Category Archives: Health Policy

Voters Tuning Out of Health Care Debates

Axios reported yesterday that American voters are tuning out of the health care debates dominating Washington, the presidential campaign, and the politically active talking about Medicare for All and other proposals, according to an article by Drew Altman.

Axios conducted six focus groups in three states, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania. It was facilitated by the Kaiser Family Foundation’s director of Polling and Survey Research. The focus groups consisted of independent, Republican, and Democratic voters in several swing states and districts.

They were only aware of candidates’ and elected officials’ proposals on health care, but they did not see them as relevant to their struggles to pay medical bills or navigating the health care system.

Each of the six focus groups had between 8 and 10 people who are regular voters and said that health care will be an important issue for them in the 2020 election for President.

Here are the takeaways from the focus groups:

  • These voters are not tuned into the details — or even the broad outlines — of the health policy debates going on in Washington and the campaign, even though they say health care will be at least somewhat important to their vote.
  • Many had never heard the term “Medicare for all,” and very few had heard about Medicare or Medicaid buy-in proposals, or Medicaid and Affordable Care Act state block grant plans like the one included in President Trump’s proposed budget.
  • When asked what they knew about Medicare for all, few offered any description beyond “everyone gets Medicare,” and almost no one associated the term with a single-payer system or national health plan.
  • When asked about ACA repeal, participants almost universally felt that Republicans did not have a plan to replace the law.
  • When voters in the groups were read even basic descriptions of some proposals to expand government coverage, many thought they sounded complicated and like a lot of red tape.
  • They also worried about how such plans might strain the current system and threaten their own ability to keep seeing providers they like and trust.

Most of the voters in these groups did not see any of the current proposals from either side of the aisle as solutions to their top problems: namely paying for care or navigating the insurance system and red tape.

The debates on health care have gotten too far into the weeds and are too complex and complicated for the average voter to understand, let alone follow at this early stage of the presidential campaign.

The debate will become more meaningful, the article contends, when they see stark differences between the health plan of the Democratic nominee and Trump. This way, they will be able to focus more on what those differences mean for themselves and the country.

Here is the comment posted in response by Don McCanne:

Although we should be cautious about trying to draw Great Truths from half a dozen focus groups, we should be concerned about what these groups revealed about their understanding of the basis of the problems that they experience with our health care system.

They see problems with navigating the health care system and with paying their medical bills. But when offered solutions for these problems they show little understanding of even basic health policy, and they seem to be influenced more by political memes expressing a distrust of government, complexity of public solutions, and government interference with their interactions with the health care system.

A particularly important example of this is, “When asked what they knew about Medicare for all… almost no one associated the term with a single-payer system or national health plan.”

This lack of sophistication leaves them unaware that the government Medicare program is far more deserving of our trust than the private insurers (“surprise medical bills” anyone?), that a government program that includes everyone though a publicly funded universal risk pool is far less complex than a multitude of private insurers with various complex rules for accessing and paying for care, and that a single payer system interferes less since the patient has free choices in health care whereas the private plans are more restrictive of benefits while limiting coverage to their contracted provider lists (a minute fraction of the physicians and hospitals available throughout the nation).

Health policy is complicated, but the message for single payer Medicare for All need not be: enrollment for life, free choice of physicians and hospitals and other health care professionals and institutions, and automatic payment by our own public program. The focus groups already understand that the Republicans do not have a replacement plan, but what they do not understand is that only the single payer model of Medicare for All meets these goals whereas the ACA/public option Medicare for Some often leaves them exposed to the access and affordability issues they already face.

Again, single payer Medicare for All means:

  • Never have to change insurers
  • Free choice always of doctors and hospitals
  • No medical bills since care has been prepaid through our taxes.

None of these are features of either the Republican proposals or the Democratic ACA/public option proposals. It’s a simple message. Let’s do our best to see that the American voter understands it.

The Free Market Utopian Fantasy

Whenever the subject of what to do about the cost of health care arises on the social media site, LinkedIn, invariably there is someone who attempts to deflect the discussion away from the logical solution of Medicare for All/Single Payer, to what I am calling the Free Market Utopian Fantasy.

Those of you who read my post, “Health Care Is Not a Market”, will understand that when it comes to health care, the rules of the market do not apply. That is why I have called the attitude and comments made by these individuals, the Free Market Utopian Fantasy. Because the free market in health care is a fantasy. It is usually the expression of economic libertarianism coming from the right-wing propaganda machine.

Simply put, the Free Market Utopian Fantasy states that if we only had a truly free market health care system, costs would regulate themselves through competition, as in other areas of the free market.

