short, GOP in Missouri are telling some of the citizens: "Drop Dead" The proud tradition of the GOP in this state was to turn down about a billion dollars of federal healthcare monies during the last governor's term. They should hold their heads high by allowing fellow citizens to die and children to suffer.
--------------------------------
http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/1186821.html
Posted on Fri, May. 08, 2009
Bill’s defeat another bitter pill for Missouri’s poor
The Missouri legislature is about to cost the state a golden opportunity.
Because of intransigence by House Republicans, a deal that would enable 35,000 low-income citizens to obtain health insurance at no cost to state government is on the ropes.
Along with the relief it would bring to families, the deal would mean fewer uninsured patients in hospital emergency rooms, where medical care is costliest.
It would mean lower health insurance premiums for workers and employers, as hospitals and doctors would have fewer reasons to pass on the burden of uninsured care.
But by an 85-75 vote, almost entirely along party lines, the House this week refused an offer by Missouri hospitals to pay the state an additional $52.5 million a year. The money would come from federal funds that hospitals receive for treating uninsured patients.
By accepting the hospitals’ money, Missouri would qualify for $93 million a year in extra federal health funds.
While the Senate passed a bill to make use of what amounts to a $145.5 million-a-year gift, House Republicans balked. In a stormy debate, GOP members made clear their distaste for helping low-income Missourians with health care, which they repeatedly referred to as “welfare.” Their argument is uncharitable and foolish.
The proposal that Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration worked out with the Missouri Hospital Association would have offered Medicaid benefits to parents who earn up to 50 percent of the poverty level.
That amounts to an annual income of $11,025 for a family of four. Employer-provided health care at that salary level is scarce, and private health insurance is out of reach.
The legislature has one week to come up with an alternate plan that would enable the state to make use of the funds offered by the hospitals.
Any plan must make health care more accessible to low-income Missourians. The House just turned down a straightforward proposal to accomplish that.
House Republicans will be to blame if the session ends with the state forgoing $145.5 million, and 35,000 persons are left without hope of medical insurance.
© 2009 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.kansascity.com
------------------------------
in short, GOP in Missouri are telling some of the citizens: "Drop Dead" The proud tradition of the GOP in this state was to turn down about a billion dollars of federal healthcare monies during the last governor's term. They should hold their heads high by allowing fellow citizens to die and children to suffer.
Obama and single payer healthcare
Morning folks.
You tube has this little snip of Obama making reference to single payer health system. During the election, Obama moved back and forth on the issue.
Folks at Soar 11-3 are going to hold Obama accountable for the following, his support of single payer healthcare. So far, with the excluding of single-payer folks from his healthcare summits and the latest snap in congress; we are not amused.
One hopes this upcoming Tuesday, the senate allows the single-payer folks to attend. Mr. Bauchus "respects" us, but let's see if he allows access to his Bannana Republic hearings (note, Mr Bauchus had cops remove single-payer folks and told folks we need "more cops". In the meantime, the phone number for the committee is (202) 224-4515.
Call their office, leave a message to allow single-payer folks a seat at the table (as was promised)
Also, remember that May 30th is the nationwide action day for healthcare. Call the folks in power and let them know your position.
Mr C Bond, senator: phone dc: (202) 224-5721 and St. Louis: (314) 725-4484
his Cape Girardeau Office is: (573) 334-7044
-----------------
Ms Claire McCaskill: phone dc: (202) 224-6154 and St. Louis: 314-367-1364
her Cape Girardeaus Office: 573-651-0964
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
You tube has this little snip of Obama making reference to single payer health system. During the election, Obama moved back and forth on the issue.
Folks at Soar 11-3 are going to hold Obama accountable for the following, his support of single payer healthcare. So far, with the excluding of single-payer folks from his healthcare summits and the latest snap in congress; we are not amused.
One hopes this upcoming Tuesday, the senate allows the single-payer folks to attend. Mr. Bauchus "respects" us, but let's see if he allows access to his Bannana Republic hearings (note, Mr Bauchus had cops remove single-payer folks and told folks we need "more cops". In the meantime, the phone number for the committee is (202) 224-4515.
Call their office, leave a message to allow single-payer folks a seat at the table (as was promised)
Also, remember that May 30th is the nationwide action day for healthcare. Call the folks in power and let them know your position.
Mr C Bond, senator: phone dc: (202) 224-5721 and St. Louis: (314) 725-4484
his Cape Girardeau Office is: (573) 334-7044
-----------------
Ms Claire McCaskill: phone dc: (202) 224-6154 and St. Louis: 314-367-1364
her Cape Girardeaus Office: 573-651-0964
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Friday, May 8, 2009
Dems want healthcare -congress
The following is from the ED Show today. This interview deals with the complexity of getting healthcare bill thru senate and potential problems.
Multipayers take note, you are going to need the single-payer folks to get stuff done and some of us single-payers are not flipping on this subject at this time. Better seat a few of us at the table and seriously talk with us or take the risks of failure.
The otherside, parisites all; are unified. They attacked well before the healthcare summits and meetings were over. They intend to protect their cash flow and care not that a few thousand folks die from lack of health care.
Since Obama took the oath of office, estimates of 56 folks die each day from lack of healthcare. This does not contain the numbers whom die because the HMO or Insurance company says "No". How many folks will die before folks decide to do something?
The hell with insurance companies and HMOs, pass HR676 today.
Multipayers take note, you are going to need the single-payer folks to get stuff done and some of us single-payers are not flipping on this subject at this time. Better seat a few of us at the table and seriously talk with us or take the risks of failure.
The otherside, parisites all; are unified. They attacked well before the healthcare summits and meetings were over. They intend to protect their cash flow and care not that a few thousand folks die from lack of health care.
Since Obama took the oath of office, estimates of 56 folks die each day from lack of healthcare. This does not contain the numbers whom die because the HMO or Insurance company says "No". How many folks will die before folks decide to do something?
The hell with insurance companies and HMOs, pass HR676 today.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Show 5-6 Majority House leader. Frank Luntz and THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE
-----------
Ed did interview with Dem Majority leader over the Decomcratic healthcare agenda. also discussed is the Frank Luntz's "THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE". Some very useful info for the political action committee and membership of SOAR.
Vid from MSNBC and site where found is: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Realclearpolitics is a site that reproduces varied articles from papers, magazines, television--media on politics. Always a good read and variety.
Ed did interview with Dem Majority leader over the Decomcratic healthcare agenda. also discussed is the Frank Luntz's "THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE". Some very useful info for the political action committee and membership of SOAR.
Vid from MSNBC and site where found is: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Realclearpolitics is a site that reproduces varied articles from papers, magazines, television--media on politics. Always a good read and variety.
The Ed Show on MSNBC has a lot of healthcare information almost daily
-------------------------
another analysis of Senate arrests
This is from the folks at Real News Network. http://therealnews.com/t/
they have a good collection of vids and information. The vid below has comments that might be useful to those in the group
"Single-payer advocates protest Senate hearing
Chair of Finance Committee takes single-payer plan off the table and calls for "more police"
they have a good collection of vids and information. The vid below has comments that might be useful to those in the group
"Single-payer advocates protest Senate hearing
Chair of Finance Committee takes single-payer plan off the table and calls for "more police"
Immediate action needed call senate committee and demand single payer folks be included
This is something folks need to do and before next Tuesday:
It is important for the Senate Finance Committee to hear from you. The Senate Finance Committee's number is (202) 224-4515. They should be asked whether single payer will be included in the discussion on Tuesday. And, they should be told that with 60% of the American people, a majority of doctors, nurses and economists favoring single payer -- shouldn't single payer be the dominant voice? Isn't this a democracy that is supposed to represent the people?
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauchus needs to hear from the group.
It is important for the Senate Finance Committee to hear from you. The Senate Finance Committee's number is (202) 224-4515. They should be asked whether single payer will be included in the discussion on Tuesday. And, they should be told that with 60% of the American people, a majority of doctors, nurses and economists favoring single payer -- shouldn't single payer be the dominant voice? Isn't this a democracy that is supposed to represent the people?
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauchus needs to hear from the group.
Obermann--M Moore interview 7-07
The vid below is something we mulled over at the time of the release of the movie "Sicko". Most of the crew has seen the movie Sicko and a few related flicks like "Sick around the World"
Since the release of the movie, public interest in healthcare reform has waxed and waned. Single payer is off the table for some in power. Note: chair of the senate committee had single payer folks arrested, that is worthy of a third world banana republic leader with his cry for "more police". How about Mr senator: "More real leadership"?
It appears that some in congress are proud of their fawning sycophant roles as toady of insurance, hmos and drug companies. Wall Street folks will certainly reward your efforts with a few crumbs from the "master's table". What wonderful "servants of the people" we have in congress.
And these folks actually have no clue why so many of the public are pessimistic about the leaders and institutions of the land. Rocket scientists they are not for whom among us would trust the motives of these folks in light of events (or lack of them in some cases) .
This vid hopefully renews the spark in some folks and hopefully acts as a refresher:
Since the release of the movie, public interest in healthcare reform has waxed and waned. Single payer is off the table for some in power. Note: chair of the senate committee had single payer folks arrested, that is worthy of a third world banana republic leader with his cry for "more police". How about Mr senator: "More real leadership"?
It appears that some in congress are proud of their fawning sycophant roles as toady of insurance, hmos and drug companies. Wall Street folks will certainly reward your efforts with a few crumbs from the "master's table". What wonderful "servants of the people" we have in congress.
And these folks actually have no clue why so many of the public are pessimistic about the leaders and institutions of the land. Rocket scientists they are not for whom among us would trust the motives of these folks in light of events (or lack of them in some cases) .
This vid hopefully renews the spark in some folks and hopefully acts as a refresher:
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Pabulum of the Possible: Incremental Healthcare Reform
This is an article discussing doing healthcare reform piece meal. Such approaches to complex problems seldom work. This is worth reading:
---------------------------------
http://www.ilsinglepayercoalition.org/site/node/58 (Illinois single payer coalition)
Pabulum of the Possible: Incremental Healthcare Reform
By ispc_admin
Created 07/18/2008 - 12:07
Published on Common Dreams
by Donna Smith
So, here it is folks. Many intelligent and gifted leaders believe our healthcare system needs major reform and that a single payer system would be the ideal way to accomplish that overhaul. Yet many of those same bright people opt to support “incremental change” as the way to begin fixing a system that leaves millions without any access to healthcare and millions of others with inadequate access.
Just down and dirty: a single payer system would have every American pay into one pool for healthcare (just as we now pay into Medicare), and all claims would be paid from that one pool to patient-chosen doctors, clinics, hospitals and other providers. Publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare. That’s what single payer is.
Awesomely simple and exquisitely responsible, single payer offers patients maximum flexibility in seeking quality healthcare, and it offers the nation maximum “bang for the buck” by removing the mark-ups for excessive profit necessary in the current for-profit, private health insurance markets.
It’s not a difficult concept.
The incremental health reform plans are quite convoluted and difficult to follow. Designed to protect all the corporate, for-profit entities currently making money in our system, it is nearly impossible to accomplish universal access to care while maintaining the status quo of our national corporate healthcare system.
Make no mistake about it, Americans already pay more for healthcare than any other people on earth, and many don’t even get care at all though they are legally bound to pay it for others. (To read a great piece on this, See “Paying More, Getting Less” [2] by Joel Harrison in Dollars and Sense. As author Harrison points out, even the uninsured spend at nearly 10 percent of their incomes paying tax burdens for healthcare others will get, including their elected representatives.
We run scared rather than stand tall. We die and let others we love die without healthcare rather then fight the battle against the titan insurance industry and the gigantic pharmaceutical companies. We are not behaving like we give a damn; we are behaving like we need to beg for relief, for care - like we are weak.
We lost our generational fire somewhere between the Sea of Tranquility and the Lower Ninth Ward. How else do we explain our national ability to watch our fellow citizens drowning on rooftops while our national emergency manager worried about whether or not to roll his sleeves up for the cameras?
When did we become a nation of people who settle for the possible? We used to be made up of pioneers with spirits as big as the open plains and dreams to match. We built railroads no one ever thought we could, had the generational fortitude to win World War II, fought against oppression during the civil rights battles in the 60s, clawed and clamored to put a man on the moon first and told ourselves there were no limits to our aspirations.
Then we softened, and we began to settle for only what we thought we could get. I blame my generation - we baby boomers sold out in ways that our children and grandchildren are now dying for. We let our guard down when Viet Nam ended, when Watergate wrapped up, when Jimmy Carter lost and when Ronald Reagan clamped down on the labor movement and used the air traffic controllers as his ghoulish examples of what happens to people if they stand up together for what they believe.
We began to internalize a behavior of settling for the possible rather than losing the farm. America’s leaders behaved in the world like drunken bullies, demanding allegiance and rewarding compliance to what our leaders dictated. We taught ourselves that to succeed one must never break rank, lest you be crushed by those more powerful.
Why were we not in the streets, up in arms - quite literally - for our brothers and sisters in New Orleans? Why are we forgetting them still?
We are no longer our forefathers’ daughters or our foremothers’ sons. We lost our emotional and societal grounding and sought easier, softer ways - earn money, buy stuff, retire early, buy more stuff. We judged one another more based on superficial acquisitions than substantial accomplishments.
Well, it is time for the people of the nation to stop it. Just stop it. We know better than this, and we are smarter than this. Stop settling for the pabulum and demand the best solutions not just the possible. Healthcare for every person in this nation is not a pipe dream nor is it impossible to achieve in our lifetimes. We do not need to cede this battle to the next generation or the generation after that.
