Message from Mitch Stewart: "It’s time to stand up"
May 12, 2009
From Mitch Stewart:
Monday morning, an unlikely gathering of health care industry and union leaders emerged from the White House, announcing a historic agreement to lower medical costs and save the average family up to $2,500. This kind of broad coalition would have been unthinkable in the past, when the old politics of division and short-term self interest held sway. But this is a new day.
Yesterday afternoon, President Obama announced the three bedrock principles that any comprehensive health care reform must achieve: (1) reduce costs, (2) guarantee choice, and (3) ensure all Americans have quality, affordable health care. And he set a hard goal for getting it done by the end of this year.
For those determined to oppose reform, the President’s announcement means lobbyists are already scrambling across D.C. For the rest of us, it means there’s no time to lose. As we speak, Congress is negotiating the details for health care reform, so the first step is showing where the American people stand.
Please click below to sign a declaration of support urging Congress to follow President Obama’s three core principles for health care reform — and to enact them before the end of this year:
(The more signatures we have, the more powerful our message will be, so please add your name and then forward this note on to family and friends.)The health care crisis is not new, but it’s getting worse. For decades, real health care reform has been blocked by special interest lobbying and political point-scoring. We simply cannot go any further down this dangerous road of delay and denial. But we don’t have to.
Yesterday’s agreement marks only the beginning of the broad coalition we need. The most important reason this round of health care reform will be different is you. Last fall millions of regular people came together and did the impossible. Now, we’ve got to roll up our sleeves, join hands with those new to our movement, and do it again.
Congress is already hammering out the details of the health care package, and it could still go any number of ways. Our representatives need to understand that when the President lays out these three bedrock principles, Americans of every stripe are standing with him. Yesterday’s diverse gathering was a powerful start — and now it’s up to us.
It’s time to stand up. Please sign the declaration of support today.
Reducing costs, guaranteeing choice, and ensuring care for all are ambitious goals, but they are nothing less than what the American people deserve. And passing real health care reform this year is nothing less than what the American people need.
Thank you,
Mitch
Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
Message from Mitch Stewart: "It’s time to stand up"
Comments
6 Responses to “Message from Mitch Stewart: "It’s time to stand up"”
Got something to say?
Translator
Subscribe To Our Feeds
I have heard Organizing For America is searching for good organizers to join the team. I have close to four years experience in the labor movement, mainly with SEIU and including the Health Care United Campaign last year. Before that I spent 15 years in broadcasting and PR. To whom do I speak about getting on board? Happy to send my resume at your earliest convenience.
Thanks! Eric Moffitt
719-250-2725
I have a comment to direct toward Organizing for America’s, Mitch Stewart. I recieved an Email from your organization today, read it, and came away with an all too familiar “feeling”. The feeling I came away with was “Yes, they want money, they want you to physically get involved, but they do not want to hear from you as a rule. In that Email, Mitch Stewart’s Email did not appear at all, that I might ask a question, offer some input. That is fine, but I do not often respond to such Emails.
This “exception” is because the Email dealt with Medical Care. Considering that I am a Caregiver for my Handicapped wife, who cannot walk or stand by hereself, I have had more than a simple opportunity to sample the “Medical Care System” available here in California. My wife has had 2 Strokes, had a Seizure Condition which developed before the Strokes, has Hyperension, has had a Particl Frontal Lobotomy, and after 7 years of my care in our home, can read, write, speak at about a 12 years old’s level, but she can do those things. Often her speach is closer to her 49 year age. What I have to offer based upon all of the effort she has made and I have had to make to get her to that state from not talking intelligently, not moving at all, is that Medical Care isn’t a problem, per se, but rather the greed that permeates the Medical Profession is. It is, I realize, “human nature” to charge people exorbitant amounts of money when they are frail and cannot successfully argue for a lesser rate, and so, the issue I see is that for a long time the “Mark”, the “Seriously Ill Individual” has caused the Medical Profession to charge “what the traffic will bear”. As I said, undertandable. Not desireable, however. Setting “Fixed Rates” on each procedure does not work either. Having worked in the Medical Field, I know that when you have seen one “Stroke Victum”, you have seen One Stroke Victum…..no two cases are alike and no “Fixed Rate” would apply. So, what is needed is a System in which a “Range of Fees” for each condition or treatment is offered, and a possiblility for “exceptions” is offered as a part of a Medical Plan for everyone. If it costs less to do a procedure, it should be billed at the lowest possible amount. If it cost MORE for a speciic procedure or medication, an explanation should be required. IF justified, it should be covered regardless.
