Ed Schultz asks a few good questions senate arrests of single-payer folks

This is a continuation of earlier stories and the story is making the rounds of television. Ed Schultz on his MSNBC show (airs weekdays at 5 PM central) asks some real questions. Why are single payer option folks not being heard and why at the healthcare summits/meetings are the decks being stacked in favor of insurance and drug companies? Good questions.

This is a treat and you might wish to take a few minutes to watch

--------------------

Single payer folks jailed

----------------------------------------------
the following vid is from: http://labornotes.org/node/2239

Labor notes has some good stuff and I recommend folks view. This is the video of what occured when single-payer folks took their comments to the senate: they were jailed.

Given that single-payer folks have been excluded from the healthcare debate, it is natural some leaders do not wish to hear what they have to say. I do have a few words, but publication of those words would probably be a "term of service " violation of the first order.

Far as I am concerned, those folks jailed are heros. Going to jail for a just cause is not a sin.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://blog.aflcio.org/ is the source of the following dealing with Employee Free Choice. Good cartoon

HR 676 supporters jailed

Supporters of HR676 beware, some of our fearless leaders do not wish to hear you:

http://www.laborforsinglepayer.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94:exclusion-of-single-payer-advocates-leads-to-arrests


Exclusion of Single Payer
Advocates Leads to Arrests

LCS-P National Coordinator Mark Dudzic was among 8 protesters arrested for disrupting the Senate Finance Committee hearing yesterday as they challenged the Committee Chair's refusal to include any testimony from advocates of Single-Payer healthcare reform.
A short video is available of one of the protesters being removed by police:
A number of members of organizations supporting Single Payer Universal Health Care were in attendance at the hearing along with Mark Dudzic. Here is a note sent by Mark late last evening after being released by authorities:

“I got arrested today with 7 other activists as we disrupted the Senate Finance Committee hearing. Bauchus [Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Bauchus, D MT] has been the most arrogant and disrespectful of the committee chairs. I've been encouraging people to draw the line on him and couldn't resist the urge to join them. The other protesters belonged to the Physicians for a National Health Program and the Healthcare Now Coalition.

“I think it was exactly the right thing to do. We got more mileage out of it than if Bauchus had actually scheduled a token single payer witness and we hijacked the theme of the hearing. The associated press piece said something like "The protesters called for putting single payer on the table. Senator Bauchus called for more police."”

(the following from Workers Independent Network Radio) -http://www.laborradio.org/node/11053---(alas, only the text when I tried)

Single Payer Universal Health Care Advocates Denied A Voice At Senate Hearing - 05/06/09
The Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress have pledged to move forward with establishing a new healthcare system for the country, but not everyone has a seat at the table deciding what the best system should be. Jesse Russell has more:

Tuesday morning the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing regarding the future of healthcare in the United States featuring 15 witnesses, however, not a single witness was a supporter of single payer healthcare. Wanting their voices to be heard a number of doctors and advocates stood up at the start of the session and demanded a seat at the table and as they spoke they were immediately escorted out of the room and arrested by Capitol police.
[advocate]: “It's only when the people living in the park and the people living on Park Avenue have the same healthcare that everyone will have high quality healthcare.”

The speakers who stood up were from the organizations Physicians for a National Health Program, Health Care Now, and Single Payer Action. Senator Max Baucus of Montana is the head of the Finance Committee and he is also the leading Democrat in the Senate to receive donations from health insurance companies. Baucus has received more than $400,000 from the companies and their employees. As the head of the committee it was up to Baucus to bring order to the hearing.

[Baucus]: The whole point of this hearing and other hearings is to try and determine the best route and the best option for reforming our country's healthcare system.

Although Baucus said he respected the position of single payer advocates he didn't offer any of the physicians in the audience a seat at the table. President Barack Obama included supporters of single payer healthcare during his hearing in March.

mailto:organizers@laborforsinglepayer.org">organizers@laborforsinglepayer.org
or call Jerry Tucker at 314-968-5534

--------------------------------comments---------------
Good Baucus "respects" HR676 supporters position. Anyone know how much loot he has recieved from Drug and Insurance companies?