Don’t worry about the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals… they’ll find ways to make cash under a new, single payer system. Some folks will want to buy and have the resources to buy designer meds and procedures. And more power to them. But the vast majority of us will welcome paying into a single pool that will provide us the basic of health and preventative care. When I hear the incrementalists talk, I know they understand that any healthcare system built on profit-making cannot stand the test of justice and compassion - nor can it stand the test of fiscal responsibility, else we wouldn’t be having these problems today.
I admit to my complicity in not fighting soon enough or hard enough. I am ready for this battle. I was trained in life by a World War II veteran and a mom who worked hard to provide me with a good life full of opportunity. Now it is my turn to fight another tough American battle: the battle for sanity and common sense and the exponential potential of single payer. I want to leave this nation a better and stronger one, and unless I help fix this mess, I will surely have failed.
And I am my father’s daughter. I do not like to fail.
Donna Smith is founder of American Patients United [3].
Source URL: http://www.ilsinglepayercoalition.org/site/node/58
Links:[1] http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/17/10435/http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html http://www.americanpatientsunited.org/
---------------------------------
http://www.ilsinglepayercoalition.org/site/node/58 (Illinois single payer coalition)
Pabulum of the Possible: Incremental Healthcare Reform
By ispc_admin
Created 07/18/2008 - 12:07
Published on Common Dreams
by Donna Smith
So, here it is folks. Many intelligent and gifted leaders believe our healthcare system needs major reform and that a single payer system would be the ideal way to accomplish that overhaul. Yet many of those same bright people opt to support “incremental change” as the way to begin fixing a system that leaves millions without any access to healthcare and millions of others with inadequate access.
Just down and dirty: a single payer system would have every American pay into one pool for healthcare (just as we now pay into Medicare), and all claims would be paid from that one pool to patient-chosen doctors, clinics, hospitals and other providers. Publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare. That’s what single payer is.
Awesomely simple and exquisitely responsible, single payer offers patients maximum flexibility in seeking quality healthcare, and it offers the nation maximum “bang for the buck” by removing the mark-ups for excessive profit necessary in the current for-profit, private health insurance markets.
It’s not a difficult concept.
The incremental health reform plans are quite convoluted and difficult to follow. Designed to protect all the corporate, for-profit entities currently making money in our system, it is nearly impossible to accomplish universal access to care while maintaining the status quo of our national corporate healthcare system.
Make no mistake about it, Americans already pay more for healthcare than any other people on earth, and many don’t even get care at all though they are legally bound to pay it for others. (To read a great piece on this, See “Paying More, Getting Less” [2] by Joel Harrison in Dollars and Sense. As author Harrison points out, even the uninsured spend at nearly 10 percent of their incomes paying tax burdens for healthcare others will get, including their elected representatives.
We run scared rather than stand tall. We die and let others we love die without healthcare rather then fight the battle against the titan insurance industry and the gigantic pharmaceutical companies. We are not behaving like we give a damn; we are behaving like we need to beg for relief, for care - like we are weak.
We lost our generational fire somewhere between the Sea of Tranquility and the Lower Ninth Ward. How else do we explain our national ability to watch our fellow citizens drowning on rooftops while our national emergency manager worried about whether or not to roll his sleeves up for the cameras?
When did we become a nation of people who settle for the possible? We used to be made up of pioneers with spirits as big as the open plains and dreams to match. We built railroads no one ever thought we could, had the generational fortitude to win World War II, fought against oppression during the civil rights battles in the 60s, clawed and clamored to put a man on the moon first and told ourselves there were no limits to our aspirations.
Then we softened, and we began to settle for only what we thought we could get. I blame my generation - we baby boomers sold out in ways that our children and grandchildren are now dying for. We let our guard down when Viet Nam ended, when Watergate wrapped up, when Jimmy Carter lost and when Ronald Reagan clamped down on the labor movement and used the air traffic controllers as his ghoulish examples of what happens to people if they stand up together for what they believe.
We began to internalize a behavior of settling for the possible rather than losing the farm. America’s leaders behaved in the world like drunken bullies, demanding allegiance and rewarding compliance to what our leaders dictated. We taught ourselves that to succeed one must never break rank, lest you be crushed by those more powerful.
Why were we not in the streets, up in arms - quite literally - for our brothers and sisters in New Orleans? Why are we forgetting them still?
We are no longer our forefathers’ daughters or our foremothers’ sons. We lost our emotional and societal grounding and sought easier, softer ways - earn money, buy stuff, retire early, buy more stuff. We judged one another more based on superficial acquisitions than substantial accomplishments.
Well, it is time for the people of the nation to stop it. Just stop it. We know better than this, and we are smarter than this. Stop settling for the pabulum and demand the best solutions not just the possible. Healthcare for every person in this nation is not a pipe dream nor is it impossible to achieve in our lifetimes. We do not need to cede this battle to the next generation or the generation after that.
Don’t worry about the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals… they’ll find ways to make cash under a new, single payer system. Some folks will want to buy and have the resources to buy designer meds and procedures. And more power to them. But the vast majority of us will welcome paying into a single pool that will provide us the basic of health and preventative care. When I hear the incrementalists talk, I know they understand that any healthcare system built on profit-making cannot stand the test of justice and compassion - nor can it stand the test of fiscal responsibility, else we wouldn’t be having these problems today.
I admit to my complicity in not fighting soon enough or hard enough. I am ready for this battle. I was trained in life by a World War II veteran and a mom who worked hard to provide me with a good life full of opportunity. Now it is my turn to fight another tough American battle: the battle for sanity and common sense and the exponential potential of single payer. I want to leave this nation a better and stronger one, and unless I help fix this mess, I will surely have failed.
And I am my father’s daughter. I do not like to fail.
Donna Smith is founder of American Patients United [3].
Source URL: http://www.ilsinglepayercoalition.org/site/node/58
Links:[1] http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/17/10435/http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html http://www.americanpatientsunited.org/
Get them out Rotten apples in congressional witness bushel
At the nurses site, this is a comment made on healthcare and the current list of witnesses to the congressional committees and Obama healthcare summits
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/donna-smith-sicko-patient/2009/05/04/get-them-out-rotten-apples-congressional-witness-bushel-he
Get Them Out: Rotten Apples in Congressional Witness Bushel on Health Reform
Posted by Donna Smith - S... on May 4, 2009 - 8:34am
by Donna Smith
Many know by now that a single payer healthcare system is the type of reform most widely supported by the American people and a majority of nurses, doctors and healthcare professionals. Many also know that Congress has so far deftly and purposely shunned most expert witnesses who would offer evidence in favor of that publicly funded, privately delivered system. The media has also done its part to keep the message targeted away from single payer as recent independent studies showed how the mainstream media did its level best to keep big insurance and pharmaceutical advertisers happy by not reporting fairly on the topic.
Congress isn't alone in its shading the discussion nor is the media. Both followed President Obama's lead as he locked out the single payer voice from the first White House forum on health reform until the phone lines jammed with reports of planned protests by nurses in scrubs and white-coated docs marching outside the gates of the executive mansion while the industry "stakeholders" and the elected officials they support so mightily met inside at the invitation of Mr. Obama.
We might expect the fawning and fainting with glee over the cooperation between the usual suspects in this health reform period. With the most power-challenging and boat-rocking alternative kept out of the picture for now, those who profit most under a for-profit insurance based reform would be expected to act as if they have previously been enemies but are now ever so generously working together.
This is political theater staged by those with lots and lots of money in the game, and it is a fight for human rights being waged outside that political theater by those of us with lots and lots of real skin in the game. Millions of Americans have lost loved ones and homes and careers and good health and credit ratings to this travesty of a system, and none of the plans currently being "vetted" by this Congress or this President do much to mitigate that at all. It is a classic struggle of epic proportions.
But some of what is being offered and accepted as expert Congressional testimony is shocking even within this skewed and staged arena. There are some real rotten apples now in this Congressional record. And those rotten apples will spoil the whole process unless we all demand better. This fight for healthcare justice demands that we call for our best experts, our finest minds and not simply the most well-connected ones.
One example of the terribly biased testimonies being taken is that of the testimony submitted by Richard Scott to the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, subcommittee on health, on March 24, 2009. Mr. Scott reports that he was asked to submit his testimony to the committee. On his website, Conservatives for Patient Rights, Scott touts his own experience in the delivery of healthcare in this nation as reason enough to consider him an expert. And Scott is also launching some very inaccurate advertising on behalf of his "organization" in the effort to keep himself and his closet allies in the insurance and private provider industry in a very preferred position in the U.S. healthcare system.
Here's a bit of this Congressional expert witness's biography: Scott founded the Columbia Hospital Corporation in 1987, but dumped by the company's board of directors in 1997 in the midst of the nation's biggest healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid) fraud scandal. In 2001, Scott co-founded the Solantic Corporation, which operates walk-in medical care centers.
We need to know more about who is influencing Congress and the media now in the discussion. So, here's more about witness Scott: In July 1997, when Scott was then the chairman and CEO of Columbia/Hospital Corporation of America and was forced out by the company's board of directors, he left with a $10 million severance deal and 10 million shares of stock. At that time, the shares were worth more than $300 million. Scott was replaced by Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr., the co-founder of HCA and the brother of Senator Bill Frist, then Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate.
It's all just a little incestuous, don't you think?
But wait, our 2009 expert witness on healthcare reform in the U.S. left a little more than history behind at his company that speaks to how he views what is most important to him: making a buck in this system.
In 2001, HCA reached a plea agreement to pay $95 million in fines to the federal government to avoid criminal charges against the company. In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the government $631 million, plus interest, and paid another $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims. In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $1.7 billion to settle, including more than $500 million paid in 2003 to two whistleblowers.
$1.7 billion with a great big "B" was paid by HCA to resolve the Medicare and Medicaid fraud mess orchestrated under Mr. Scott's watch who walked away with his own sweet deal. The largest Medicare and Medicaid fraud case in U.S. history, an investigation of over 10 years and he walks away with hundreds of millions of dollars only to return as one of our current expert witnesses on health reform? Whew. That's an epic award and an epic injustice.
I worked for a Columbia-owned hospital in 1990. I was the billing manager. I was asked to do some very creative bookkeeping and went to the Medicare law and read that I would be risking prosecution if "I knew or should have known" what I was doing was illegal under federal law. As I read the law, it broadly imposed appropriate sanctions upon those who might consider bilking the taxpayer-funded system. My bosses told me if I wouldn't do the transactions, they would hire someone who would.
As a consequence of what I read about the law, I packed up my belongings, walked to my car and drove away from that hospital rather than break the law. My husband was three weeks away from having his first open-heart surgery, and it was two weeks before Christmas. We had no other source of income.
What I had been asked to do in order to keep my job - my $35,000 a year job - was not right and I knew it even as a relatively "green" billing manager. How in the world am I to believe that Richard Scott knew less than I did about what was right and what was wrong under the Medicare program? And why was my life's course forever altered in ways so very much different? He walked away with hundreds of millions. I certainly was not rewarded in any way for my honesty. I reported what I saw by way of letters to the government, but never heard anything back from my letters, save one response from a Senator who said they'd look into it.
And the fraud cases that were settled didn't even touch on all the ways companies headed up by some of 2009's "expert witnesses" like Richard Scott came up with to skirt the rules and bump up the bottom line. What I saw related to how Medicare bad debt is reimbursed - and it's still an area where rules are broken today. Scott never went to jail. He took his hundreds of millions and now returns to say what's needed in healthcare reform.
It's all about the money folks. It's all about the money.
We must demand that our Congress and our president hear from experts that are not of this ilk. We are better people than this. And our healthcare system must reflect our values of justice, decency and compassion. Dr. David Himmelstein of Physicians for a National Health Program testified finally a couple of weeks ago - but so far he has been the only expert from outside the corporate fold allowed to utter a word on the Congressional record on behalf of single payer. The Senate has invited no witness who strays from the canned agenda that will force us all to buy the defective product that is for-profit health insurance.
Mr. Scott didn't care one bit about ripping off you and ripping off me and ripping off any other patient or taxpayer in this nation. He should not be an expert now advising Congress or anyone else on healthcare reform. His commercials and his organization's communications should have to carry a disclaimer fully disclosing his involvement in the Columbia/HCA fraud case.
In fact, every witness ought to have to disclose their current source of any income as well as their conflicts of interest. Otherwise, we'll end up with a system crafted in large part by those whose interests are not shared by hard-working Americans who don't get rewarded if they break the law. How could Congress - our lawmakers - do less than demand full disclosure?
And, I would sure like to hear from a few witnesses whose salaries are not paid by the largest corporate interests in healthcare insurance, big Pharma or for-profit provider corporations. Congress needs to reverse this right now and invite real expert testimony from the broadest spectrum of law-abiding true stakeholders - not liars and cheats and gamers who would pretend they have conservative values at their core and as their reasons for opposing a single payer system.
Look at all the truths. Look at the evidence not the scare tactics. Listen to economic and social policy experts and clinical professionals and patients. But for God's sake, stop taking testimony from solely the big-money interests - else you'll get just the long-term results people like Scott would embrace.
--------------comment
I agree 100% http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/node has some good articles and information.
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/donna-smith-sicko-patient/2009/05/04/get-them-out-rotten-apples-congressional-witness-bushel-he
Get Them Out: Rotten Apples in Congressional Witness Bushel on Health Reform
Posted by Donna Smith - S... on May 4, 2009 - 8:34am
by Donna Smith
Many know by now that a single payer healthcare system is the type of reform most widely supported by the American people and a majority of nurses, doctors and healthcare professionals. Many also know that Congress has so far deftly and purposely shunned most expert witnesses who would offer evidence in favor of that publicly funded, privately delivered system. The media has also done its part to keep the message targeted away from single payer as recent independent studies showed how the mainstream media did its level best to keep big insurance and pharmaceutical advertisers happy by not reporting fairly on the topic.
