Giving a voice to the thousands who protested outside President Donald Trump's Wednesday evening appearance in Nashville—and the millions more poised to lose their healthcare—Dr. Carol Paris, head of a national organization of physicians dedicated to promoting healthcare for all, directly confronted the president and demanded he do better by the American people.
Dr. Carol Paris:"People are dying I'm a physician I cannot sit by and not speak up".
Folks, the good Dr. is correct, we must not allow ourselves to allow people to die because we failed to speak up.
We need to adopt universal health care. There are only 2 ways: a) nationalization (like UK) or b) singlepayer (like Canada or Australia) which (IMO) is probably the easiest route for the #USA (though I'd be fine with either).
We also need to force Congress to pass a singlepayer bill like HR676 - unless somebody thinks Bernie's "brand new Congress" is going to happen in the next round or two. (Yeah, let's go for it, and I'll certainly do my part, but i'm not holding my breath.) So, the way you force them is with an industry boycott that's designed in a relatively fail-safe way for participants (since health insurance in the U.S. clearly isn't like boycotting Ivanka's handbags - it can be a lot more dangerous!)
To do that, it looks like we'd need a LEGAL TRUST set up where policy holders could submit contingent pledges that the trust could cancel their insurance IF and ONLY IF "X" number of pledges and cancellations are collected; "X" being the mathematically determined "tipping point" or "critical mass" at which the industries are basically staked through the heart and brought down.
Because they're not going to go on their own. And, they own the politicians on both sides of the aisle. Ryan and McConnell, for example, are taking millions - and this was brought to everyone's attention by Clinton wing DP activists - rich, since Hillary Clinton took more from the industry than either of them combined. And then some.
If Congress opened Medicare via 676, of course, the industry could fend for themselves with a few perks from the bill which basically absorb a certian number of displaced employees in the Medicare expansion (which fully incorporates Medicaid). But, the rest will have to just find other work; at least they leave with UHC which is a lot more than what most of their fellow Americans got when they lost their jobs.
So, in this boycott proposal, you've got basically 3 phases once the mathematics are determined - (a) collecting the pledges until you reach "critical mass," (b) collecting the cancellation signatures and policy numbers, and, submitting them en masse to the industry, and (c) everyone buckling in for the air turbulence and bumps as the plane lands in Congress on HR 676 (with some Congressional assistance there. During this interim, medical allies could also be working in conjunction with any medical emergencies for those temporarily "not covered." The bill, too, could back cover anyone from that period.
But people have to squarely face this down - the matter of boycotting. Yes, it's probably a vrey large number needed (less, at the state levels) - but - look how many decades the Democrats have been jacking us around on this. By now, we could have gotten this done.
And given the fail-safe nature of the boycott via LEGAL TRUST - and the large percentage of the public that wants single payer - I think it's relatively easy to collect names once people understand what's going on. It doesn't cost them anything - they can only gain as long as the proposed boycott is well designed and calculated in terms of this industry.
Those CEOs who met with Trump in the White House - I'm sure they already know what those figures are. They already know what it would take for the American public to bring them down, relatively speaking, overnight.
Now we have to carefully calculate the same information and put it into action. Including the "crash landing" in Congress. A month? Less? Maybe by the time we'd reach such high numbers, we wouldn't even need to?
People should be discussing this concept with family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, acquaintances, throughout social media, you name it.
We're the only nation without UHC. It's time to move into the future here - and we will have to "force them" or "compel them" whether Congress is controlled by Republicans or Democrats.
P.S. Anyone who wants to copy/paste this anywhere else on social media, please, be my guest. The more who read this and think about it, the better. Whatever makes it easiest to spread ideas and discussion. RELEASED TO PUBLIC DOMAIN.
I was just thinking about the numbers in terms of populace. 24 million of 350 million is just over 6% of the population. I assume the companies and the politicians know this as well. With that said, dropping 6% of the population would mean nothing to either the companies nor Trump and friends. If anything they would want to drop them so they can raise prices and wait for the next population boom that we will see from teaching abstinence in schools. Add inflation and we might see many middle classers become lower class (Because in a Democracy there is a class system) in about 5-7 years.
Let me be the first to say, nah.
I'm with you. Organizing for single -payer in Vermont. I am not very clear about your idea perhaps you can explain it in a different way? And by industry I assume you are referring to the health insurance companies? And those of us on medicare which is also under threat and medicaid?
_*Contact Price directly: HHS Secretary
HHS Office of the Secretary
__E-mail Address: __
__Phone Number: __
Single-Payer is not only equitable universal healthcare but it also offers some real dignity to everyone including the much maligned poor by virtue of treating everyone equally. Contrast this to the proposed changes to medicaid where the poor are absolutely criminalized.
The only way to get the GOP to listen to Medicare for All is to tell them it would be the biggest tax cut to every business in America that provides health benefits to their employees. They dont care about the poor or middle class that can't afford insurance, but theyt DO care about Corporations.
American companies are at a huge disadvantage because of healthcare. If we had Medicare for All they would save billions. It is a win-win. The only loser is health insurers.
