Embed
by GRITtv was published on September 2nd, 2009
August was a dark month, so to speak, for advocates of healthcare reform—public option or single payer. Where were the activists? And what’s the message?
Marshall Ganz, a long time organizer and lecturer at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, Maggie Mahar, the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much,
and Nina Agrawal, Director of Community Outreach for National Physicians Alliance in NY on what needs to be done to win the healthcare war.
NOTICE: GRITtv and GRITradio are not affiliated with Ogden Publications, Inc., and are in no way associated with, or authorized or sponsored by, Ogden Publications Inc. or GRIT Magazine.
For information on GRIT magazine, go to
www.grit.com.
Thanks Laura!
By egregious on September 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
It was a dark month for U.S. media particularly, as they almost to a person avoided their responsibility to inform the public accurately.
By Ruth Calvo on September 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
To summarize, Ganz says we can’t figure out what we are for and who is the opposition; Mahar says we need to explain why a public option is needed; and, Agrawal thinks we should focus on what reform means to the individual.
Just today I watched Richard Trumka, soon-to-be President of the AFL-CIO video. He hammered home all of these concerns very simply and effectively. Trumka answered Ganz’s first concern by saying that what we need is a public option; there will be no meaningful reform without it. He answered Ganz’s second concern by focusing on insurance companies. He answered Mahar’s concerns by arguing that a public option will increase competition and break the “stranglehold” insurance companies have on the market and by extension on the entire health care industry. (By pointing out that 94% of health insurance markets are controlled by a few companies, Trumka reminded me of Theodore Roosevelt’s attack on the early 20th century corporate “malefactors of great wealth.”) He answered Agrawal by pointing out that with a real choice of health insurance plans if you are not treated right by your insurance company, if costs keep going up or if quality keeps going down, you will be able to vote with your pocket book. He used the word “stranglehold” six times in three minutes to highlight his point that insurance companies need to be “forced” to compete, become more efficient, and make a system that works for everybody. This, of course, is not the nuanced, wonky answer, nor is it the only solution to the problem, but it is one that might resonate well with the American people. Think of the stranglehold of two industries in 1906–the railroads and the meat packers. The Muckrakers had provided the groundwork, so it would not have been too hard to figure out what kind of legislation to support, who the opposition was, why strict regulation of those businesses was needed or how the individual would have benefited. Sure, many solutions might have worked, but due to heavily publicized corporate abuses, the country was ready for heavy doses of regulation contained in the Hepburn Act and the Meat Inspection Act, not a full-blown economic analysis. The American people understand when and what to do when the playing field becomes uneven.
By lexrex on September 2nd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
socialism for the haves ,nothing for the “have-nots”.history show the lessons learn, for systems like this.
By yellow44 on September 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I believe that President Obama has approached healthcare as he has approached most everything. He is embedded in the Establishment which has no interest in reversing their status quo. He appears to be wedded the corporate powers which increasingly, along with the Pentagon, have been pulling the strings of government and most of our elected officials since the 1950’s.
Given this reality there is little hope that the President’s philosophy will prove to be anything more than a middle-road corporate panderer. Thus, though I hope that I am proved wrong, I fear that we are not in for “real change” unless we as Progressives will band together and put great pressure on the President , the Congress, and the media.
By briteblack on September 5th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Is public option a smoke screen?
Unless we plan on a violent overthrow of the government, a weak us impossibility, converting our excessive wealth capitalist government to one of equality must be an organized gradual push toward the liberal left.
Comes not a realization that the public option would: (1) Lead to the total destruction of the health insurance industry. (2) Expose in a most embarrassing way the total failure of capitalist medicine to do anything but kill people and generate excessive wealth. (3) Expose all capitalist politicians as paid actors and destroy any hope of their reelection. (4) Create heaven on earth and a social democracy for ever more.
Sucker bait if you ask me, just like single payer, just a smoke screen to keep us going down a blind alley so we never see the light, that many other options do we have to get the job done slow and right. Our only goal being honesty and good regulation that eliminates excessive profit,, surely we have many proven models that Congress could be forced to support without committing political suicide.
Take the Sweden model, it has healthcare industry the same as ours with insurance companies running the show. But the big difference is their 100% oversight and good regulation that keeps profit to a bare minimum, CEO salaries below a million, and unnecessary procedures off the operating table.
By AlabamaJohn on September 7th, 2009 at 12:51 pm