Congress isn't alone in its shading the discussion nor is the media. Both followed President Obama's lead as he locked out the single payer voice from the first White House forum on health reform until the phone lines jammed with reports of planned protests by nurses in scrubs and white-coated docs marching outside the gates of the executive mansion while the industry "stakeholders" and the elected officials they support so mightily met inside at the invitation of Mr. Obama.
We might expect the fawning and fainting with glee over the cooperation between the usual suspects in this health reform period. With the most power-challenging and boat-rocking alternative kept out of the picture for now, those who profit most under a for-profit insurance based reform would be expected to act as if they have previously been enemies but are now ever so generously working together.
This is political theater staged by those with lots and lots of money in the game, and it is a fight for human rights being waged outside that political theater by those of us with lots and lots of real skin in the game. Millions of Americans have lost loved ones and homes and careers and good health and credit ratings to this travesty of a system, and none of the plans currently being "vetted" by this Congress or this President do much to mitigate that at all. It is a classic struggle of epic proportions.
But some of what is being offered and accepted as expert Congressional testimony is shocking even within this skewed and staged arena. There are some real rotten apples now in this Congressional record. And those rotten apples will spoil the whole process unless we all demand better. This fight for healthcare justice demands that we call for our best experts, our finest minds and not simply the most well-connected ones.
One example of the terribly biased testimonies being taken is that of the testimony submitted by Richard Scott to the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, subcommittee on health, on March 24, 2009. Mr. Scott reports that he was asked to submit his testimony to the committee. On his website, Conservatives for Patient Rights, Scott touts his own experience in the delivery of healthcare in this nation as reason enough to consider him an expert. And Scott is also launching some very inaccurate advertising on behalf of his "organization" in the effort to keep himself and his closet allies in the insurance and private provider industry in a very preferred position in the U.S. healthcare system.
Here's a bit of this Congressional expert witness's biography: Scott founded the Columbia Hospital Corporation in 1987, but dumped by the company's board of directors in 1997 in the midst of the nation's biggest healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid) fraud scandal. In 2001, Scott co-founded the Solantic Corporation, which operates walk-in medical care centers.
We need to know more about who is influencing Congress and the media now in the discussion. So, here's more about witness Scott: In July 1997, when Scott was then the chairman and CEO of Columbia/Hospital Corporation of America and was forced out by the company's board of directors, he left with a $10 million severance deal and 10 million shares of stock. At that time, the shares were worth more than $300 million. Scott was replaced by Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr., the co-founder of HCA and the brother of Senator Bill Frist, then Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate.
It's all just a little incestuous, don't you think?
But wait, our 2009 expert witness on healthcare reform in the U.S. left a little more than history behind at his company that speaks to how he views what is most important to him: making a buck in this system.
In 2001, HCA reached a plea agreement to pay $95 million in fines to the federal government to avoid criminal charges against the company. In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the government $631 million, plus interest, and paid another $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims. In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $1.7 billion to settle, including more than $500 million paid in 2003 to two whistleblowers.
$1.7 billion with a great big "B" was paid by HCA to resolve the Medicare and Medicaid fraud mess orchestrated under Mr. Scott's watch who walked away with his own sweet deal. The largest Medicare and Medicaid fraud case in U.S. history, an investigation of over 10 years and he walks away with hundreds of millions of dollars only to return as one of our current expert witnesses on health reform? Whew. That's an epic award and an epic injustice.
I worked for a Columbia-owned hospital in 1990. I was the billing manager. I was asked to do some very creative bookkeeping and went to the Medicare law and read that I would be risking prosecution if "I knew or should have known" what I was doing was illegal under federal law. As I read the law, it broadly imposed appropriate sanctions upon those who might consider bilking the taxpayer-funded system. My bosses told me if I wouldn't do the transactions, they would hire someone who would.
As a consequence of what I read about the law, I packed up my belongings, walked to my car and drove away from that hospital rather than break the law. My husband was three weeks away from having his first open-heart surgery, and it was two weeks before Christmas. We had no other source of income.
What I had been asked to do in order to keep my job - my $35,000 a year job - was not right and I knew it even as a relatively "green" billing manager. How in the world am I to believe that Richard Scott knew less than I did about what was right and what was wrong under the Medicare program? And why was my life's course forever altered in ways so very much different? He walked away with hundreds of millions. I certainly was not rewarded in any way for my honesty. I reported what I saw by way of letters to the government, but never heard anything back from my letters, save one response from a Senator who said they'd look into it.
And the fraud cases that were settled didn't even touch on all the ways companies headed up by some of 2009's "expert witnesses" like Richard Scott came up with to skirt the rules and bump up the bottom line. What I saw related to how Medicare bad debt is reimbursed - and it's still an area where rules are broken today. Scott never went to jail. He took his hundreds of millions and now returns to say what's needed in healthcare reform.
It's all about the money folks. It's all about the money.
We must demand that our Congress and our president hear from experts that are not of this ilk. We are better people than this. And our healthcare system must reflect our values of justice, decency and compassion. Dr. David Himmelstein of Physicians for a National Health Program testified finally a couple of weeks ago - but so far he has been the only expert from outside the corporate fold allowed to utter a word on the Congressional record on behalf of single payer. The Senate has invited no witness who strays from the canned agenda that will force us all to buy the defective product that is for-profit health insurance.
Mr. Scott didn't care one bit about ripping off you and ripping off me and ripping off any other patient or taxpayer in this nation. He should not be an expert now advising Congress or anyone else on healthcare reform. His commercials and his organization's communications should have to carry a disclaimer fully disclosing his involvement in the Columbia/HCA fraud case.
In fact, every witness ought to have to disclose their current source of any income as well as their conflicts of interest. Otherwise, we'll end up with a system crafted in large part by those whose interests are not shared by hard-working Americans who don't get rewarded if they break the law. How could Congress - our lawmakers - do less than demand full disclosure?
And, I would sure like to hear from a few witnesses whose salaries are not paid by the largest corporate interests in healthcare insurance, big Pharma or for-profit provider corporations. Congress needs to reverse this right now and invite real expert testimony from the broadest spectrum of law-abiding true stakeholders - not liars and cheats and gamers who would pretend they have conservative values at their core and as their reasons for opposing a single payer system.
Look at all the truths. Look at the evidence not the scare tactics. Listen to economic and social policy experts and clinical professionals and patients. But for God's sake, stop taking testimony from solely the big-money interests - else you'll get just the long-term results people like Scott would embrace.
--------------comment
I agree 100% http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/node has some good articles and information.
Frank Luntz's new healthcare playbook for GOP: The Language of Healthcare
Some of you already know about the new healthcare talking points playbook of Frank Luntz. Few have seen it in its full text. Here it it, all 20 pages. Short and sweet and GOP spokespersons are already quoting it word for word.
Luntz is quite brilliant master of words and has been the GOP's main source of talking points for over a decade. Compare some of the words and concepts to the Ronald Regan speech for AMA many years ago.
Note: "“Time” is the government healthcare killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on
Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the healthcare you need - could. Delayed care is denied care.” from below, a quote--------------that is very, very true and the politics of "no" is just the thing.
Get ready for our little rounds of demonstrations, phone calls and more at the end of the month.
---------------------------
THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009
THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE
“WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” OF HEALTHCARE
(1) Humanize your approach. Abandon and exile ALL references to the “healthcare
system.” From now on, healthcare is about people. Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most: Individualize. Personalize. Humanize.
(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences. If you say there is no healthcare
crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say. It is a
credibility killer for most Americans. A better approach is to define the crisis in your
terms. “If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford healthcare, it is a crisis.” Better yet, “If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.” And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a healthcare crisis.”
(3) “Time” is the government healthcare killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on
Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the healthcare you need - could. Delayed care is denied care.”
(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around
“politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition. Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of healthcare. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government healthcare because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know about or care about current limits to competition). But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care - so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It’s not an economic issue. It’s a bureaucratic issue.
(5) The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have
to humanize them. You’ll notice we recommend the phrase “government takeover” rather than “government run” or “government controlled” It’s because too many politician say “we don’t want a government run healthcare system like Canada or Great Britain” without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. “In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 1
(6) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how
Americans define quality, and so should you. Once again, focus on the importance of
timeliness, but then add to it the specter of “denial.” Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they will be denied the healthcare they need for whatever reason. This is also important because it is an attribute of a government healthcare system that the Democrats CANNOT offer. So say it. “The plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive.”
(7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats”
will establish the standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is anathema to Americans. Your approach? Call for the “protection of the personalized doctor-patient relationship.” It allows you to fight to protect and improve something good rather than only fighting to prevent something bad.
(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs.
Make no mistake: the high cost of healthcare is still public enemy number one on this
issue - and why so many Americans (including Republicans and conservatives) think the Democrats can handle healthcare better than the GOP. You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.
(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford
healthcare. Here is the perfect sentence for addressing cost and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies: “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”
(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re
for. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your campaign to center around why this
healthcare plan is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for
America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst. What Americans are looking for in healthcare that your “solution” will provide is, in a word, more: “more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”
You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of reform. The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes “President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,” then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 2
THE BIG PICTURE:
AMERICA’S HEALTHCARE CLIMATE
This document is based on polling results and Instant Response dial sessions conducted in April 2009. It captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to hear. The Words That Work boxes that follow are already being used by a few Congressional and Senatorial Republicans. From today forward, they should be used by everyone.
But don’t expect to reach everyone. More than one quarter of the population will back significant government involvement in healthcare and a third support “universal” care. The primary message of this document is to focus on the persuadables and generate support among wayward Republicans and conservatives. Here’s how.
(1) Acknowledge the crisis or risk the consequences. Fully 70% of Americans consider
our healthcare system to be either in a state of crisis or seriously troubled and requires
significant reform. While it is true that the “crisis” response has dropped significantly in the past 15 years, the percentage of Americans who think the system needs significant reform has soared. So you say there is no healthcare crisis, you are telling those 70 percent that you are ignorant of their fears and concerns.
How would you define the state of the healthcare system in America today?
It is in crisis and needs a total overhaul. 12.0%
It is seriously troubled and needs significant 57.5%
revisions.
It is adequate but still needs tweaks. 15.1%
It is a good system and only needs minor 13.3%
changes.
It is one of the best systems in the world and 2.1%
doesn’t need to be changed.
The best approach is to empathize with the fear, anxiety and financial pain people are clearly feeling right now. So instead of dismissing their concerns, acknowledge them -up front - and then pivot to your solution. Some conservatives will undoubtedly find this distasteful. But failure to connect on a personal level at the beginning will lead to communication failure at the end.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 3
WORDS THAT WORK
If you can’t get the treatment you need, when you need it, there is a crisis.
If you are denied the ability to choose the doctor or hospital that’s best for you, then it is a crisis.
If you can’t afford the coverage you need for you and your family, then you have a crisis.
We need to stop looking at it from a global perspective and restore the humanity to healthcare. We need to focus more on people and less on the system.
This is the single best approach to the crisis language because it individualizes and
personalizes healthcare - and shows empathy for anyone and everyone struggling right now. This plays into more favorable Republican territory by protecting individual care while downplays the need for a comprehensive national healthcare plan.
(2) You simply MUST be on the side of “the right reform.” The status quo is no longer
acceptable. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe significant reform is
needed - and they see Republicans (and the insurance companies) as the roadblock. If the dynamic becomes “President Obama and Congressional Democrats are on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,” -- which is exactly what Obama has already started to promote -- the public will side with the Democrats and you will lose both the communication and the policy.
WORDS THAT DON’T WORK
We don’t need a complete overhaul of our health sector. We need to support what works and change what doesn’t.
The language above from a conservative website doesn’t work for two reasons:
1) It starts out with a negative. Unfortunately, that’s how most
conservatives begin the healthcare discussion, and then they’re surprised when only the most ardent followers agree with them. Start by telling them what you are for, not what you are against.
2) It talks about the system, not about the individual. Healthcare is
personal, and so your opening statement should be personal.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 4
Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that promotes “protection” of what Americans want and demand most:
WORDS THAT WORK A LOT BETTER
We need to carefully address America’s healthcare challenges. Let’s find immediate, measurable ways to make it more accessible and affordable without jeopardizing quality, individual choice, or personalized care. And let’s protect the doctor-patient relationship
Be sensitive to the anti-Washington bias ingrained in both parties. President Obama has already begun to employ an “us vs. them” context to the debate - hinting that those who oppose his reforms support the “special interests.” You need to be very careful to be seen as challenging the “Washington special interests” rather than defending them.
OBAMA WORDS THAT WORK
Now, I know people are skeptical about whether Washington can bring about this change. Our inability to reform health care in the past is just one example of how special interests have had their way, and the public interest has fallen by the wayside. And I know people are afraid we'll draw the same old lines in the sand and give in to the same entrenched interests and arrive back at the same stalemate that
we've been stuck in for decades. - President Obama
(3) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re
for. Overt attacks against the Democratic proposals will fail if they aren’t balanced with your solutions. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your communication effort to center around why the Democratic-supported “government takeover of healthcare” is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst.
Later in this document I offer the best language to talk about the proper role of
government, but it is important to note in this opening section that Republicans who
simply run against Washington-run healthcare will lose the healthcare debate. It may be accurate, and it may be ideologically sound, but a campaign against government healthcare has left the GOP at least 20 points behind on the issue - perhaps more. There is a far better approach. Here is the perfect passage for articulating the Republican agenda of opposing the Democratic plan while remaining positive about your principles:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 5
WORDS THAT WORK
Whether you call it a crisis, a problem, or a challenge is less important than tackling the real challenges to expand healthcare availability, lower costs, and ensure quality of care.