This stuff is simple logic, actually, but, notne the less, the government will hash it out forever only to come up with something that “sort of works”, unless they get this sort of imput. I can simplify much by offering the statemetn that “Half a Bandaid is useless”, but that will be immedialy used as evidence as to the irrational attitude of the author. Not irrrational at all. I am quite rational. We simply need to alter the programs that offer Medical Services at unreasonably high rates so that they practice their little part of Medicine for a fee that is reasonable. Again, this part is not “brain surgery”, it is common sense. The “Total Package” you put tojgether isn’t a problem, it is a matter of managing costs. You can’t change the procedures, only what is billed for them. There is so much I’d like to address that we don’t have time or space here to approach. I hope this has helped a bit. Thank you.
Hey Mitch, how much money do you make? It best be alot or you are getting ripped off. after to lie and deceive must and should have a large price tag on it. Get real and organize for the real AMERICA
People who have health care insurance have a life time limit. As I understand it, if an individual goes over the limit, they lose their health care insurance. Is there an easy way for me to learn how close I am to reaching my limit? Shouldn’t all Americans know what their remaining benefit is? Many Americans who are years away from Medicare have expened a substantial portion of their life time benefit. If we could track our expenditures and know how close we are to reaching our limit, wouldn’t we be more prudent in how we expend our remaining benefits? If all Americans could access this information and if we learned how close we are to reaching our limit, would Americans be more inclined to support health care reform?
I know tracking our expenditures is pure fantasy. What an accounting nightmare! But informing Americans who enjoy good private insurance that they could suddenly lose their coverage may be an eye opener.
The following is a letter from one of my state’s Senators indicating why he is not supporting the current health care reform efforts. Below his statement is my response.
Dear Ms. Derby:
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on health care reform. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate being made aware of your thoughts and concerns.
I am dedicated to providing quality health care for my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans and desire to see everyone receive the best possible health care with the most choices. The recent Reid proposal, currently being debated in the Senate, includes a public option, otherwise known as a government run option. I voted against moving this bill to debate because the legislative ideas presented to us thus far will not improve our health care system or bring down costs. I am working to ensure a Washington bureaucrat does not get between you and your doctor, denying you the medical care you need. I am committed to a balanced, common sense approach to health care that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered.
I believe the Federal government has no place in our personal health care decisions, choices, and treatments. Even with our increasing health care costs and concern for the uninsured, we still have the best health care system in the world, and I do not want to jeopardize the quality of care that already exists in our country. Socialized, government-run health care, touted by many as the only solution, is not the answer. This is made evident by the state of health care in other nations that use this model, like Canada or Great Britain.
The Reid bill, which some estimates say could cost up to $2.5 trillion after full implementation, represents an unprecedented expansion of the government’s control over health care. Oklahoma physicians shared with me in a July 23, 2009, letter that they are concerned that a public plan option will unfairly compete with the private market and ultimately crowd it out.
Under this bill, the government will tell people what type of coverage they can and cannot have, mandate that every American have health care or pay a tax, mandate that employers provide a certain level of benefits or pay a fine, introduce a government run plan designed to destroy the private market, include new policies designed to control what drugs and procedures Americans can receive, and require a historic expansion of Medicaid. According to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, who administers Oklahoma’s Medicaid program, Soonercare, estimates this type of expansion could cost Oklahoma an additional $128 million each year, resulting in harmful cuts to existing state priorities.
There are many examples that show the failures of this type of system. Of the numerous articles, let me provide examples of a few. The Wall Street Journal featured a story earlier this year of a Canadian citizen, Bill Murray, who waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a state-of-the-art procedure, but government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was “too old.” In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself. The Mayo Clinic’s website features the story of Shona Holmes whose Canadian family doctor discovered a tumor in her brain. Ms. Holmes knew she could not wait the six months it would take for her to get an appointment with a specialist. Instead, she was able to call the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and got an appointment the same day. The British newspaper, The Press, reported that a British citizen, Ian Dobbin, was informed by the British National Health Service that since it would not pay for his life-saving cancer treatment, he needed to pay ?25,000 (over $40,000) to obtain the treatment in order to survive. He was quoted in the article saying, “I’ve been paying my national insurance all my life and when it comes to the point that I need it to keep me alive, they are not prepared to help.”
These stories and many others illustrate some of the problems that can arise when the government gets involved in health care. Furthermore, statistics show that the United States already has a superior and more effective health system. According to recent publications, the mortality rate in Canada is 25% higher for breast cancer, 18% higher for prostate cancer, and 13% higher for colorectal cancer than in the U.S. Additionally, studies show that only 5% of Americans wait more than 4 months for surgery, compared with 23% of Australians, 26% of New Zealanders, 27% of Canadians, and 36% of British citizens. In fact, nearly 1.8 million people in Great Britain are waiting for hospital or outpatient treatments at any given time. Even more telling, a Canadian doctor now practicing in the United States reported in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons that the average wait time to see a specialist in Canada is 17 weeks. If we give the Federal government more control over health care, I am very concerned that Oklahomans and all Americans will quickly feel the effects of the rationing of health care.
