Mobile version

No Captive Markets: No Public Choice = No Mandate

  

by: BruceMcF

Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:47:27 PDT


(11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)


     NO CAPTIVE MARKETS!


   WE ARE NO CORPORATE PLAYING FIELD:
      LEVEL US AT YOUR PERIL

   NO GOVERNMENT MANDATED
      CORPORATE MURDER BY SPREADSHEET

     HEALTH INSURANCE BOARDS ARE THE REAL DEATH PANELS

     NO WELFARE FOR INSURANCE CORPORATIONS


     NO CAPTIVE MARKETS!

BruceMcF :: No Captive Markets: No Public Choice = No Mandate
Labor Day Weekend, a long weekend to allow (some of us) to get prepared for battle. Oh, joy, if its battle to ensure that a workable health insurance reform is passed ... but all indications are that its going to have to first be a battle to ensure that the wrong health insurance reform is not passed.

I've talked about this in the measured tones of an academic economist, but in the heat of battle, the long winded policy wonkery is threatened with being drowned out by the shouts of simple slogans.

Unfortunately for the Corporations and their Congressional and White House Allies who have chosen this field of battle, when the fight is stripped down to its essential, we have the winning simple slogan:

     NO CAPTIVE MARKETS!

It explains WHY no public choice means no individual mandate, and explains it in the simplest possible terms. The majority of us in this country - not just the majority of progressives, but the majority top to bottom, including large numbers of conservative foot soldiers - that if you give a corporation a captive market, it will be a blood sucking parasite.

And if some hundreds of thousands will die, well, if that's what it takes to get the most blood sucked out, that's what it takes.

So three words: shout them out. Blog them, comment them, put them in online newspaper commentary and write them down on pieces of paper and send them slowmail to the LTE of your local newspaper. Put them on pamphlets and hand them out on the streetcorner. Make a video YouTube clip of fifty people in various groups shouting it, then burn it onto DVD-R's and hand THEM out on college campuses. Put it on T-Shirts and start wearing them on your Sunday jog and bike ride.

Now, sure, if we get Ten Progressive Senators to tell the President, No Public Choice means No Mandate, the White House will be forced to go all in for the public choice or else write a bill that does some minor patches around the edges while we have time to primary some damn Blue Dogs and let the Democratic Party know that their strategy of a tame pseudo-progressive wing has broken down.

But otherwise, our first victory will be killing a market trying to expand the captive market that the health insurance companies enjoy. Or in other words, just one more welfare for the rich program.


The Working America Real Health Care Now campaign - one of the many on the right side of Public Choice
I'm the teacher-y looking guy on the right, except with a beard and not so good looking - are you in this picture?

UPDATE: Twitter this Docudharma essay http://bit.ly/iQ8QM with any one of the slogans above the fold, or the crosspost to Daily Kos http://bit.ly/iQ8QM in the same way.

UPDATE II: After buddhy's outburst of optimism, I do want to add that its good news that the White House did not throw Medicare Elective under the bus. I would have been happier to see the Labor Day speech include a commitment to not throw it under the bus during the legislative fight ahead, but at the very least, the White House has made it clear that if it does throw Medicare Elective under the bus, it will be in sorrow, rather than with joy.

We, in any event, must play to the whistle.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

No Public Choice, No Mandate: NO CAPTIVE MARKETS (4.00 / 9)
... because I promised my mom that I'd blog it on Labor Day. She's a retired nurse and social worker who applied for a job for a Nurse with a Masters Degree ... they turned her down because she had too much clinical experience. She would know the consequences of the decisions she made.

She later found out it was an insurance company.

And this is over a decade ago - this is no new thing we are fighting.

Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press


Captive markets -- (4.00 / 3)
are the way the Obama administration is going to "save capitalism" in the insurance industry.

"Mientras el trabajo sea una comodidad, un mecanismo de extracción de plusvalía y un arma de alienación, el sistema y sus miserias sobrevivirán."  -Peter McLaren

[ Parent ]
Yes - I am not arguing that the Obama Industry ... (4.00 / 2)
... need to be "explained" what they are doing. They are smart enough and this is simple enough that the working assumption is they know exactly what they are doing.

The question is, how to stop them.

Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press


[ Parent ]
Can we find someone who (0.00 / 0)
owns a small insurance company, who want's to turn it non-profit, and take it national beating the biggies in their own markets by offering cheap premiums and no pre-existing condition walls?

That's how we got here. (4.00 / 1)
We did that. It's called Blue Cross / Blue Shield. It got bought out by corporate insurance and now its just one more bloodsucker like all the rest.

Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press

[ Parent ]
Too bad there wasn't a charter prohibiting sale. (4.00 / 1)
We have Blue Cross in Canada also, but they are independent of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), and they are pretty heavily regulated. They sell "extended medical" group plans, which are how most people here get prescription drug coverage. Prescription drug prices are also heavily regulated.

[ Parent ]
A charter can be amended by the issuing authority ... (4.00 / 1)
... a public choice is the most secure against corporatisation. Not perfectly secure, but the most secure.

Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press

[ Parent ]
Definitely. (0.00 / 0)
But there is not the political will for single payer.

Would not amending a non-profit co-op's charter have to be voted on by members?