As our first priority, we need to preserve what works in America, protect the sacred doctor-patient relationship, and allow people to choose the personal care that suits their individual needs.
We should be cautious of proposed government fixes that increase taxpayer costs and shrink personal choices. And we should avoid government intrusion that decreases quality and increases bureaucracy.
We need targeted reform with measurable results that improves patient care - not a politicized, special interest-driven radical restructuring.
In the five sentences above, you have redefined the issue, personalized it, told people what you support, articulated what you’re against, and offered a vision of healthcare reform that everyone - including most Democrats - can eagerly embrace.
(4) It’s about $$$: cost and profit. Your solution HAS to address the financial component
of healthcare. It’s on people’s minds and so it must be in your approach.
Which of the following is the American healthcare system's single biggest problem?
Too profit-driven 59.9%
Too bureaucratic 38.5%
Too inaccessible 20.5%
Too complicated 19.3%
Too restrictive 12.6%
Too confusing 12.4%
Too limited 10.5%
Too unsafe/intimidating/unpredictable/ Less than 10 %
insensitive
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 6
(5) The availability and bureaucracy of healthcare causes significant frustration. A
quick scan of the polling data below shows that there is no love lost for insurance
companies - primarily because of their perceived profitability, a lack of accessibility, their lack of accountability, and an excess of bureaucracy. In fact, notice how many of the top complaints involve health insurance in some way.
We suggest ratcheting up the rhetoric against insurance companies to almost the same degree as you do against Washington bureaucracy. Call the Democratic plan a “bailout for the insurance industry” - both because it is, and because it will build lasting credibility by going after the two things the American people hate most: Washington bureaucracy and insurer greed.
Which of the following is the greatest short-coming of America's healthcare system?
Not having health insurance 49.8%
Dealing with the insurance companies 43.0%
The lack of focus on preventative medicine 39.6%
That healthcare is not yet universal 34.5%
Inflexibility of healthcare plans 30.9%
Insurance companies’ refusal to cover 30.9%
preexisting conditions
Too many frivolous lawsuits 30.4%
Too much gov’t regulation/intervention 11.3%
Not enough gov’t regulation/oversight 5.9%
Poor quality of care 5.8%
Very few Americans are complaining about “not enough general practitioners,” “not enough specialists,” or “too unsafe.” In fact, only 6% say “poor quality of care” is one of their three top concerns. The lesson is this: people do believe that American healthcare TODAY offers good quality and the doctors we need. Use this to your advantage. Raise the prospect of what happens when - with all the other problems we have in healthcare and with everything we already know about government - we follow the Democratic proposal and jeopardize our quality of care and access to good doctors by putting politicians in charge of your healthcare.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 7
(6) Your political opponents are the Democrats in Congress and the bureaucrats in
Washington, not President Obama. Every time we test language that criticized the President by name, the response was negative - even among Republicans. Americans want solutions, not politics. Here is a better approach:
WORDS THAT WORK
Now is not the time to play politics with healthcare. Now is the time for everyone to work together to achieve what matters most: more affordable, more accessible, more individualized and personalized healthcare.
Therefore, we ask the President to commit to the principle that the government that can’t even run a company should not be running healthcare.
We ask him to commit to the principle that doctors and patients should be making healthcare decisions, not some Washington bureaucracy.
And we ask him to commit to patient-centered, not government-
centered healthcare. In turn, we commit to working with him on his stated goals of increasing efficiency and lowering healthcare costs for all.
If you make this debate about Republicans vs. Obama, you lose. But if you make it about Americans vs. politicians, you win. When asked directly what would be the best reason to oppose what President Obama is trying to do regarding healthcare, Americans gave us two clear winners:
1) “It could lead to the government setting standards of care, instead of
doctors who really know what’s best.”
2) “It could lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in
line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national
healthcare.”
And if you find that you must challenge the president, we suggest the following.
“President Obama wants to put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare. I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.”
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 8
A BALANCED APPROACH:
“AFFORDABILITY, QUALITY, & ACCESS”
OVERVIEW
Cost remains king of the healthcare crisis. Americans of all political stripes and
demographic backgrounds will agree that their number one complaint about healthcare today is how much they have to pay for it and how profit-driven it has become.
However, if you ask a certain question a certain way, you change the game entirely:
THE QUESTION YOU MUST ASK EVERY HEALTHCARE TOWN HALL FORUM
Would you rather…
“Pay the costs you pay today for the quality of care you currently receive,”
-- OR--
“Pay less for your care, but potentially have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatments you need.”
Their Answer:
OVERWHELMINGLY KEEP THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT
Put slightly differently, here are the results from our national survey:
And if the federal government were to offer a healthcare plan that was 20 percent less
expensive than what you probably pay now and gives you many but not all the benefits and
choices you have now, would you be more likely to sign up for the cheaper government plan or pay for the more expensive private plan?
More expensive private plan 63.0%
Cheaper government plan 37.0%
Note: Even the most liberal Obama voters narrowly preferred the private plan by 51%-49%. As you move across the spectrum, preference for the more expensive private plan grows exponentially: 54%-46% for moderate Obama voters, 71%-29% for moderate McCain voters, and 86%-14% for conservative McCain voters.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 9
Americans will prioritize cost over quality right up until the moment they realize that it’s their quality that they are sacrificing. So put it these terms, because this is exactly the choice that the healthcare legislation is putting before Americans today. Here’s the best way to do it:
WORDS THAT WORK:
THE PERFECT PLATFORM FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM
“As a matter of principle, Republicans are firmly committed to providing genuine access to affordable, quality healthcare for every American. The time has come to create a balanced, common sense approach that will guarantee that Americans can receive the care they deserve and protect the sacred doctor-patient relationship. We will oppose any politician-run system that denies you the treatments you need, when you need them.
TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY
When it comes to healthcare costs, the biggest cost concern among all cost components is the threat of catastrophic expenses. “The potential costs I would be responsible for in a catastrophic situation” is the first or second biggest fear among two-thirds of Americans, followed by “the monthly premiums that I have to pay” at just over 55%. Co-pays, deductibles, out-of-network costs, and even prescription medications barely register.
(7) WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE & MISMANAGEMENT are your best targets for
bringing down costs. Make no mistake: the high cost of healthcare is still public enemy number one - and the hardest for Republicans to attack. Republicans are currently blaming the lack of real competition, but in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. Moreover, fixing the problem utilizing the tax code sounds disingenuous to some, dangerous to others, and ineffective to almost everyone. But the combination of waste, fraud, and mismanagement along with the consequences of the ongoing lawsuit abuse is both credible and accurate.
WORDS THAT WORK
As a matter of principle, every American should have access to
affordable, quality healthcare. How? By ending all the waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the system -- and by eliminating all the unnecessary tests and procedures that are being imposed on patients by doctors practicing defensive medicine rather than preventative medicine.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 10
We need to keep healthcare patient-centered rather than governmentcentered. With a greater focus on preventing waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement, and by promoting greater access to information, prevention, and wellness for all Americans - we can do it.
(8) Shift the healthcare focus to “preventative treatments” and “early detection.” Tell
people that the single best way to reduce healthcare costs is to promote “wellness.” Wellness emerged from our research as one of the four most important core values for American healthcare. Apply the principle to lower costs and you have a solid answer for cost-conscience Americans.
WORDS THAT WORK
We have a system that rewards insurance companies for insuring people who are not sick and are not going to get sick, and then we penalize companies that insure people who are sick. Five diseases account for 75% of all healthcare dollars in this country - five preventable diseases. Prevention is the key for us if we want to
control healthcare costs. - Senator Tom Coburn
WORDS THAT WORK
The earlier we detect, the more options we have. The better we educate, the better prevention works. And consequently, the less expensive healthcare is for the American family.
- Senator Richard Burr
TALKING ABOUT QUALITY
(9) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how
Americans define quality, and so should you. The key opportunity here is that this
commitment goes beyond what the Democrats can offer. Their plan will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they can actually receive. This is more than just rationing. To most Americans, rationing suggests limits or shortages - for others. But personalizing it - “delaying your tests and denying your treatment” -- is the concept most likely to change the most minds in your favor.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 11
(10) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats”
will establish a single standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what
treatment based on how much it costs is an anathema to Americans. There are a number
of ways to attack this:
-- Demand the “protection of the personal doctor-patient relationship.”
-- Compare the personalized relationship with their doctor to the distant,
cold, calculations of a federal medical panel.
-- Utilize examples of medical breakthroughs that would be undermined or
jeopardized.
WORDS THAT WORK
The problem with federal standardization is that one size doesn’t fit all.
It’s true that research can tell us what usually works best, and doctors use that research all the time. They rely on The New England Journal of Medicine and other studies to develop a set of best practices.
But they also know that healthcare is very personal, so doctors
combine that knowledge with the essential freedom to tailor care to the individual. This has lead to some exciting advances, like in genomics research, which allows doctors to prescribe medications that are designed to suit your individual body.
So one size definitely does not fit all, and we should never allow a
federal panel of bureaucrats to erase these great gains in personalized care.
- Senator Jon Kyl
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 12
FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS, WASHINGTON LOBBYISTS & OUT-OF-TOUCH POLITICIANS: REFORM AMERICA DOESN’T WANT
“No Washington bureaucrat or healthcare lobbyist should stand between your family and your doctor. The Democrats want to put Washington politicians in charge of YOUR healthcare. We can and must do better. Say no to a Washington takeover of healthcare and say yes to personalized patient-centered care.”
The best anti-Democrat message
Americans of all political stripes agree on this: the government does a poor job regulating healthcare today. Even if they disagree on why it does a poor job, they all share a distrust of mixing Washington with their healthcare. Consider:
How effective is the government at regulating healthcare in the U.S.?
Extremely Effective 0.6%
Very Effective 3.1%
Somewhat Effective 21.6%
Somewhat Ineffective 19.3%
Very Ineffective 32.4%
Extremely Ineffective 20.5%
Surprisingly, there was little difference between Democrats and Republicans; people
from both parties skewed heavily towards the “ineffective” answers. This sets the context for the entire message campaign that follows.
(11) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around
politicians, bureaucrats, and Washington… not the free market, tax incentives, or
competition. Simply, healthcare is too personal and vital to Americans to put a price tag on it. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government healthcare because it’s too expensive or anti-competitive. But they are deathly afraid that government will lower their quality of care - so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 13
Allow me to shout, for I fear conservatives will continue to make this mistake if someone doesn’t stand up and shout out:
Healthcare is NOT an economic issue. It’s a personal issue.
Let me be as clear and definitive as I can about this assertion. Every message by every Republican speaker that delved into an economic argument about healthcare was poorly received. Every polling question that asked about the economic (private sector, free market, competition, etc.) component of healthcare failed. Consider the following:
Which healthcare system would you most like to see America adopt in the coming years?
Patient-centered Healthcare 61.8%
Free Market Healthcare 20.3%
Private Healthcare 9.3%
If you’re still not convinced, consider the following:
Who or what would you say is most to blame
for the high cost of healthcare today?
Waste, fraud & abuse 47.5%
Insurance companies 42.5%
Mal-practice lawsuits 31.5%
Pharmaceutical companies 26.3%
Lack of regulation & oversight 13.8%
Lack of private competition 6.5%
Nobody is asking for “private healthcare” or “free market healthcare.” There is no
demand for more “competition.” Those are economic terms. They want patient-centered healthcare - healthcare that’s individualized, personalized and humanized. So if you want to demonstrate to Americans that you understand and empathize, stop bringing in economic terminology into a debate about healthcare.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 14
(12) What Americans do care about: “denial” of care. It is essential that “deny” and “denial”
enter the conservative lexicon immediately because it is at the core of what scares Americans
most about a government takeover of healthcare. Then add to it the source of that denial and you have the perfect anti-government, anti-Washington and anti-Democratic message:
What would you be most concerned about
if the government were to further regulate healthcare?
Being denied a procedure or medication 33.1%
because a Washington bureaucrat says
no
Quality of care going down 24.6%
Putting special interests’ needs before 23.4%
the public’s needs
Getting in the way of the doctor-patient 22.3%
relationship
A longer list of regulations will lead to 20.8%
longer lines and longer waits for care
Note: ALL of the more abstract or economic arguments like “inhibiting research into new cures” “forcing doctors to study regulations instead of medicine,” or “increasing the national debt” failed to make the list above. Why? Because they aren’t personal.
WORDS THAT DO NOT WORK
There’s another thing that Americans should be concerned about if we are going to have government run healthcare: 75% of all the innovations in healthcare in the world come out of this country.
There’s a reason for that. It’s because even though we don’t have a good market, the market we still have generates entrepreneurship, invention, advancement, and excellence in terms of new ideas and new cures and new treatments in healthcare. That will go away under government run healthcare, and with it tons of jobs.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 15
(13) Maximize your attacks on the Democratic plan by choosing the BEST words. For
instance, calling it the “Democratic plan” isn’t your best bet; doing so makes it political in the wrong way. It makes the issue Republicans vs. Democrats - which doesn’t favor you. The issue needs to be Americans vs. Washington. So here are the words to use:
· “This plan puts politicians in charge of your healthcare” is even better than “bureaucrats.” Bureaucrats are scary - but at least they are professionals. But politicians? They bring all the wrong things to something as vital as healthcare. Both words do damage to the Democratic plan, but “politicians” does the most.
· “Washington” beats “Government.” Washington has all the problems of every other level of government, and more.
· “Washington Takeover” beats “Washington Control.” Takeovers are like coups - they both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom. What Americans fear most is that Washington politicians will dictate what kind of care they can receive.