"Baucus's campaigns have been health professionals and pharmaceuticals. The health sector has given Baucus at least $2.8 million during his career, more than any other sector with the exception of finance, insurance and real estate companies, which have given him $4.6 million."
from: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/01/power-players-with-health-sect.html
which has a lot, lot more on Baucus the fearless leader

Amazing someone whom gets such gifts has such an open mind on the subject. Taking money from strangers and conducting public work with an open mind, so rare these days. Give me a couple million and we would be buddies, but then again I am not a senator.

Cash is prefered.
----------
By the way, more of the supporter of HR676 are waking up to the idea that some of our ideas are not welcome and folks that supported flipped positions overnight. I suspect more HR676 troublemakers will be seen and heard.

-----------------------------------------

New twist on the Employee Free Trade Act

The following is from the Wall Street Journal and deals with an attack upon the proposed Employee Free Trade Act----from the left.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165379013293871.html


OPINION: MAIN STREET
MAY 7, 2009
The 'Free Choice' Act Is Anything But
George Meany and binding arbitration.

By GEORGE S. MCGOVERN
The recent news that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter has become a member of the Democratic caucus has given new life to legislation that many thought had been put to rest for this Congress -- the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

Last year, I wrote on these pages that I was opposed to this bill because it would eliminate secret ballots in union organizing elections. However, the bill has an additional feature that isn't often mentioned but that is just as troublesome -- compulsory arbitration.

This feature would give the government the power to step into labor disputes where employers and labor leaders cannot reach an agreement and compel both sides to accept a contract.
Compulsory arbitration is bound to trigger the law of unintended consequences.

Currently, labor law maintains a careful balance between the rights of businesses, unions and individual employees. While bargaining power differs depending on individual circumstances, the rights of the parties are well balanced. When a union and a business enter negotiations, current law requires that both sides bargain "in good faith."

In a contract negotiation, each party typically perceives the other as too demanding. But no one loses their right to contract willingly or suffers being forced to agree to anything. Employees can strike if they feel that they have been dealt with unfairly, but it is a costly option. Employers are free to reject labor demands they find to be too difficult to accept, but running a business without experienced employees is itself difficult. Both sides have an incentive to press their demands, but they also have compelling reasons not to press their demands too far. EFCA would disrupt that balance by enabling government-appointed lawyers to decide what they believe is fair or reasonable.

A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case. Yet fundamental decisions on wages and benefit costs, rules for promotions, or even rules for exiting an unprofitable line of business could fall to federal arbitrators under EFCA.

Many labor contracts can run over 100 pages with their requirements of each party. Compulsory arbitration is, in one sense, government dictating to employees what they will win or lose in the deal, with no opportunity to approve the "agreement." Why should employees pay union dues to get such a contract?

My perspective on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is informed by life experience. After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with -- the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.

When it comes to labor disputes, both parties should be guaranteed a real chance for compromise under the joint economic threat of contract breakdowns. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO for nearly 30 years before retiring in 1979, had it right in condemning mandatory arbitration as "an abrogation of freedom."

My party has well-deserved majorities in both houses of Congress, and I am thankful to have an exceptional president in Barack Obama. But while the Democratic majority in Washington confers the power to reward our loyal supporters, today's problems require solutions that transcend party politics. Even when that means taking unpopular stands.

Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.
----------------------------------------------
All USW contracts to my knowledge have some sort of arbitration included by the way as does many other contracts with labor unions and companies I have seen. I believe the defeat of McGovern has worn down his mind. I voted for him way back when and if he had said something like this; would not have voted at all. alternative was Richard Nixon

----------------------------------------
----------------
This is a copyrighted article and will withdraw if objections made.

communist sponge bob

A little satire for the folks today. Most USW folks will understand the humor.

Thanks to the folks at you tube.

Wonk Room healthcare observation and story

Morning:

This is a story from the "Wonk Room" http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/06/ignagni-media/

What the wonks are reporting seems to be the path some past allies and supporters of healthcare reform are trending. Soar 11-3 is going to raise hell at some of this and we support HR676. Insurance company concessions? Whom are they kidding?

That the "media" believe insurance reform is great, I do to; but they should have done reform years ago. The policies of greed by the insurance companies has resulted in tens of thousands of folks dead. Dean is right, this is insurance reform and not healthcare reform.