Why do we allow this when it means life and death to millions of Americans AND a huge cost to businesses? Not to mention the cruelty.
what do you want to see happen then?
the insurance industry/industries are venal vultures. i have had to work with different ones over the decades, for me or for clients, and i have NEVER met a human person who i'd say has a beating heart. once i saw moore's film sicko, that was the final straw for me.
great, g-l, thank you. am passing this on...
"Federal Employees Health Benefits Program", or FEHBP for short. This is the health care system that was enacted in 1959 for ALL government employees. This is the system that now, ONLY the federal politicians have access to, all other government employees were removed by the Republicans years ago - you know, 'cost control'.
Well here we are - the millionaire politicians have free health care for themselves and their families thanks to the generous, grateful taxpayers, who are so appreciative of what the wonderful politicians do for us and the wellbeing of the Nation. (Couldn't resist the snark - sorry.)
The way I see it, they now have two choices;
One: open up this system to all Americans, or
Two: Provide Medicare for all, a single-payer system - nothing less will do. We MUST join the rest of the Industrialized Nations in providing health care for all humans who reside in this country - and, yes, as all these other nations do, provide this health care for every person, citizens AND visitors, both legal and illegal. (Time to accept world responsibility as all other countries do.)
Go to, "PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM", and see the details of what this will entail. Or, go to their website and watch the YouTube video, "FIX IT". This will give you an excellent overview of this system.
Time to enter the 21st-century responsibility for human existence.
Yes, I'm working with some of the physician volunteers from PNHP, resources from www.healthcare-now.org and the screening of this film: http://thehealthcaremovie.net/home/. Any chance you and your friends can work on getting local libraries where you live to host single-payer events? Thanks!
"We must have universal healthcare...I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.
Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork.
The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans. There are fewer medical lawsuits, less loss of labor to sickness, and lower costs to companies paying for the medical care of their employees. If the program were in place in Massachusetts in 1999 it would have reduced administrative costs by $2.5 million. We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing."
Our Liar in Chief #45
So, it seems, do Cubans.
Note that in Britain since the days of Thatcher successive governments have run down the NHS and that in Australia public health care is also being run down by assorted governments, with privatisation by stealth creeping in.
You should dig out a copy of the British government's Beveridge report 1942 which laid the foundation for the British NHS in 1948.
Yea, Obama seemed to be interested in it too, before he became president. Something about moving into the White House causes people to loose interest in universal healthcare. Wonder why that is...
Yes, I'm referring to the health insurance companies. Under a UHC system that is improved, expanded Medicare for All (like John Conyers bill HR 676), Medicaid is absorbed by the Medicare expansion and Medicare itself is improved. So for people in either of those programs, they receive improved care and access.
You could apply such a boycott proposal, I suppose, at the state level, too, and running different numbers for analysis of whatever the critical mass or tipping point would be. Though you might not need to do that in a state like Vermont. Regardless, either a national or state campaign could only complement (it seems to me) the campaign you're doing.
Our elections and government are so controlled and corrupted by industry money (insurance companies and pharmaceuticals) - we are unable to "overthrow" the government through the election process as we should be able to, otherwise - and get elected leadership in who will do what we want them to do. That's why the ACA happened with Obama and the Democrats instead of single payer - when they had control of the House, Senate and Presidency - and Medicare for all was clearly supported by minimally 65% of the American public, most of the medical profession, and hundreds of labor, business, women's and human rights groups. Yet they didn't even allow this into the discussion - and even the public option was canned - even a weak public option.
Well, when you can't overthrow the government because it's so controlled by the "industry" (really - cartels) - you have to overthrow the industry - and force the government to open Medicare to the country.
You do that with a boycott, but of course, insurance is different than other boycotts. People can't individually on their own just start canceling their policies. But - they can if a legal trust, say (and I'm not a lawyer, so talk to lawyers) - collects the cancellations - and ONLY submits the cancellations when X number of cancellations are collected.
At which point, you have what should be a fail-safe boycott (assuming the numbers have been accurately determined). The trust submits the cancellations and basically, we drive a stake through the heart of the health insurance industry.
Prior to the ACA, the industry was going down and the conversation went something like, "When the industry goes down, Congress will be forced to open Medicare." Why some said, "Just let it collapse." Others were like, "We want Medicare for all, but that would be too inhumane to allow all these people to die - so we have to go with putting the industry on life support."
So the boycott, in this case, is achieving the same end. But, for those who are covered by private health insurance policies, in a relatively safe manner.
During the interim period (finale, I guess - stage 3?) between submitting all these cancellations en masse and "riding Congress" on to a bill like HR 676 - there could be arrangements with health allies for health care emergencies, and likely, after passage of such a bill, retroactive coverage for that period.
I'm not sure that answers your questions, but there's some more. Part of the challenge might next be determining how to arrive at these numbers - i.e. "tipping point," "critical mass." I'd bet that the CEOs who met, for example with Trump (he photo'd himself with people he said were the top health insurance companies - don't know if that's 'fact,' as Trump said it, but ...) regardless, these individuals, as an example, must know. They calculate the odds and numbers on people's lives and deaths all the time for their coldblooded profits. They must know what would topple them over, as well.
We need to know, too.
Someone is passing a petition that, last I read, is close 300,000 signatures demanding that Congress lose its health coverage. I haven't read it yet, myself, just a bit about it.