(14) Americans believe and fear that if the Washington gets involved in their healthcare,
quality of care will greatly diminish. Most agree that if the government runs
healthcare, it will take longer to get the care they need - if they can even get it at all. The point here is to remind people why they should oppose the Washington-centric, politician-based healthcare system by personalizing the harm:
“YOUR quality of care will go down if THEY in Washington make YOUR healthcare decisions for you.”
WORDS THAT WORK
This plan may sound good rhetorically, but at the end of the day, we are moving very swiftly towards a Washington-engineered, bureaucratic controlled, healthcare system. And we all know that when the government gets in the middle of anything, the quality can
quickly diminish. - Eric Cantor
Note that in this case, saying healthcare system is actually okay - because you are using
the word as a weapon to describe what the Democrats are trying to do.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 16
(15) ISSUE: Federal Standardization. Oppose this policy idea by attacking bureaucrats
in the name of protecting the doctor-patient relationship. Polling reveals two attacks that work best against the creation of a federal panel that would determine a standardized approach to medical care.
-- “It would have federal bureaucrats determining healthcare standards
rather than the doctors who are actually providing the care.”
-- “It will take the power away from patients and doctors to choose what
treatment the patient receives and give it to the politicians in
Washington.”
WORDS THAT WORK
Science and research should be used to enhance and improve
healthcare quality, not limit a patient’s choices or options. We should encourage doctors and healthcare professionals to share best practices and learn from each other’s experiences, but we need to recognize that every patient is different and every illness needs an individualized, personalized approach. Statistical analysis can help, but healthcare requires a human approach, timely decisions, and the right of patients to try an innovative approach if everything else has failed.
A federal panel that looks at healthcare from a national perspective will not be flexible enough to react to individual patient needs. The ultimate power to decide the best treatment needs to remain with the patient and the doctor.
There are specific words here that are particularly effective:
-- “Every patient is different” because it’s as truism we already believe.
Similarly, “a human approach” puts the humanity back into healthcare.
-- “Healthcare by committee” because it suggests an impersonal approach to
important decisions;
-- “Inefficiency” because it suggests more waste, fraud and mismanagement.
-- “Letting doctors make the decisions” because we believe they are the
most qualified, capable, and have our best interests at heart.
The following Words That Work box puts it all together:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 17
WORDS THAT WORK
Federal standardization is healthcare by committee - and we don’t need the inefficiencies of government committees making healthcare decisions.
Doctors are our true experts. The best system is where a patient and a doctor make the decisions about care. Doctors have to go through a pretty rigorous plan to get “Dr.” next to their name, and the overwhelming majority of them are great doctors.
We don’t need some committee rationing care and telling people what they can and can’t have. We need to give patients the best choices of health plans and doctors and let them make their own decisions.
- Senator Jim DeMint
(16) The cure rate differentials between the United States and countries with
government-run healthcare is a powerful weapons. You need to assemble a list of the five most staggering facts that show better cure rates in the United States than our neighbors in Canada and our cousins in Great Britain. Focus on the kinds of diseases that touch the most people in the most personal ways, like cancer and heart disease. The facts must be accurate - because our research indicates that this kind of information really will move people. It personalizes the harm of government-run healthcare in a powerful way.
WORDS THAT WORK
Why is it that we have a 50% higher cure rate in cancers that
anybody else in the world? And why is it if you get breast cancer in America, you are into your treatment within three weeks and in the rest of the world it’s four months or six months or nine months?
- Senator Tom Coburn
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 18
PERSONALIZE, HUMANIZE, AND EMPHASIZE THE
DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
OVERVIEW
Notice how the highest priorities below are highly personalized - and none is more important than the personal doctor-patient relationship. It’s not about healthcare in general. It’s about MY doctor and MY choice - without any interference.
Which TWO concepts or phrases do you AGREE with the MOST?
Decisions about my healthcare should be 58.3%
between me and my doctor and no one else
I should have the right to choose the 52.5%
healthcare that’s right for me
Healthcare dollars should follow me, the 41.8%
patient, not lobbyists and special interests.
Everybody is different. My healthcare 26.5%
should reflect those differences.
The right to spend my own healthcare 11.8%
dollars must be protected and preserved.
My healthcare belongs to me. 9.3%
There’s a message in all this: humanize your approach. Abandon and ALL
references to the “healthcare system.” This entire issue is about people. Individualize.
Personalize. Humanize. Talk about health and care as distinct qualities, values, and objectives … rather than a massive system. Americans think about their care as a highly personal issue. So should you. It’s not about the public healthcare system. It’s about personal health.
(17) STOP talking about “consumers” and START talking about “human beings.” The
term consumer reeks of the economic arguments about competition, free markets, and private insurance companies - none of which gets you anywhere with persuadables. Talking about “patients”… or better still “human beings” … casts the whole discussion in the humanized approach we strongly advocate. In fact, this is exactly what Americans want to be called:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 19
Which of the following best describes the way in which you WANT to think of yourself
when you use the health care system?
A Human Being 32.5%
A Patient 26.8%
A Person 14.5%
A Customer 8.8%
A Consumer 7.0%
The Boss 6.5%
A Client 4.0%
(18) Call for a creation of a “patient-centered” approach to healthcare. What the
Democrats offer is a “Washington-run healthcare system”. What you advocate is a patient centered approach. The rhetorical value of emphasizing this difference is immense.
(19) Always place protecting the doctor-patient relationship an essential priority for any
healthcare initiative. Your three most powerful phrases are:
-- “No Washington politician or bureaucrat should stand between you and
your doctor.”
-- “Decisions about you and your healthcare should be between you and
your doctor and no one else.”
-- “Let your doctor decide.”
WORDS THAT WORK
Government should not stand between the patient and the physician. The government should not be able to tell you how much care you can get. Nobody in the government should tell you that you can’t get a medication that’s going to help prolong your life or a treatment that’s going to make it easier for you. Imagine needing a new hip that will make it easier to get around, but just because you’re over 75, the government denies you that surgery. We can’t allow that to happen
in America. - Senator Jon Kyl
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 20
WORDS THAT WORK
The axiom in medical schools all across this country is “if you will listen to the patient, they will tell you what is wrong with them.” We’ve had a shift in our country, as physicians have tried to keep up with the declining reimbursements: they can’t listen as well. The practice guidelines they have to follow totally disregard the art of medicine.
I can give you example after example of people who I’ve diagnosed with diseases that don’t fit in the guidelines. In these situations, diagnosing through the art of medicine has saved their life. And the guidelines would have never captured what was needed to save their life.
Under this approach we ignore 40% of the physician’s capability to actually make a difference in somebody else’s life because we force them to practice cookie cutter medicine that a bureaucrat in
Washington decides on. -- Senator Tom Coburn
(20) Personalizing the issue isn’t just about the individual. It’s even more about their
children and their families. For the parents we talked to, the idea of waiting in line for the treatment they need -- or being flat-out denied that treatment - was deeply worrying. But the idea that their children might not get life saving treatment in time? Unacceptable. And yet this is exactly what can happen under the Democrats’ proposed plan. Children will not be immune from waiting lines and rationing - and parents need to be aware of this fact.
Most parents said they could tolerate waiting and enduring for certain treatments for
themselves. They acknowledge that they often put off going to the doctor for their own treatments because of cost or a lack of time, but they don’t hesitate to take their children in right away. The urgency to get the care you need when you need it is significantly heightened when it becomes the care your CHILD needs when he or she needs it.
Similar feelings apply to elderly parents who in many ways are equally vulnerable as
children. Appealing to the family of persuadable middle age voters must be a key part of your approach.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 21
(21) A perfect way to articulate this parental concern is to talk about your desire to
protect your own family. It takes the discussion out of the political realm and puts it where it belongs - with the people most impacted by the policy Below is more than just good language - it’s perfect.
WORDS THAT WORK
Other than my freedom, the most important thing in the world to me is my family’s health. And I think that’s true with most people. I am going to fight as hard as I can for a system that enables me to take care of my family as best I can.
I don’t want somebody telling me that I can’t have good healthcare for my family. I don’t want a government bureaucrat telling me that I can’t have some medication or procedure that’s going to prolong my life or my mother’s life. And I fear that the kind of rationing that’s involved in the planning that’s being done right now is going to prevent me, or at least my children, from having the same kind of high quality healthcare that I’ve had.
- Senator Jon Kyl
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 22
RATIONING
“We should be very skeptical of government control of healthcare. With government run healthcare, federal bureaucrats make coverage decisions. They decide what you get for what you’re charged. They also decide when you can’t have certain coverage because it’s too expensive or because you are disqualified based on criteria like age.
Other countries with government healthcare can and do deny treatment for hip replacement or knee replacement based on age. We must never get to the point in our country where some bureaucrat in Washington is
telling us what we can or can’t have for ourselves or our families.”
-- Senator Jon Kyl (the perfect anti-rationing language)
“Rationing” is one of the rare examples when the word itself is a less powerful concept than the meaning. Put simply, while Americans would oppose the concept (and reality) of healthcare rationing, it is the impact of rationing - the long waits for tests, the denial of care, the thousands of people fleeing to America to get the care they can’t get in their own countries - this is what truly frightens the public more than the word rationing itself.
(23) The healthcare horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to
humanize them. It’s not enough to say “we don’t want a government run healthcare system like Canada or Great Britain.” That assertion itself doesn’t pack much of a punch. Instead, you have to attach the human element to it:
-- “With government run healthcare, politicians and bureaucrats make your
healthcare decisions for you.”
-- They decide if you are eligible or disqualified because a treatment
is too expensive or you are too old. Imagine being turned down - and no
way to appeal.
(24) The word “rationing” does induce the negative response you want, but what you
really want audiences to focus on is the “consequences of rationing.” As you can see,
“rationing” tests very well against the other healthcare buzzwords that frighten
Americans:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 23
Which TWO concepts or phrases would FRIGHTEN you the most?
Healthcare Rationing 43.9%
One-size-fits-all Healthcare 36.3%
Healthcare by Lobbyist 34.9%
Socialized Medicine 26.4%
Politicized Healthcare 25.6%
Nationalized Healthcare 17.4%
Hilary-Care 10.1%
However, when asked which of eight different consequences would “scare people
more” about the future of American healthcare, “rationing came in 7th at just 14%. In first place by far was “the government will decide what treatment I can or can’t have” at 43%. Yup, that’s rationing - only by a better name.
A better approach than simply saying “rationing” is to personalize just what that means. The three best lines? See below.
WORDS THAT WORK:
THE BEST WAYS TO PERSONALIZE “RATIONING”
Top Ranked Answers:
That the government will decide what treatment I can or can’t have.
That it will be government-run, bureaucratic-controlled, and special
interested driven.
That healthcare will become a “one-size-fits-all” system that takes my
options and choices away.
(25) “Delayed care is denied care.” While this comes towards the end of the analysis, it may
well be the single most important language finding in our work to date. Of the roughly 30 distinct messages we tested, nothing turns people against what the Democrats are trying to do more immediately and intensely than the specter of having to wait for tests and treatment thanks to a government takeover of healthcare by nameless, faceless bureaucrats. The polling data is conclusive:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 24
Which consequence of government involvement in healthcare
would anger you more?
Waiting weeks or even months to get the 44.4%
procedure or treatment you need
The rationing of healthcare which limits 26.3%
your choices and options
That America’s seniors may be denied some 19.1%
treatments based on their age
Interference in the private doctor-patient 10.3%
relationship
The choice that personalized the harm the most is the one that won. And as people emphasize in dial sessions, delayed care is denied care - a genuine a life and death decision. In fact, when asked which was a higher priority - spending less on healthcare or being treated in a timely fashion - timely treatment beat cost almost unanimously. Add to it the inability to appeal the government decision and you have the single strongest argument against the Democratic proposal.
WORDS THAT WORK: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As a matter of principle, America should strive to offer the most
people the best quality, most timely healthcare in the world. What does that mean?
First, Americans should not have to wait weeks for the tests they need or months for treatment.
Second, no one should be denied the healthcare they need because of government limits, restrictions, or rationing.
Third, no government bureaucrat should interfere in the doctorpatient relationship.
And forth, we have the right to know all the information about our condition and our treatment options.
As we prepare for much needed healthcare reform, let’s learn form the mistakes of Canada and Europe and not repeat them.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 25
THE HEALTHCARE GLOSSARY:
WORDS THAT WORK & WHAT NOT TO SAY
NEVER SAY INSTEAD SAY
Most important healthcare values. Most important healthcare values.
Hopeful (1.0%) Informed (23.4%)
Less stress (2.5%) Peace of Mind (21.6%)
Personal Security (5.1%) Wellness (21.0%)
Security (6.5%) In Control (20.6%)
Valued (6.8%) Hassle-free (15.8%)
The state of healthcare in America is…
Healthcare in America a good system but still needs tweaks (15.1%)
Healthcare in America is one of the best systems in the world and doesn’t need to be changed (2.1%)
The state of healthcare in America is…
Healthcare in America is seriously troubled and needs significant reform (57.5%)
Healthcare is… Healthcare is…
Too Unsafe (1.5%) Too Profit-driven (59.9%)
Too Intimidating (1.8%) Too Bureaucratic (38.5%)
Too Unpredictable (6.8%)
When it comes to healthcare, people should When it comes to healthcare, people should
treated like… treated like…
A Client (4.0%) A Human Being (32.5%)
A Consumer (7.0%) A Patient (26.8%)
A Customer (8.8%)
Which of the following scares you the most?
It will become unfriendly to patients like Canada and Great Britain (9%)
Healthcare rationing (14.4%)
Which of the following scares you the most?
The gov’t will decide what treatment I can or can’t have. (42.8%)
It will be gov’t run, bureaucratic-controlled and special interest driven (38.8%)
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 26
NEVER SAY INSTEAD SAY
Whom do you blame for the cost of healthcare? Whom do you blame for the cost of healthcare?
