Daniel Freilich's Blog
Posts Tagged ‘Single-payer health insurance system’
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010
Wall Street is again thriving. Stocks are bullish. Finance managers are cashing in. Executive bonuses are flourishing. Sushi, wine, fashion, and BMWs are being bought. Things are looking good again for the elite.
But most Americans are not thriving. They don’t have expendable income to have invested in stocks or they already sold at a loss to pay bills. Many are unemployed with no prospect of a job. Many have no health insurance. Many are having wages eroded, with lower wages per se, fewer hours, and/or lesser benefits. Those with health insurance are finding higher deductibles and copayments. Employers claim to ‘provide coverage’, but less and less is covered, in effect, lowering wages.
Monthly bills for basic services pile up on kitchen tables. Families decide which one not to pay each month. Even if bills are paid, they do not save, precluding ‘moving up’. College education expenses are soaring so many give up and use high school diplomas for unskilled service jobs.
Our leaders could solve structural issues to help middle class Americans ‘pick themselves up by the boot straps’. So their pain is needless. But no. Our leaders are not in any hurry. Why should they be? They are paid off by corporations and part of the quid pro quo of the campaign contributions is an expectation they will turn a blind eye.
Senator Leahy is the second most senior member of the U.S. Senate. He could use his power to fight for the middle class. But no. He is content to throw a few crumbs to appease the masses without meaningful reform. He has an opportunity to fight for middle class tax cuts. But to do so, he would have to fight to pay for them by removing tax loopholes for the rich. That would anger the rich and powerful who fund his campaign. So no. Won’t happen.
He had an opportunity to fight for national health insurance last year, a reform that would improve the economic plight of the middle class and provide career flexibility. The stimulus to the economy would enable millions of jobs by increasing business competitiveness. It would be the best ‘jobs bill’ possible. But it would require angering the health-related companies that fund his campaign. So no. Didn’t happen. Incremental reform will have to suffice.
Hey there establishment. We’re coming after you. We are not going to take it anymore.
Tags: conflict of interest, Corruption, Daniel Freilich, equity, fairness, Healthcare is a human right, income tax, Medicare for All, Senator Patrick Leahy, Single-payer health insurance system, Vermont
Posted in Health care reform, Leadership, Taxation | No Comments »
Monday, August 9th, 2010
Vermont had its so-called ‘debate’ between the two Democratic Primary candidates for the U.S. Senate. This is likely to be the only pre-primary ‘debate’ because the incumbent has refused to publicly debate. It was not a real ‘debate’ but it was a spirited ‘discussion’, highlighting key policy and political ethical principles differences between the incumbent and me. I was present in VPR’s Colchester studio; the Senator called in from Washington. In any case, VPR should be commended for its efforts.
What struck me most during the debate was how out of touch the Senator was. My criticisms of the Senator’s political ethics and voting record were not ‘negative’ as he stated but real. My critiques were substantive, not personal, and backed by the same passionate feeling the electorate feels – anger. The Senator probably doesn’t understand the depth of anger amongst Vermonters at the establishment, and its acceptance of hypocritical, conflicted, and incremental approaches to solving our problems. And Congress is in the crosshair. He said ‘that’s not how we do things in Vermont’ (paraphrased) but what he meant is ‘that’s not how establishment in Vermont likes to do things’… the elite doesn’t like challenge to the status quo or political power structure. But Vermonters know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes, recognize double speak, know when they are getting screwed, and clearly are fed up with the political establishment’s ‘sweeping under the rug’ of its legally corrupt ways of doing business.
I asked the Senator three issue-related questions but he evaded meaningful responses to any of them.
I asked why he won’t publicly debate before the primary. His response was that he will debate all of his challengers prior to the general election. But that was not the question although the tactic of diluting your primary challenger amongst a sea of challengers is obvious. The Primary election is just that, an election, not a reappointment. I understand that the election is a ‘pain in the neck’ for the Senator but he should suck it up, do the right thing, and support representative democracy whether he likes it or not. He clearly doesn’t like it and didn’t want to be there. It was a lost opportunity for him to lead by showing grandfatherly statesmanship for young voters.
I asked Senator Leahy why he didn’t support Senator Sanders’ single-payer amendment to the health care reform bill. He responded that Senator Sanders knows he supports him. But the reality is that Senator Leahy declined to co-sponsor Sanders’ bill. One can’t have it both ways. A forthright answer would have been that he doesn’t support single-payer reform, he believed it was unrealistic, or he was not willing to fight for it.
I asked Senator Leahy to explain why he thinks it is ok to accept special interests funding of his campaign and explain how he can objectively represent Vermonters when he partakes in that Washington game. He responded that such funding never affected his choices, and that contrary to the case for my campaign, he has lots of individual supporters in Vermont. Not to belabor the details but the Senator is smarter than that. As a lawyer, he knows that the true issue is deeper and more philosophical – whether elected officials should prioritize minimizing conflict of interest to the best of their ability or not. Period.