[ Parent ]
However, there is the opportunity for the ... (0.00 / 0)
... political will for a public option.

That is, a large percentage of Americans, when the alternatives are explained to them, are against single payer. A supermajority of Americans, when the alternatives are explained to them, are in favor of the public option.

There is no political will in the political establishment for the public option, because its not welfare for the rich, and the only thing there is political will for in the political establishment is welfare for the rich.

But the political will for the public choice can be generated among the public, based on people's current views. The political will for single payer requires changing people's minds even after they find out what it is.

As far as amending a non-profit co-ops charter, yes, it has to be voted on by members, same as demutualization. Fighting back privatization is a battle that can be won twenty times and lost once, and the war is lost.


Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press


[ Parent ]
How can they be "in favor" (0.00 / 0)
of a "public option" that has a  continually shifting definition and is so weak that the insurance industries response is this? What was measured? Support for what?

"It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.

Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama's massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!"

I'll admit I haven't seen numbers on  support levels of this "public option" that has a continually shifting definition, but there are lot's of numbers on single payer support.

Here's one chart from Medicare For All:

"Over half of Americans want non-profit national health insurance, provided by the government (a single-payer):

Click to view full size



[ Parent ]
Yes, that 63% is about the highest that ... (0.00 / 0)
... different phrasings of single payer can take support. The gap between that and 80%+ for the public option is a politically significant gap, because no matter how simply, clearly and loudly advocates explain, a substantial fraction will be peeled off by the lies of the other side in the fight.

As far as shifting terms ... Medicare for All is not really single payer, after all, its multi-payer with a comprehensive single-payer plan as the common foundation.

It may be that if this effort fails, in another five to ten years, Medicare for All will be at the level that the public option is at now, where its the backers fight to lose rather than the opponents fight to lose.

But I am not going to fight for a bad outcome now in the hopes that experiencing more pain will pave the way for a more dramatic win in the future ... I'm going to fight for the improvement available today.

Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press


[ Parent ]
What improvement is available today in the shifting (0.00 / 0)
bill with it's "public option" that Obama may very well renounce tomorrow, besides for the insurance companies?

[ Parent ]
Single payer support is larger than for "public option" (0.00 / 0)
by docjess at dKos, Tue Aug 04, 2009
Crossposted at DemConWatch

The first poll is out asking about Single Payer support. Time Magazine commissioned a poll from SRBI, which found that 55% of Americans want a major overhaul. 60% think the insurance companies are doing a fair or poor job of providing services. 55% think the American health care system is fair or poor. 90% want tax breaks for small businesses to make health insurance more affordable. 80% want pre-existng conditions covered. 63% want coverage for all Americans, even if the government needs to subsidize it. 56% want a public option.

The Single Payer question read:

   Would you favor or oppose a program that creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all, in which the government would provide healthcare insurance to all Americans?


[ Parent ]
Precisely ... even with a survey ... (0.00 / 0)
... biased against the public option:
CREATES A GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION TO COMPETE WITH PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS

... is the question, after all ... framing single payer in the repeatedly tested best possible way, the Medicare for All only gets a 7% advantage.

In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance

That framing attracts 77% in the most recent SurveyUSA News Poll.

That's why opponents of a public choice, including the White House, call it a "public option" - take choice entirely out of the framing, and support drops to under 50%. Above, swap "choice" with "compete", and support is modestly above 50%.


Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press


[ Parent ]
"public option" sounds like nice words (4.00 / 1)
but nobody knows what they mean, and the insurance companies love it, as I quoted above.

[ Parent ]
Public choice ... (0.00 / 0)
... or "a choice between a public plan and private plans", its hard to argue that people don't understand that, and that's the framing that attracts the strongest support.

That's, after all, what insurance corporations hate. Getting a government subsidized market - and then not getting it all to themselves??? Boy, that sucks, if you are an insurance corporation.


Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press


[ Parent ]
And, again, the empirical evidence ... (0.00 / 0)
... from a privatization that did not have near the benefits to the corporate insurance companies as killing the price makers in government-subsidized health insurance "exchanges", is that the vote can be won if the up front sweeteners are made sweet enough.

Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press

[ Parent ]
I have a question... (4.00 / 1)
I flipped on the tube this morning and was greeted by a  commercial for Floodsmart, a FEMA, US Government run flood insurance program. I'm assuming this socialist program is offered to folks who are uninsurable by corporate, for profit free market big insurance companies, due to high risk.
Now the question,
Is flood insurance more of a basic human right than health care?  

[ Parent ]
No, its just a commodity that ... (4.00 / 1)
... developers value for allowing them to develop in floodplains.

We have gone the last four decades in converting into commodities things that are intrinsically more important - for good or ill - than commodities, such as work, health, breathable air, the sea level, a living earth ... even war.

Support Lesbian creative works, 100% Yuri from ALC Press


[ Parent ]
 

Menu

- Create New Account
- Lost password
- Contact Us

Username:

Password:




- Mission Statement
- FAQ
- YouTube Posting
- HTML Help

Seek




Advanced Search


Contribute to Docudharma
 

 
     

 

Action

WikiLeaks Mirror Sites
 

Powered by: SoapBlox