In fact, one observer recently said the following in a thread on LI: “This would not be the case IF there were created and implemented an ORDERLY market for health care services based upon free market enterprise principles whereby ALL costs are transparent to ALL parties.”

An orderly market? Are you serious? More of the same BS from the Free Market Utopians.

Then there is the idea that consumers, read that as patients, must educate themselves as to the best choice. Choice? When you are dying of a heart attack? Choice, when you only have a short time to live due to a serious illness like Cancer or Diabetes?

Folks, we are not talking about choosing between buying steak or chicken. This is not choosing to go to Italy next summer or to the Caribbean. We are talking about life and death. And the only choice is to do what will save your life, not choose between colors on a swatch.

This Free Market Utopian Fantasy has infected so many people in the health care industry, and they are trying to prevent the American people from receiving the same quality of care at lower cost than all the other Western and other nations already do for their people.

They claim that we can’t afford to do it. I ask, can we afford not to?

They cite statistics about Medicare like some cite similar statistics about Social Security, but they are wrong then, and they are wrong about Medicare for All, because it will be expanded to cover everyone and everything, not requiring separate insurance for things like vision and dental care, mental health, and long-term care.

Here is what one person said in the same thread cited above:

“We can barely afford Medicare for the 60 million current Medicare recipients. Adding another 270 million recipients would bankrupt the nation in short order. Latest data (2017) on Medicare shows an annual cost of $700 billion, and projections show the Medicare Trust Fund will be insolvent in 2026 – and by the way, Medicare actually only covers about half of the real cost because the rest is covered by supplementary insurances that have to be bought by the patient. If you assume that Medicare expansion was at the same cost rate as current Medicare, Medicare for all would cost at least $3.15 trillion in 2017 dollars. Total 2019 federal government revenue is estimated at $6.5 trillion, and estimated Medicare for all costs for 2019 would be $3.5 trillion. It is simply not feasible.”

Boy, they really know how to BS their way to keeping us the only Western nation that does not have universal health care. What they don’t realize is, there won’t be any private insurance, because it is private insurance that drives up the cost of health care with administrative costs and waste,

Well, it is high time we call BS on all of them, and their Free Market Utopian Fantasy. Until we stop listening to these folks who are protecting their careers and profits, no American will never have to worry if they or a loved one gets sick and cannot afford the needed medical care without going bankrupt or dying without ever receiving the care they so desperately need. I said as much in my other post, “By What Right”, where I took these folks to task for preventing the enactment of MFA/Single Payer.

These Free Market Utopians are not doing anyone any favors. They are only hurting millions of Americans, born or not-yet-born who will someday need a truly comprehensive, universal health care system, and it won’t be there thanks to them and their associates.

Medicare for All Act of 2019

Yesterday, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced the Medicare for All Act for 2019, along with 19 co-sponsors in the Senate.

This bill mostly follows the previous bill he introduced in 2017, yet it has one notable addition. The new bill is summarized as follows:

*  Eligibility: Covers everyone residing in the U.S.
*  Benefits: Covers medically-necessary services including primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care (bans the Hyde Amendment), vision and dental care, and prescription drugs. This bill also provides home- and community-based long-term services and supports, which were not covered in the 2017 Medicare for All Act.
*  Patient Choice: Provides full choice of any participating doctor or hospital. Providers may not dual-practice within and outside the Medicare system.
*  Patient Costs: Provides first-dollar coverage without premiums, deductibles or co-pays for medical services, and prohibits balance billing. Co-pays for some brand-name prescription drugs.
*  Cost Controls: Prohibits duplicate coverage. Drug prices negotiated with manufacturers.
*  Timeline: Provides for a four-year transition. In year one, improves Medicare by adding dental, vision and hearing benefits and lowering out-of-pocket costs for Parts A & B; also lowers eligibility age to 55 and allows anyone to buy into the Medicare program. In year two, lowers eligibility to 45, and to 35 in year three.
According to the Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), this bill can be improved by:
* Funding hospitals through global budgets, with separate funding for capital projects: A “global budget” is a lump sum paid to hospitals and similar institutions to cover operating expenses, eliminating wasteful per-patient billing. Global budgets could not be used for capital projects like expansion or modernization (which would be funded separately), advertising, profit, or bonuses. Global budgeting minimizes hospitals’ incentives to avoid (or seek out) particular patients or services, inflate volumes, or up-code. Funding capital projects separately, in turn, allows us to ensure that new hospitals and facilities are built where they are needed, not simply where profits are highest. They also allow us to control long term cost growth.
* Ending “value-based” payment systems and other pay-for-performance schemes: This bill continues current flawed Medicare payment methods, including alternative payment models (including Accountable Care Organizations) established under the ACA, and the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). Studies show these payment programs fail to improve quality or reduce costs, while penalizing hospitals and doctors that care for the poorest and sickest patients.
* Establishing a national long-term care program: This bill includes home- and community-based long-term services and supports, a laudable improvement from the 2017 bill. However, institutional long-term care coverage for seniors and people with disabilities will continue to be covered under state-based Medicaid plans, complete with a maintenance of effort provision. PNHP recommends that Sen. Sanders include institutional long-term care in the national Medicare program, as it is in Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s single-payer bill, H.R. 1384.
* Banning investor-owned health facilities: For-profit health care facilities and agencies provide lower-quality care at higher costs than nonprofits, resulting in worse outcomes and higher costs compared to not-for-profit providers. Medicare for All should provide a path for the orderly conversion of investor-owned, for-profit health-care providers to not-for-profit status.
* Fully covering all medications, without co-payment: Sen. Sanders’ bill excludes cost-sharing for health care services. However, it does require small patient co-pays (up to $200 annually) on certain non-preventive prescription drugs. Research shows that co-pays of any kind discourage patients from seeking needed medical care, increasing sickness and long-term costs. Experience in other nations prove that they are not needed for cost control.
Any other legislation such as strengthening the ACA, or half-measures for Medicare such as
buy-ins or public options, or leaving private, employer-based insurance alone, will not solve the
problems we are having, which stem from the financing of health care, and not the providing of
health care.