Tags: campaign finance reform, Daniel Freilich, Debate, Democratic Primary, Medicare for All, Senator Patrick Leahy, Single-payer health insurance system, Special Interests, Universal health care insurance, US Senate candidate Daniel Freilich, Vermont, Vermont Democratic Party, Vermont Political Revolution
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Friday, February 26th, 2010
Yesterday’s bipartisan summit on health care reform was a breath of fresh air even if it didn’t accomplish much that is substantive. I didn’t see the whole meeting but I don’t think the Single-Payer option, the only form of reform likely to transformationally improve out health care system, received significant (or even any) discussion. Nevertheless, just the fact that Democrats and Republicans sat in a conference room and debated health care reform in a public and civil manner is a quite the accomplishment.
Talking about more substantive stuff, credit card reform went fully into effect this week too—a consequence of Congress having passed the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 — the Credit CARD Act.
The new act should provide some semblance of consumer protection:
The new law makes it more difficult for credit card companies to increase interest rates at will.
The new law makes credit card companies more clearly disclose real credit card costs.
The new law puts restrictions on credit card fees.
The new law requires grace periods so consumers can more easily pay their bills on time.
The new law requires cardholder permission for over-the-limit charging.
The new law requires a co-signer for those under 21 unless financially independent.
This is an accomplishment President Obama and Congressional leaders should be proud of!
Tags: Credit Card Act, Single payer health insurance, Single-payer health insurance system
Posted in Announcements, Health care reform | No Comments »
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010
The President will be discussing health care reform with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders in two days.
I wonder if he will discuss the potential merits and deteriments of truly transformational health insurance reform — replacement of our multipayer market-based private health insurance system with a single payer national health insurance system (Medicare for All).
As almost every other industrialized nation on the globe has succeeded in achieving universal health care in a cost-effective manner with national health insurance programs, it behooves our leaders to put ideology and political expedience factors aside for the duration of the detente meeting, and discuss this potential solution to our health care crisis. The predicted savings, hundreds of billions of dollars annually, would be an economic stimulus, increasing American business competitiveness, profitability, and affordability to increase hiring.
At the very least, the single-payer health insurance system potential solution to our moral and economic health crisis should be deliberated upon publicly.
Details about the campaign’s platform regarding health care reform can be found at: http://www.danielfreilich.com/health_care.php.
I wouldn’t hold your breath but maybe we will be surprised.
Dan F
Tags: health care, Medicare for All, Single-payer health insurance system, Universal health care insurance
Posted in Health care reform | 10 Comments »
Monday, January 4th, 2010
Pursuit of optimal rather than politically expedient health care reform
The Vermont Workers Center’s Healthcare Is A Human Right Campaign will be delivering thousands of postcards to the Vermont Legislature on Jan 6, 2010 at noon. If you haven’t already signed a postcard, please sign one at www.workerscenter.org/Jan6postcard. If you can attend, please email kate@workerscenter.org.
Our campaign fully supports the concept that healthcare is a human right and that health care cannot be traded fairly as a commodity (as is the case in the current U.S. multi-payer market-based health insurance system). I support pursuit of a single-payer system in Vermont in the interim while working on a national system. This is suboptimal but realistic.
I support a national single-payer health insurance system (Medicare for All) as evidence shows it is the only system that can be reasonably expected to extend medical and dental coverage to all Americans in a cost-effective manner. More than $300 billion annually would be saved in lower administrative costs; $100 billion in drug costs due to improved bargaining power with pharmaceutical companies; and $40 billion in eliminated costs for the currently ‘uninsured’. As such, Democrats and Republicans alike should support a single-payer system.
It is mystifying to see how the Democratic Party has pursued the more politically-expedient compromise of further institutionalizing our current broken system with ‘reform’ that leave millions without health insurance and many more millions without dental insurance, and won’t extend coverage for years anyhow. It is similarly surprising that the Party would give a bonanza to the insurance industry by imposing a mandate such that millions of healthy young people will be signing up for private insurance. Finally, there is little reason to believe the ‘reform’ will ‘bend the curve’ in any meaningful way. I believe it will dramatically increase the national debt or be curtailed in the first place in the ensuing years to prevent that from happening.
The biggest irony of the single-payer debate has been the Republican Party’s (and business’) refusal to consider the cost-savings of a single-payer health insurance system. The savings would lead to a significant stimulus to the economy as a consequence of improved competitiveness, profitability, and job creation. It appears that raw ideology has usurped serious thinking.
I believe our three congressional representatives (Senators Leahy and Sanders, and Representative Welch) should vote against any conference health care bill that is similar to the recently passed House and Senate bills. There is an opportunity for a Vermont revolution leading to the export of robust Vermont values of fairness , reasonableness , and decency to the rest of the country.
Our congressional representatives should insist on an open and public debate about the potential merits of a single-payer system by the President and Congress.
They should also insist on a renewed professional and ethical commitment to public service by disposing of any PAC funding that may have established a conflict of interest, and thus, potentially clouded their objectivity. In the absence of such a ‘return to sender’, they should recuse themselves from voting on the matter. Such ethical requirements are standard for non-elected federal government officials and should be followed by elected officials as well.
History would judge such courage, enlightened thinking, and leading by example generously.
Daniel Freilich
Tags: health care, Healthcare is a human right, Medicare for All, Representative Peter Welch, Senator Bernard Sanders, Senator Patrick Leahy, Single-payer health insurance system, US Senate candidate Daniel Freilich, Vermont Workers Center
Posted in Health care reform | 1 Comment »
| 