Hospitals (4.0%) Waste, fraud & abuse (47.5%)
Doctors (5.0%) Insurance companies (42.5%)
Lack of private competition (6.5%) Lawsuit abuse (31.5%)
What concerns you most about gov’t regulation?
It will get in the way of research & development for new and advanced treatment options (7.1%)
It will increase generational debt that our children will have to pay (8.4%)
Doctors will have to be more concerned about learning and practicing regulations than they are about learning and practicing medicine (9.3%)
What concerns you most about gov’t regulation?
We will be denied a procedure or medication because a Washington bureaucrat says no (33.1%)
The quality of care will go down (24.6%)
It will put special interests’ needs before the public’s needs (23.4%)
It will get in the way of the doctor-patient relationship and decision-making (22.3%)
What would anger you more?
That America’s seniors may be denied some treatments based on their age (19.1%)
What would anger you more?
Waiting weeks or even months to get the procedure or treatment you need (44.4%)
The rationing of healthcare which limits your choices and options (26.3%)
The most important part of access is…
Access to non-traditional therapies, such as acupuncture, chiropractic care, etc. (9.0%)
Access to full and complete information about your healthcare choices and options (10.4%)
The ability to buy as much or as little coverage as you want for your own needs (10.8%)
The most important part of access is…
The ability to see the doctor of your choice when you want (40.8%)
Complete access to healthcare and medical specialists (38.9%)
Access to the most advanced medical technology, procedures and medications (32.9%)
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 27
NEVER SAY INSTEAD SAY
Which healthcare system do you want most? Which healthcare system do you want most?
Private healthcare (9.3%) Patient-centered healthcare (61.8%)
Free market healthcare (20.3%)
Which healthcare policy do you want the most?
My healthcare belongs to me (9.3%)
The right to spend my own money for my own healthcare must be protected/preserved (11.8%)
Which healthcare policy do you want the most?
Decisions about my healthcare should be between me and my doctor and no one else (58.3%)
I should have the right to choose the healthcare that’s right for me. (52.5%)
Which healthcare statement do you agree with?
Government-run healthcare will be too impersonal, too bureaucratic and too uncaring (11.3%)
It’s my life. I want complete control over my healthcare. (13.3%)
Which healthcare statement do you agree with?
Freedom and flexibility matter most. The freedom to choose the doctor, hospital and plan that’s best for me, and the flexibility to change my mind and change my plan. (46.8%)
Everybody is different. Healthcare should have the flexibility to fix my health problems. (30.8%)
Which healthcare “right” matters most?
The right to take your healthcare coverage with you when you change jobs or move. (6.5%)
The right to know what your policy does and does not cover in plain language. (11.1%)
Which healthcare “right” matters most?
The right to choose the doctor, hospital and policy that fits your individual needs, not a set of government mandates. (43.5%)
Which is the best reason to oppose Obama?
It will cause America to lose its position as the world leader in developing cures for diseases. (5.1%)
It will put private healthcare providers out of business so that everybody will eventually be in a lower quality gov’t program. (15.5%)
Which is the best reason to oppose Obama?
It will lead to the gov’t setting standards instead of the doctor who really knows best. (38.9%)
It will lead to the gov’t rationing care, making people stand in line and denying people treatment like they do elsewhere. (33.1%)
There is no good reason (30.9%)
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 28
------------------------------------
pfd and source at: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf
Luntz is quite brilliant master of words and has been the GOP's main source of talking points for over a decade. Compare some of the words and concepts to the Ronald Regan speech for AMA many years ago.
Note: "“Time” is the government healthcare killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on
Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the healthcare you need - could. Delayed care is denied care.” from below, a quote--------------that is very, very true and the politics of "no" is just the thing.
Get ready for our little rounds of demonstrations, phone calls and more at the end of the month.
---------------------------
THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009
THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE
“WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” OF HEALTHCARE
(1) Humanize your approach. Abandon and exile ALL references to the “healthcare
system.” From now on, healthcare is about people. Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most: Individualize. Personalize. Humanize.
(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences. If you say there is no healthcare
crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say. It is a
credibility killer for most Americans. A better approach is to define the crisis in your
terms. “If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford healthcare, it is a crisis.” Better yet, “If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.” And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a healthcare crisis.”
(3) “Time” is the government healthcare killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on
Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the healthcare you need - could. Delayed care is denied care.”
(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around
“politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition. Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of healthcare. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government healthcare because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know about or care about current limits to competition). But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care - so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It’s not an economic issue. It’s a bureaucratic issue.
(5) The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have
to humanize them. You’ll notice we recommend the phrase “government takeover” rather than “government run” or “government controlled” It’s because too many politician say “we don’t want a government run healthcare system like Canada or Great Britain” without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. “In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 1
(6) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how
Americans define quality, and so should you. Once again, focus on the importance of
timeliness, but then add to it the specter of “denial.” Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they will be denied the healthcare they need for whatever reason. This is also important because it is an attribute of a government healthcare system that the Democrats CANNOT offer. So say it. “The plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive.”
(7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats”
will establish the standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is anathema to Americans. Your approach? Call for the “protection of the personalized doctor-patient relationship.” It allows you to fight to protect and improve something good rather than only fighting to prevent something bad.
(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs.
Make no mistake: the high cost of healthcare is still public enemy number one on this
issue - and why so many Americans (including Republicans and conservatives) think the Democrats can handle healthcare better than the GOP. You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.
(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford
healthcare. Here is the perfect sentence for addressing cost and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies: “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”
(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re
for. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your campaign to center around why this
healthcare plan is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for
America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst. What Americans are looking for in healthcare that your “solution” will provide is, in a word, more: “more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”
You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of reform. The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes “President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,” then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 2
THE BIG PICTURE:
AMERICA’S HEALTHCARE CLIMATE
This document is based on polling results and Instant Response dial sessions conducted in April 2009. It captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to hear. The Words That Work boxes that follow are already being used by a few Congressional and Senatorial Republicans. From today forward, they should be used by everyone.
But don’t expect to reach everyone. More than one quarter of the population will back significant government involvement in healthcare and a third support “universal” care. The primary message of this document is to focus on the persuadables and generate support among wayward Republicans and conservatives. Here’s how.
(1) Acknowledge the crisis or risk the consequences. Fully 70% of Americans consider
our healthcare system to be either in a state of crisis or seriously troubled and requires
significant reform. While it is true that the “crisis” response has dropped significantly in the past 15 years, the percentage of Americans who think the system needs significant reform has soared. So you say there is no healthcare crisis, you are telling those 70 percent that you are ignorant of their fears and concerns.
How would you define the state of the healthcare system in America today?
It is in crisis and needs a total overhaul. 12.0%
It is seriously troubled and needs significant 57.5%
revisions.
It is adequate but still needs tweaks. 15.1%
It is a good system and only needs minor 13.3%
changes.
It is one of the best systems in the world and 2.1%
doesn’t need to be changed.
The best approach is to empathize with the fear, anxiety and financial pain people are clearly feeling right now. So instead of dismissing their concerns, acknowledge them -up front - and then pivot to your solution. Some conservatives will undoubtedly find this distasteful. But failure to connect on a personal level at the beginning will lead to communication failure at the end.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 3
WORDS THAT WORK
If you can’t get the treatment you need, when you need it, there is a crisis.
If you are denied the ability to choose the doctor or hospital that’s best for you, then it is a crisis.
If you can’t afford the coverage you need for you and your family, then you have a crisis.
We need to stop looking at it from a global perspective and restore the humanity to healthcare. We need to focus more on people and less on the system.
This is the single best approach to the crisis language because it individualizes and
personalizes healthcare - and shows empathy for anyone and everyone struggling right now. This plays into more favorable Republican territory by protecting individual care while downplays the need for a comprehensive national healthcare plan.
(2) You simply MUST be on the side of “the right reform.” The status quo is no longer
acceptable. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe significant reform is
needed - and they see Republicans (and the insurance companies) as the roadblock. If the dynamic becomes “President Obama and Congressional Democrats are on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,” -- which is exactly what Obama has already started to promote -- the public will side with the Democrats and you will lose both the communication and the policy.
WORDS THAT DON’T WORK
We don’t need a complete overhaul of our health sector. We need to support what works and change what doesn’t.
The language above from a conservative website doesn’t work for two reasons:
1) It starts out with a negative. Unfortunately, that’s how most
conservatives begin the healthcare discussion, and then they’re surprised when only the most ardent followers agree with them. Start by telling them what you are for, not what you are against.
2) It talks about the system, not about the individual. Healthcare is
personal, and so your opening statement should be personal.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 4
Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that promotes “protection” of what Americans want and demand most:
WORDS THAT WORK A LOT BETTER
We need to carefully address America’s healthcare challenges. Let’s find immediate, measurable ways to make it more accessible and affordable without jeopardizing quality, individual choice, or personalized care. And let’s protect the doctor-patient relationship
Be sensitive to the anti-Washington bias ingrained in both parties. President Obama has already begun to employ an “us vs. them” context to the debate - hinting that those who oppose his reforms support the “special interests.” You need to be very careful to be seen as challenging the “Washington special interests” rather than defending them.
OBAMA WORDS THAT WORK
Now, I know people are skeptical about whether Washington can bring about this change. Our inability to reform health care in the past is just one example of how special interests have had their way, and the public interest has fallen by the wayside. And I know people are afraid we'll draw the same old lines in the sand and give in to the same entrenched interests and arrive back at the same stalemate that
we've been stuck in for decades. - President Obama
(3) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re
for. Overt attacks against the Democratic proposals will fail if they aren’t balanced with your solutions. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your communication effort to center around why the Democratic-supported “government takeover of healthcare” is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst.
Later in this document I offer the best language to talk about the proper role of
government, but it is important to note in this opening section that Republicans who
simply run against Washington-run healthcare will lose the healthcare debate. It may be accurate, and it may be ideologically sound, but a campaign against government healthcare has left the GOP at least 20 points behind on the issue - perhaps more. There is a far better approach. Here is the perfect passage for articulating the Republican agenda of opposing the Democratic plan while remaining positive about your principles:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 5
WORDS THAT WORK
Whether you call it a crisis, a problem, or a challenge is less important than tackling the real challenges to expand healthcare availability, lower costs, and ensure quality of care.
As our first priority, we need to preserve what works in America, protect the sacred doctor-patient relationship, and allow people to choose the personal care that suits their individual needs.
We should be cautious of proposed government fixes that increase taxpayer costs and shrink personal choices. And we should avoid government intrusion that decreases quality and increases bureaucracy.
We need targeted reform with measurable results that improves patient care - not a politicized, special interest-driven radical restructuring.
In the five sentences above, you have redefined the issue, personalized it, told people what you support, articulated what you’re against, and offered a vision of healthcare reform that everyone - including most Democrats - can eagerly embrace.
(4) It’s about $$$: cost and profit. Your solution HAS to address the financial component
of healthcare. It’s on people’s minds and so it must be in your approach.
Which of the following is the American healthcare system's single biggest problem?
Too profit-driven 59.9%
Too bureaucratic 38.5%
Too inaccessible 20.5%
Too complicated 19.3%
Too restrictive 12.6%
Too confusing 12.4%
Too limited 10.5%
Too unsafe/intimidating/unpredictable/ Less than 10 %
insensitive
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 6
(5) The availability and bureaucracy of healthcare causes significant frustration. A
quick scan of the polling data below shows that there is no love lost for insurance
companies - primarily because of their perceived profitability, a lack of accessibility, their lack of accountability, and an excess of bureaucracy. In fact, notice how many of the top complaints involve health insurance in some way.
We suggest ratcheting up the rhetoric against insurance companies to almost the same degree as you do against Washington bureaucracy. Call the Democratic plan a “bailout for the insurance industry” - both because it is, and because it will build lasting credibility by going after the two things the American people hate most: Washington bureaucracy and insurer greed.
Which of the following is the greatest short-coming of America's healthcare system?
Not having health insurance 49.8%
Dealing with the insurance companies 43.0%
The lack of focus on preventative medicine 39.6%
That healthcare is not yet universal 34.5%
Inflexibility of healthcare plans 30.9%
Insurance companies’ refusal to cover 30.9%
preexisting conditions
Too many frivolous lawsuits 30.4%
Too much gov’t regulation/intervention 11.3%
Not enough gov’t regulation/oversight 5.9%
Poor quality of care 5.8%
Very few Americans are complaining about “not enough general practitioners,” “not enough specialists,” or “too unsafe.” In fact, only 6% say “poor quality of care” is one of their three top concerns. The lesson is this: people do believe that American healthcare TODAY offers good quality and the doctors we need. Use this to your advantage. Raise the prospect of what happens when - with all the other problems we have in healthcare and with everything we already know about government - we follow the Democratic proposal and jeopardize our quality of care and access to good doctors by putting politicians in charge of your healthcare.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 7
(6) Your political opponents are the Democrats in Congress and the bureaucrats in
Washington, not President Obama. Every time we test language that criticized the President by name, the response was negative - even among Republicans. Americans want solutions, not politics. Here is a better approach:
WORDS THAT WORK
Now is not the time to play politics with healthcare. Now is the time for everyone to work together to achieve what matters most: more affordable, more accessible, more individualized and personalized healthcare.
Therefore, we ask the President to commit to the principle that the government that can’t even run a company should not be running healthcare.
We ask him to commit to the principle that doctors and patients should be making healthcare decisions, not some Washington bureaucracy.
And we ask him to commit to patient-centered, not government-
centered healthcare. In turn, we commit to working with him on his stated goals of increasing efficiency and lowering healthcare costs for all.