Insurance companies? The criminals that run them should be jailed and their assets taken under RICO inditements. The insurance companies themselves should be nationalized. some of the politicans under their thumb, should be impeached and removed from office. Radical? I think not for when in America justice radical idea. (oops forgot the Bush administration)


--------------------------------
Media Buys What The Health Insurance Industry Is Selling
During yesterday’s hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, America’s Health Insurance Plans President and CEO Karen Ignagni attempted to discourage Democrats from enacting a new public health care plan by reiterating the industry’s support for guaranteed issue — offering coverage to every applicant — and modified community rating — charging everyone the same premiums — (so long as both regulations are paired with an individual requirement to buy insurance).

Press coverage of the event centered around the insurance industry’s so-called “concessions”:
- AHIP Pleads Its Case: Regulate Us: “In a rare sight on Capitol Hill for any industry, health insurers practically begged senators Tuesday to regulate their livelihood rather than subject them to the fierce, and potentially lethal, competition that would ensue if lawmakers unleash a government-run public insurance option on them.” [National Journal, 5/06/2009]

- Insurers Offer Concession On Premiums: “Health insurers have offered to submit to a series of restrictions they contend would add up to a fairer marketplace and cut into the ranks of the 50 million uninsured.” [Boston Globe, 5/06/2009]

- Health Insurers Agree to End Higher Premiums for Women: “It was the latest concession by insurers as Congress drafts legislation to overhaul the $2.5 trillion health care industry.” [NY Times, 5/06/2009]

The industry had offered similar concessions in December 1992, before launching an all-out attack on President Clinton’s health care reform efforts. Of course, that’s not to say that insurers will adopt a similar strategy this time around. Ignagni and her team may run issue ads against certain provisions but are unlikely to oppose the entire effort.

Still, before we credit the industry for cooperating with progressive reformers, we should consider Ignagni’s proposal. The industry envisions a reformed marketplace in which everyone is required to purchase coverage. In return, insurers would no longer deny coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions or charge sicker Americans higher premiums than healthier Americans. Women would not pay more than men and insurers would invest more in preventive care and care coordination.

But as Howard Dean pointed out in an interview with ThinkProgress, “if we only get community rating and guaranteed issue that’s great insurance reform, but that is not health care reform and nobody should mistake it.” Indeed, reforming the insurance industry is all about restoring competition. Already, “1 in 6 metropolitan areas in a 2008 study of more than 300 U.S. markets is dominated by a single health insurer that controls at least 70% of consumers enrolled in health maintenance organizations or preferred provider organizations.”

Such consolidation negates any real competition, preventing insurers from having to negotiate prices and lower premiums. In fact, while “there have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years,” premiums have risen “nearly eight times faster than average U.S. incomes.” Insurers fear a public plan because it has the potential to work all too well, force private plans to lower prices and cause some enrollees to shift to public coverage. And it’s this fear that’s drawing insurers to the reform table.

A new public plan, after all, would complement the private market and offer Americans a real choice of coverage. It would also help pioneer new payment and quality-improvement methods that could set the standard for private plans and use its lower administrative costs and bargaining power to better control health care costs.

Ignangi points to the Federal Employees Health Benefits exchange — which does not include a public health option — as an example of a successfully regulated health care market. But as Jacob Hacker argues, “FEHBP’s annual growth rate of per enrollee spending averaged 7.3 percent from 1985 to 2002 (the most recent currently available data year) compared with 5.8 percent for Medicare. Indeed, the growth rate for FEHBP is virtually identical to that for private health insurance over this period.”

-----------------------------------
The industry’s so-called “concessions” are designed to protect their monopoly over the health insurance market, not lowering health care costs or offering Americans better quality care.
UpdateSen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) office has just issued a press release announcing that "FIVE ADDITIONAL SENATORS EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION." This brings the total in the Senate to 21: Sens. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) Russ Feingold (D-WI), Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), John D. (Jay) Rockefeller (D-WV), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Bob Casey (D-PA), Jim Webb (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
---------------
By the way, the wonks have some good stuff at their site. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/06/ignagni-media/