Medicare for All and Its Rivals | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

Richard’s Note: A shout-out to Don McCanne for posting this today from the Annals of Internal Medicine, which is providing the full article for free. The authors, Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, both MDs, should be familiar to readers as two of the authors I covered in my review of the Waitzkin, et al. book, Health Care Under the Knife: Moving Beyond Capitalism for Our Health. In the spirit of the AIM, I am posting the entire article below with link to the original. It is that important.

Medicare for All and Its Rivals: New Offshoots of Old Health Policy Roots

The leading option for health reform in the United States would leave 36.2 million persons
uninsured in 2027 while costs would balloon to nearly $6 trillion (1). That option is called the
status quo. Other reasons why temporizing is a poor choice include the country’s decreasing life
expectancy, the widening mortality gap between the rich and the poor, and rising deductibles
and drug prices. Even insured persons fear medical bills, commercial pressures permeate
examination rooms, and physicians are burning out.
In response to these health policy failures, many Democrats now advocate single-payer,
Medicare-for-All reform, which until recently was a political nonstarter. Others are wary of
frontally assaulting insurers and the pharmaceutical industry and advocate public-option plans
or defending the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Meanwhile, the Trump
administration seeks to turbocharge market forces through deregulation and funneling more
government funds through private insurers. Here, we highlight the probable effects of these
proposals on how many persons would be covered, the comprehensiveness of coverage, and
national health expenditures (Table).

Table. Characteristics of Major Health Reform Proposals as of March 2019

Medicare for All

Medicare-for-All proposals are descendents of the 1948 Wagner–Murray–Dingell national health
insurance bill and Edward Kennedy and Martha Griffiths’ 1971 single-payer plan (2). They would
replace the current welter of public and private plans with a single, tax-funded insurer covering
all U.S. residents. The benefit package would be comprehensive, providing first-dollar coverage
for all medically necessary care and medications. The single-payer plan would use its
purchasing power to negotiate for lower drug prices and pay hospitals lump-sum global
operating budgets (similar to how fire departments are funded). Physicians would be paid
according to a simplified fee schedule or receive salaries from hospitals or group practices.
Similar payment strategies in Canada and other nations have made universal coverage
affordable even as physicians’ incomes have risen. These countries have realized savings in
national health expenditures by dramatically reducing insurers’ overhead and providers’ billing-
related documentation and transaction costs, which currently consume nearly one third of U.S.
health care spending (3). The payment schemes in the House of Representatives’ Medicare-for-
All bill closely resemble those in Canada. The companion Senate bill incorporates some of
Medicare’s current value-based payment mechanisms, which would attenuate administrative
savings. Most analysts, including some who are critical of Medicare for All, project that such a
reform would garner hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative and drug savings (4) that
would counterbalance the costs of utilization increases from expanded and upgraded coverage.
Reductions in premiums and out-of-pocket costs would fully offset the expense of new taxes
implemented to fund the reform.