Supporters of a “public plan” or government-run health insurance option claim that a public plan will bring competition to the health insurance market and lower prices. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has made it clear that introducing a government-run health plan into the market would have minimal impact on cost reduction. In fact, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf testified to the Senate Budget Committee that “in the legislation that has been reported [they] do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” I am concerned that a “public plan” option will run private insurance out of business leaving us, as consumers, without choices and options.
President Obama has promised the American people on numerous occasions that if you like your current health insurance, you can keep it. However, CBO estimates and has testified that several million Americans will lose the health care coverage currently offered by their employer if current proposals were to become law. Again, we see that this comprehensive health care proposal is leading us down a path that takes choice away from individuals.
As an alternative, I am a cosponsor of S. 1099, the Patients’ Choice Act. This bill strengthens relationships between patients and physicians by using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs while ensuring that affordable health care is available for all Americans without interference from the Federal government. While promoting healthier lifestyles and disease prevention through incentives for States, S. 1099 also provides a refundable tax credit of $2,300 per individual or $5,700 per family for the purchase of health insurance. To enable individuals to choose a health insurance plan that best meets their needs, the bill creates State Health Insurance Exchanges allowing Americans to compare different health plans and giving Americans the same standard benefits as Members of Congress. Furthermore, this plan makes Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) more accessible and easy to use, and adjusts risk among insurance companies to penalize companies that “cherry pick ” healthy patients and reward those that cover patients with pre-existing conditions.
Thank you again for contacting me. Although we may disagree on the need for a government-run health insurance plan, I hope that we can find common ground in others areas of health care reform. As the healthcare debate further develops and more proposals are introduced, I will work to develop and enact legislation that ensures affordable health care is available to all in a fiscally responsible manner with the most choices available.
Mr. Inhofe,
I do understand the concerns behind your reasons for not supporting government run health care. However, considering that according to a recent report from Reuters, the following countries all outrank the United States on a recent Healthcare Report Card: Japan, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, Austria and Ireland, it doesn’t make sense that all those developed nations have better government health care than the U.S. unless something is seriously wrong with the way we are currently doing business. After all, if government expects us to help pay for new roads(even those of us who have no vehicle) and pay for local school costs (even those of us who have no children), isn’t government already a daily part of our lives? With all due respect, who decides where that line is drawn?
I am in reasonably good health, and working for the State of Oklahoma, I have access to decent health care, but I also believe strongly in preventive care so that I don’t get sick and use the insurance more, thereby increasing premiums for everybody else. Preventive care alone, whether sponsored by employers or public schools, could reduce costs for everyone. To that end, I will be watching as S. 1099 makes its way through the legislative process. It sounds like a step in the right direction. (It is another example, however, of “big government” regulating our lives, for good or for bad, isn’t it?)
But preventive care won’t make the insurance companies wealthy, nor will it put money in doctor’s pockets, so I question whether it will be popular, no matter if one is a Democrat or Republican. I think that a public option is not any worse than what we already have and I work everyday with people who need medical but who do not fall into any of the medical “categories” offered by the State. While replying to you just now, I got a call from a client who suffered from a stroke last week, but who because of age and slightly over the income guidelines, does not qualify for any medical help through us. One client’s wife has a huge lump growing on her chest that the doctors tell her they cannot help her with because she has no insurance and they do not consider it life threatening.Unfortunately, I hear this story many times every week. It seems very timely to me that President Obama is trying to remedy this by advocating health care change, and I appreciate the President’ lofty goals in trying to help bring medical care to all Americans.
Again, thank you for all the hard work you do for the people of our State.
Mitch,
In regards to your OfA e-mail today where you asked for a donation I wrote the following reply.
Excuse me if I seem a little cynical but, the President is going to get a bill on his desk.
The bill has been largely crafted by the insurance and health care industry to meet their needs.
From my perspective what is best for the public was considered secondary during the crafting
of the bill. Now you want me to contribute to an industry sponsored / written give away? I don’t
think so. Maybe you should be asking Aetna or United HealthCare or BlueCross for money now
that they are going to get mandated coverage for every American. Now I can appreciate that
the president wants to have something better than what we have today and that he thinks the
only way to do that is to give industry what it wants and hence their agreement. That his thinking
that’s fine. It may be that what is passed is better for the public than what we have now. I’m not
so sure. Time will tell. I would hope that this turns out better than I expect for the President, the
public and the future of the Democratic party. I have and will continue to contribute to progressive
liberal candidates that show an interest in representing the public and this great nation.
Regards,
Randy Taylor
Saratoga, CA