If you make this debate about Republicans vs. Obama, you lose. But if you make it about Americans vs. politicians, you win. When asked directly what would be the best reason to oppose what President Obama is trying to do regarding healthcare, Americans gave us two clear winners:
1) “It could lead to the government setting standards of care, instead of
doctors who really know what’s best.”
2) “It could lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in
line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national
healthcare.”
And if you find that you must challenge the president, we suggest the following.
“President Obama wants to put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare. I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.”
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 8
A BALANCED APPROACH:
“AFFORDABILITY, QUALITY, & ACCESS”
OVERVIEW
Cost remains king of the healthcare crisis. Americans of all political stripes and
demographic backgrounds will agree that their number one complaint about healthcare today is how much they have to pay for it and how profit-driven it has become.
However, if you ask a certain question a certain way, you change the game entirely:
THE QUESTION YOU MUST ASK EVERY HEALTHCARE TOWN HALL FORUM
Would you rather…
“Pay the costs you pay today for the quality of care you currently receive,”
-- OR--
“Pay less for your care, but potentially have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatments you need.”
Their Answer:
OVERWHELMINGLY KEEP THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT
Put slightly differently, here are the results from our national survey:
And if the federal government were to offer a healthcare plan that was 20 percent less
expensive than what you probably pay now and gives you many but not all the benefits and
choices you have now, would you be more likely to sign up for the cheaper government plan or pay for the more expensive private plan?
More expensive private plan 63.0%
Cheaper government plan 37.0%
Note: Even the most liberal Obama voters narrowly preferred the private plan by 51%-49%. As you move across the spectrum, preference for the more expensive private plan grows exponentially: 54%-46% for moderate Obama voters, 71%-29% for moderate McCain voters, and 86%-14% for conservative McCain voters.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 9
Americans will prioritize cost over quality right up until the moment they realize that it’s their quality that they are sacrificing. So put it these terms, because this is exactly the choice that the healthcare legislation is putting before Americans today. Here’s the best way to do it:
WORDS THAT WORK:
THE PERFECT PLATFORM FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM
“As a matter of principle, Republicans are firmly committed to providing genuine access to affordable, quality healthcare for every American. The time has come to create a balanced, common sense approach that will guarantee that Americans can receive the care they deserve and protect the sacred doctor-patient relationship. We will oppose any politician-run system that denies you the treatments you need, when you need them.
TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY
When it comes to healthcare costs, the biggest cost concern among all cost components is the threat of catastrophic expenses. “The potential costs I would be responsible for in a catastrophic situation” is the first or second biggest fear among two-thirds of Americans, followed by “the monthly premiums that I have to pay” at just over 55%. Co-pays, deductibles, out-of-network costs, and even prescription medications barely register.
(7) WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE & MISMANAGEMENT are your best targets for
bringing down costs. Make no mistake: the high cost of healthcare is still public enemy number one - and the hardest for Republicans to attack. Republicans are currently blaming the lack of real competition, but in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. Moreover, fixing the problem utilizing the tax code sounds disingenuous to some, dangerous to others, and ineffective to almost everyone. But the combination of waste, fraud, and mismanagement along with the consequences of the ongoing lawsuit abuse is both credible and accurate.
WORDS THAT WORK
As a matter of principle, every American should have access to
affordable, quality healthcare. How? By ending all the waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the system -- and by eliminating all the unnecessary tests and procedures that are being imposed on patients by doctors practicing defensive medicine rather than preventative medicine.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 10
We need to keep healthcare patient-centered rather than governmentcentered. With a greater focus on preventing waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement, and by promoting greater access to information, prevention, and wellness for all Americans - we can do it.
(8) Shift the healthcare focus to “preventative treatments” and “early detection.” Tell
people that the single best way to reduce healthcare costs is to promote “wellness.” Wellness emerged from our research as one of the four most important core values for American healthcare. Apply the principle to lower costs and you have a solid answer for cost-conscience Americans.
WORDS THAT WORK
We have a system that rewards insurance companies for insuring people who are not sick and are not going to get sick, and then we penalize companies that insure people who are sick. Five diseases account for 75% of all healthcare dollars in this country - five preventable diseases. Prevention is the key for us if we want to
control healthcare costs. - Senator Tom Coburn
WORDS THAT WORK
The earlier we detect, the more options we have. The better we educate, the better prevention works. And consequently, the less expensive healthcare is for the American family.
- Senator Richard Burr
TALKING ABOUT QUALITY
(9) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how
Americans define quality, and so should you. The key opportunity here is that this
commitment goes beyond what the Democrats can offer. Their plan will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they can actually receive. This is more than just rationing. To most Americans, rationing suggests limits or shortages - for others. But personalizing it - “delaying your tests and denying your treatment” -- is the concept most likely to change the most minds in your favor.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 11
(10) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats”
will establish a single standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what
treatment based on how much it costs is an anathema to Americans. There are a number
of ways to attack this:
-- Demand the “protection of the personal doctor-patient relationship.”
-- Compare the personalized relationship with their doctor to the distant,
cold, calculations of a federal medical panel.
-- Utilize examples of medical breakthroughs that would be undermined or
jeopardized.
WORDS THAT WORK
The problem with federal standardization is that one size doesn’t fit all.
It’s true that research can tell us what usually works best, and doctors use that research all the time. They rely on The New England Journal of Medicine and other studies to develop a set of best practices.
But they also know that healthcare is very personal, so doctors
combine that knowledge with the essential freedom to tailor care to the individual. This has lead to some exciting advances, like in genomics research, which allows doctors to prescribe medications that are designed to suit your individual body.
So one size definitely does not fit all, and we should never allow a
federal panel of bureaucrats to erase these great gains in personalized care.
- Senator Jon Kyl
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 12
FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS, WASHINGTON LOBBYISTS & OUT-OF-TOUCH POLITICIANS: REFORM AMERICA DOESN’T WANT
“No Washington bureaucrat or healthcare lobbyist should stand between your family and your doctor. The Democrats want to put Washington politicians in charge of YOUR healthcare. We can and must do better. Say no to a Washington takeover of healthcare and say yes to personalized patient-centered care.”
The best anti-Democrat message
Americans of all political stripes agree on this: the government does a poor job regulating healthcare today. Even if they disagree on why it does a poor job, they all share a distrust of mixing Washington with their healthcare. Consider:
How effective is the government at regulating healthcare in the U.S.?
Extremely Effective 0.6%
Very Effective 3.1%
Somewhat Effective 21.6%
Somewhat Ineffective 19.3%
Very Ineffective 32.4%
Extremely Ineffective 20.5%
Surprisingly, there was little difference between Democrats and Republicans; people
from both parties skewed heavily towards the “ineffective” answers. This sets the context for the entire message campaign that follows.
(11) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around
politicians, bureaucrats, and Washington… not the free market, tax incentives, or
competition. Simply, healthcare is too personal and vital to Americans to put a price tag on it. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government healthcare because it’s too expensive or anti-competitive. But they are deathly afraid that government will lower their quality of care - so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 13
Allow me to shout, for I fear conservatives will continue to make this mistake if someone doesn’t stand up and shout out:
Healthcare is NOT an economic issue. It’s a personal issue.
Let me be as clear and definitive as I can about this assertion. Every message by every Republican speaker that delved into an economic argument about healthcare was poorly received. Every polling question that asked about the economic (private sector, free market, competition, etc.) component of healthcare failed. Consider the following:
Which healthcare system would you most like to see America adopt in the coming years?
Patient-centered Healthcare 61.8%
Free Market Healthcare 20.3%
Private Healthcare 9.3%
If you’re still not convinced, consider the following:
Who or what would you say is most to blame
for the high cost of healthcare today?
Waste, fraud & abuse 47.5%
Insurance companies 42.5%
Mal-practice lawsuits 31.5%
Pharmaceutical companies 26.3%
Lack of regulation & oversight 13.8%
Lack of private competition 6.5%
Nobody is asking for “private healthcare” or “free market healthcare.” There is no
demand for more “competition.” Those are economic terms. They want patient-centered healthcare - healthcare that’s individualized, personalized and humanized. So if you want to demonstrate to Americans that you understand and empathize, stop bringing in economic terminology into a debate about healthcare.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 14
(12) What Americans do care about: “denial” of care. It is essential that “deny” and “denial”
enter the conservative lexicon immediately because it is at the core of what scares Americans
most about a government takeover of healthcare. Then add to it the source of that denial and you have the perfect anti-government, anti-Washington and anti-Democratic message:
What would you be most concerned about
if the government were to further regulate healthcare?
Being denied a procedure or medication 33.1%
because a Washington bureaucrat says
no
Quality of care going down 24.6%
Putting special interests’ needs before 23.4%
the public’s needs
Getting in the way of the doctor-patient 22.3%
relationship
A longer list of regulations will lead to 20.8%
longer lines and longer waits for care
Note: ALL of the more abstract or economic arguments like “inhibiting research into new cures” “forcing doctors to study regulations instead of medicine,” or “increasing the national debt” failed to make the list above. Why? Because they aren’t personal.
WORDS THAT DO NOT WORK
There’s another thing that Americans should be concerned about if we are going to have government run healthcare: 75% of all the innovations in healthcare in the world come out of this country.
There’s a reason for that. It’s because even though we don’t have a good market, the market we still have generates entrepreneurship, invention, advancement, and excellence in terms of new ideas and new cures and new treatments in healthcare. That will go away under government run healthcare, and with it tons of jobs.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 15
(13) Maximize your attacks on the Democratic plan by choosing the BEST words. For
instance, calling it the “Democratic plan” isn’t your best bet; doing so makes it political in the wrong way. It makes the issue Republicans vs. Democrats - which doesn’t favor you. The issue needs to be Americans vs. Washington. So here are the words to use:
· “This plan puts politicians in charge of your healthcare” is even better than “bureaucrats.” Bureaucrats are scary - but at least they are professionals. But politicians? They bring all the wrong things to something as vital as healthcare. Both words do damage to the Democratic plan, but “politicians” does the most.
· “Washington” beats “Government.” Washington has all the problems of every other level of government, and more.
· “Washington Takeover” beats “Washington Control.” Takeovers are like coups - they both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom. What Americans fear most is that Washington politicians will dictate what kind of care they can receive.
(14) Americans believe and fear that if the Washington gets involved in their healthcare,
quality of care will greatly diminish. Most agree that if the government runs
healthcare, it will take longer to get the care they need - if they can even get it at all. The point here is to remind people why they should oppose the Washington-centric, politician-based healthcare system by personalizing the harm:
“YOUR quality of care will go down if THEY in Washington make YOUR healthcare decisions for you.”
WORDS THAT WORK
This plan may sound good rhetorically, but at the end of the day, we are moving very swiftly towards a Washington-engineered, bureaucratic controlled, healthcare system. And we all know that when the government gets in the middle of anything, the quality can
quickly diminish. - Eric Cantor
Note that in this case, saying healthcare system is actually okay - because you are using
the word as a weapon to describe what the Democrats are trying to do.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 16
(15) ISSUE: Federal Standardization. Oppose this policy idea by attacking bureaucrats
in the name of protecting the doctor-patient relationship. Polling reveals two attacks that work best against the creation of a federal panel that would determine a standardized approach to medical care.
-- “It would have federal bureaucrats determining healthcare standards
rather than the doctors who are actually providing the care.”
-- “It will take the power away from patients and doctors to choose what
treatment the patient receives and give it to the politicians in
Washington.”
WORDS THAT WORK
Science and research should be used to enhance and improve
healthcare quality, not limit a patient’s choices or options. We should encourage doctors and healthcare professionals to share best practices and learn from each other’s experiences, but we need to recognize that every patient is different and every illness needs an individualized, personalized approach. Statistical analysis can help, but healthcare requires a human approach, timely decisions, and the right of patients to try an innovative approach if everything else has failed.
A federal panel that looks at healthcare from a national perspective will not be flexible enough to react to individual patient needs. The ultimate power to decide the best treatment needs to remain with the patient and the doctor.
There are specific words here that are particularly effective:
-- “Every patient is different” because it’s as truism we already believe.
Similarly, “a human approach” puts the humanity back into healthcare.
-- “Healthcare by committee” because it suggests an impersonal approach to
important decisions;
-- “Inefficiency” because it suggests more waste, fraud and mismanagement.
-- “Letting doctors make the decisions” because we believe they are the
most qualified, capable, and have our best interests at heart.
The following Words That Work box puts it all together:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 17
WORDS THAT WORK
Federal standardization is healthcare by committee - and we don’t need the inefficiencies of government committees making healthcare decisions.
Doctors are our true experts. The best system is where a patient and a doctor make the decisions about care. Doctors have to go through a pretty rigorous plan to get “Dr.” next to their name, and the overwhelming majority of them are great doctors.
We don’t need some committee rationing care and telling people what they can and can’t have. We need to give patients the best choices of health plans and doctors and let them make their own decisions.
- Senator Jim DeMint
(16) The cure rate differentials between the United States and countries with
government-run healthcare is a powerful weapons. You need to assemble a list of the five most staggering facts that show better cure rates in the United States than our neighbors in Canada and our cousins in Great Britain. Focus on the kinds of diseases that touch the most people in the most personal ways, like cancer and heart disease. The facts must be accurate - because our research indicates that this kind of information really will move people. It personalizes the harm of government-run healthcare in a powerful way.
WORDS THAT WORK
Why is it that we have a 50% higher cure rate in cancers that
anybody else in the world? And why is it if you get breast cancer in America, you are into your treatment within three weeks and in the rest of the world it’s four months or six months or nine months?
- Senator Tom Coburn
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 18
PERSONALIZE, HUMANIZE, AND EMPHASIZE THE
DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
OVERVIEW
Notice how the highest priorities below are highly personalized - and none is more important than the personal doctor-patient relationship. It’s not about healthcare in general. It’s about MY doctor and MY choice - without any interference.
Which TWO concepts or phrases do you AGREE with the MOST?
Decisions about my healthcare should be 58.3%
between me and my doctor and no one else
I should have the right to choose the 52.5%
healthcare that’s right for me
Healthcare dollars should follow me, the 41.8%
patient, not lobbyists and special interests.
Everybody is different. My healthcare 26.5%
should reflect those differences.
The right to spend my own healthcare 11.8%
dollars must be protected and preserved.
My healthcare belongs to me. 9.3%
There’s a message in all this: humanize your approach. Abandon and ALL
references to the “healthcare system.” This entire issue is about people. Individualize.
Personalize. Humanize. Talk about health and care as distinct qualities, values, and objectives … rather than a massive system. Americans think about their care as a highly personal issue. So should you. It’s not about the public healthcare system. It’s about personal health.
(17) STOP talking about “consumers” and START talking about “human beings.” The
term consumer reeks of the economic arguments about competition, free markets, and private insurance companies - none of which gets you anywhere with persuadables. Talking about “patients”… or better still “human beings” … casts the whole discussion in the humanized approach we strongly advocate. In fact, this is exactly what Americans want to be called:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 19
Which of the following best describes the way in which you WANT to think of yourself
when you use the health care system?
A Human Being 32.5%
A Patient 26.8%
A Person 14.5%
A Customer 8.8%
A Consumer 7.0%
The Boss 6.5%
A Client 4.0%
(18) Call for a creation of a “patient-centered” approach to healthcare. What the
Democrats offer is a “Washington-run healthcare system”. What you advocate is a patient centered approach. The rhetorical value of emphasizing this difference is immense.
(19) Always place protecting the doctor-patient relationship an essential priority for any
healthcare initiative. Your three most powerful phrases are:
-- “No Washington politician or bureaucrat should stand between you and
your doctor.”
-- “Decisions about you and your healthcare should be between you and
your doctor and no one else.”
-- “Let your doctor decide.”
WORDS THAT WORK
Government should not stand between the patient and the physician. The government should not be able to tell you how much care you can get. Nobody in the government should tell you that you can’t get a medication that’s going to help prolong your life or a treatment that’s going to make it easier for you. Imagine needing a new hip that will make it easier to get around, but just because you’re over 75, the government denies you that surgery. We can’t allow that to happen
in America. - Senator Jon Kyl
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 20
WORDS THAT WORK
The axiom in medical schools all across this country is “if you will listen to the patient, they will tell you what is wrong with them.” We’ve had a shift in our country, as physicians have tried to keep up with the declining reimbursements: they can’t listen as well. The practice guidelines they have to follow totally disregard the art of medicine.
I can give you example after example of people who I’ve diagnosed with diseases that don’t fit in the guidelines. In these situations, diagnosing through the art of medicine has saved their life. And the guidelines would have never captured what was needed to save their life.
Under this approach we ignore 40% of the physician’s capability to actually make a difference in somebody else’s life because we force them to practice cookie cutter medicine that a bureaucrat in
Washington decides on. -- Senator Tom Coburn
(20) Personalizing the issue isn’t just about the individual. It’s even more about their
children and their families. For the parents we talked to, the idea of waiting in line for the treatment they need -- or being flat-out denied that treatment - was deeply worrying. But the idea that their children might not get life saving treatment in time? Unacceptable. And yet this is exactly what can happen under the Democrats’ proposed plan. Children will not be immune from waiting lines and rationing - and parents need to be aware of this fact.
Most parents said they could tolerate waiting and enduring for certain treatments for
themselves. They acknowledge that they often put off going to the doctor for their own treatments because of cost or a lack of time, but they don’t hesitate to take their children in right away. The urgency to get the care you need when you need it is significantly heightened when it becomes the care your CHILD needs when he or she needs it.
Similar feelings apply to elderly parents who in many ways are equally vulnerable as
children. Appealing to the family of persuadable middle age voters must be a key part of your approach.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 21
(21) A perfect way to articulate this parental concern is to talk about your desire to
protect your own family. It takes the discussion out of the political realm and puts it where it belongs - with the people most impacted by the policy Below is more than just good language - it’s perfect.
WORDS THAT WORK
Other than my freedom, the most important thing in the world to me is my family’s health. And I think that’s true with most people. I am going to fight as hard as I can for a system that enables me to take care of my family as best I can.
I don’t want somebody telling me that I can’t have good healthcare for my family. I don’t want a government bureaucrat telling me that I can’t have some medication or procedure that’s going to prolong my life or my mother’s life. And I fear that the kind of rationing that’s involved in the planning that’s being done right now is going to prevent me, or at least my children, from having the same kind of high quality healthcare that I’ve had.
- Senator Jon Kyl
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 22
RATIONING
“We should be very skeptical of government control of healthcare. With government run healthcare, federal bureaucrats make coverage decisions. They decide what you get for what you’re charged. They also decide when you can’t have certain coverage because it’s too expensive or because you are disqualified based on criteria like age.
Other countries with government healthcare can and do deny treatment for hip replacement or knee replacement based on age. We must never get to the point in our country where some bureaucrat in Washington is
telling us what we can or can’t have for ourselves or our families.”
-- Senator Jon Kyl (the perfect anti-rationing language)
“Rationing” is one of the rare examples when the word itself is a less powerful concept than the meaning. Put simply, while Americans would oppose the concept (and reality) of healthcare rationing, it is the impact of rationing - the long waits for tests, the denial of care, the thousands of people fleeing to America to get the care they can’t get in their own countries - this is what truly frightens the public more than the word rationing itself.
(23) The healthcare horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to
humanize them. It’s not enough to say “we don’t want a government run healthcare system like Canada or Great Britain.” That assertion itself doesn’t pack much of a punch. Instead, you have to attach the human element to it:
-- “With government run healthcare, politicians and bureaucrats make your
healthcare decisions for you.”
-- They decide if you are eligible or disqualified because a treatment
is too expensive or you are too old. Imagine being turned down - and no
way to appeal.
(24) The word “rationing” does induce the negative response you want, but what you
really want audiences to focus on is the “consequences of rationing.” As you can see,
“rationing” tests very well against the other healthcare buzzwords that frighten
Americans:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 23
Which TWO concepts or phrases would FRIGHTEN you the most?
Healthcare Rationing 43.9%
One-size-fits-all Healthcare 36.3%
Healthcare by Lobbyist 34.9%
Socialized Medicine 26.4%
Politicized Healthcare 25.6%
Nationalized Healthcare 17.4%
Hilary-Care 10.1%
However, when asked which of eight different consequences would “scare people
more” about the future of American healthcare, “rationing came in 7th at just 14%. In first place by far was “the government will decide what treatment I can or can’t have” at 43%. Yup, that’s rationing - only by a better name.
A better approach than simply saying “rationing” is to personalize just what that means. The three best lines? See below.
WORDS THAT WORK:
THE BEST WAYS TO PERSONALIZE “RATIONING”
Top Ranked Answers:
That the government will decide what treatment I can or can’t have.
That it will be government-run, bureaucratic-controlled, and special
interested driven.
That healthcare will become a “one-size-fits-all” system that takes my
options and choices away.
(25) “Delayed care is denied care.” While this comes towards the end of the analysis, it may
well be the single most important language finding in our work to date. Of the roughly 30 distinct messages we tested, nothing turns people against what the Democrats are trying to do more immediately and intensely than the specter of having to wait for tests and treatment thanks to a government takeover of healthcare by nameless, faceless bureaucrats. The polling data is conclusive:
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 24
Which consequence of government involvement in healthcare
would anger you more?
Waiting weeks or even months to get the 44.4%
procedure or treatment you need
The rationing of healthcare which limits 26.3%
your choices and options
That America’s seniors may be denied some 19.1%
treatments based on their age
Interference in the private doctor-patient 10.3%
relationship
The choice that personalized the harm the most is the one that won. And as people emphasize in dial sessions, delayed care is denied care - a genuine a life and death decision. In fact, when asked which was a higher priority - spending less on healthcare or being treated in a timely fashion - timely treatment beat cost almost unanimously. Add to it the inability to appeal the government decision and you have the single strongest argument against the Democratic proposal.
WORDS THAT WORK: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As a matter of principle, America should strive to offer the most
people the best quality, most timely healthcare in the world. What does that mean?
First, Americans should not have to wait weeks for the tests they need or months for treatment.
Second, no one should be denied the healthcare they need because of government limits, restrictions, or rationing.
Third, no government bureaucrat should interfere in the doctorpatient relationship.
And forth, we have the right to know all the information about our condition and our treatment options.
As we prepare for much needed healthcare reform, let’s learn form the mistakes of Canada and Europe and not repeat them.
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 25
THE HEALTHCARE GLOSSARY:
WORDS THAT WORK & WHAT NOT TO SAY
NEVER SAY INSTEAD SAY
Most important healthcare values. Most important healthcare values.
Hopeful (1.0%) Informed (23.4%)
Less stress (2.5%) Peace of Mind (21.6%)
Personal Security (5.1%) Wellness (21.0%)
Security (6.5%) In Control (20.6%)
Valued (6.8%) Hassle-free (15.8%)
The state of healthcare in America is…
Healthcare in America a good system but still needs tweaks (15.1%)
Healthcare in America is one of the best systems in the world and doesn’t need to be changed (2.1%)
The state of healthcare in America is…
Healthcare in America is seriously troubled and needs significant reform (57.5%)
Healthcare is… Healthcare is…
Too Unsafe (1.5%) Too Profit-driven (59.9%)
Too Intimidating (1.8%) Too Bureaucratic (38.5%)
Too Unpredictable (6.8%)
When it comes to healthcare, people should When it comes to healthcare, people should
treated like… treated like…
A Client (4.0%) A Human Being (32.5%)
A Consumer (7.0%) A Patient (26.8%)
A Customer (8.8%)
Which of the following scares you the most?
It will become unfriendly to patients like Canada and Great Britain (9%)
Healthcare rationing (14.4%)
Which of the following scares you the most?
The gov’t will decide what treatment I can or can’t have. (42.8%)
It will be gov’t run, bureaucratic-controlled and special interest driven (38.8%)
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 26
NEVER SAY INSTEAD SAY
Whom do you blame for the cost of healthcare? Whom do you blame for the cost of healthcare?
Hospitals (4.0%) Waste, fraud & abuse (47.5%)
Doctors (5.0%) Insurance companies (42.5%)
Lack of private competition (6.5%) Lawsuit abuse (31.5%)
What concerns you most about gov’t regulation?
It will get in the way of research & development for new and advanced treatment options (7.1%)
It will increase generational debt that our children will have to pay (8.4%)
Doctors will have to be more concerned about learning and practicing regulations than they are about learning and practicing medicine (9.3%)
What concerns you most about gov’t regulation?
We will be denied a procedure or medication because a Washington bureaucrat says no (33.1%)
The quality of care will go down (24.6%)
It will put special interests’ needs before the public’s needs (23.4%)
It will get in the way of the doctor-patient relationship and decision-making (22.3%)
What would anger you more?
That America’s seniors may be denied some treatments based on their age (19.1%)
What would anger you more?
Waiting weeks or even months to get the procedure or treatment you need (44.4%)
The rationing of healthcare which limits your choices and options (26.3%)
The most important part of access is…
Access to non-traditional therapies, such as acupuncture, chiropractic care, etc. (9.0%)
Access to full and complete information about your healthcare choices and options (10.4%)
The ability to buy as much or as little coverage as you want for your own needs (10.8%)
The most important part of access is…
The ability to see the doctor of your choice when you want (40.8%)
Complete access to healthcare and medical specialists (38.9%)
Access to the most advanced medical technology, procedures and medications (32.9%)
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 27
NEVER SAY INSTEAD SAY
Which healthcare system do you want most? Which healthcare system do you want most?
Private healthcare (9.3%) Patient-centered healthcare (61.8%)
Free market healthcare (20.3%)
Which healthcare policy do you want the most?
My healthcare belongs to me (9.3%)
The right to spend my own money for my own healthcare must be protected/preserved (11.8%)
Which healthcare policy do you want the most?
Decisions about my healthcare should be between me and my doctor and no one else (58.3%)
I should have the right to choose the healthcare that’s right for me. (52.5%)
Which healthcare statement do you agree with?
Government-run healthcare will be too impersonal, too bureaucratic and too uncaring (11.3%)
It’s my life. I want complete control over my healthcare. (13.3%)
Which healthcare statement do you agree with?
Freedom and flexibility matter most. The freedom to choose the doctor, hospital and plan that’s best for me, and the flexibility to change my mind and change my plan. (46.8%)
Everybody is different. Healthcare should have the flexibility to fix my health problems. (30.8%)
Which healthcare “right” matters most?
The right to take your healthcare coverage with you when you change jobs or move. (6.5%)
The right to know what your policy does and does not cover in plain language. (11.1%)
Which healthcare “right” matters most?
The right to choose the doctor, hospital and policy that fits your individual needs, not a set of government mandates. (43.5%)
Which is the best reason to oppose Obama?
It will cause America to lose its position as the world leader in developing cures for diseases. (5.1%)
It will put private healthcare providers out of business so that everybody will eventually be in a lower quality gov’t program. (15.5%)
Which is the best reason to oppose Obama?
It will lead to the gov’t setting standards instead of the doctor who really knows best. (38.9%)
It will lead to the gov’t rationing care, making people stand in line and denying people treatment like they do elsewhere. (33.1%)
There is no good reason (30.9%)
Dr. Frank I. Luntz - The Language of Healthcare 2009 28
------------------------------------
pfd and source at: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