 

“Medicare-for-More” Public Options

Public-option proposals, which would allow some persons to buy in to a public insurance plan,
might be labeled “Medicare for More.” Republicans Senator Jacob Javits and Representative John
Lindsay first advanced similar proposals in the early 1960s as rivals to a proposed fully public
Medicare program for seniors. This approach resurfaced during the early 1970s as Javits’
universal coverage alternative to Kennedy’s single-payer plan and gained favor with some
Democrats during the 2009 ACA debate.
Policymakers are floating several public-option variants, most of which would offer a public plan
alongside private plans on the ACA’s insurance exchanges. Although a few of these variants
would allow persons to buy in to Medicaid, most envision a new plan that would pay Medicare
rates and use providers who participate in Medicare. Positive features of these reforms include
offering additional insurance choices and minimizing the need for new taxes because enrollees
would pay premiums to cover the new costs. However, these plans would cover only a fraction
of uninsured persons, few of whom could afford the premiums (5); do little to improve the
comprehensiveness of existing coverage; and modestly increase national health expenditures.
The Medicaid public-option variant, which many states might reject, would probably dilute
these effects.
Medicare for America, the strongest version of a public-option plan, would automatically enroll
anyone not covered by their employer (including current Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s
Health Insurance Program enrollees) in a new Medicare Part E plan. It would upgrade
Medicare’s benefits, although copayments and deductibles (capped at $3500) would remain.
The program would subsidize premiums for those whose income is up to 600% of the poverty
level, and employers could enroll employees in the program by paying 8% of their annual
payroll. The new plan would use Medicare’s payment strategies and include private Medicare
Advantage (MA) plans (which inflate Medicare’s costs [6]) and accountable care organizations.
Medicare for America would greatly expand coverage and upgrade its comprehensiveness but
at considerable cost. As with other public-options reforms, it would retain multiple payers and
therefore sacrifice much of the administrative savings available under single-payer plans.
Physicians and hospitals would have to maintain the expensive bureaucracies needed to
attribute costs and charges to individual patients, bill insurers, and collect copayments. Savings
on insurers’ overhead would also be less than those under single-payer plans. Overhead is only
2% in traditional Medicare (and 1.6% in Canada’s single-payer program [7]) but averages 13.7%
in MA plans (8) and would continue to do so under public-option proposals. Furthermore, as in
the MA program, private insurers would inflate taxpayers’ costs by upcoding as well as cherry-
picking and enacting network restrictions that shunt unprofitable patients to the public-option
plan. This strategy would turn the latter plan into a de facto high-risk pool.

The Trump Administration White Paper and Budget Proposal

Unlike these proposals, reforms under the Trump administration have moved to shrink the
government’s role in health care by relaxing ACA insurance regulations; green-lighting states’
Medicaid cuts; redirecting U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs funds to private care; and
strengthening the hand of private MA plans by easing network-adequacy standards, increasing
Medicare’s payments to these plans, and marketing to seniors on behalf of MA plans. A recent
administration white paper (9) presents the administration’s plan going forward: Spur the
growth of high-deductible coverage, eliminate coverage mandates, open the border to foreign
medical graduates, and override states’ “any-willing-provider” regulations and certificate-of-
need laws that constrain hospital expansion. The president’s recently released budget proposal
calls for cuts of $1.5 trillion in Medicaid funding and $818 billion in Medicare provider payments
over the next 10 years.
Thus far, the effects of the president’s actions—withdrawing coverage from some Medicaid
enrollees and downgrading the comprehensiveness of some private insurance—have been
modest. His plans would probably swell the ranks of uninsured persons and hollow out
coverage for many who retain coverage, shifting costs from the government and employers to
individual patients. The effect on overall national health expenditures is unclear: Cuts to
Medicaid, Medicare, and the comprehensiveness of insurance might decrease expenditures;
however, deregulating providers and insurers would probably increase them.
In 1971, a total of 5 years after the advent of Medicare and Medicaid, exploding costs and
persistent problems with access and quality triggered a roiling debate over single-payer plans.
As support for Kennedy’s plan grew, moderate Republicans offered a public-option alternative,
1 of several proposals promising broadened coverage on terms friendlier to private insurers.
Kennedy derided these proposals by stating, “It calms down the flame, but it really doesn’t meet
the need” (10). President Nixon’s pro market HMO strategy—a close analogue of the modern-
day accountable care strategy—ultimately won out, although his proposals for coverage
mandates, insurance exchanges, and premium subsidies for low-income persons did not reach
fruition until passage of the ACA.
Five years into the ACA era, there is consensus that the health care status quo spawned by
Nixon’s vision is unsustainable. President Trump would veer further down the market path.
Public-option supporters hope to expand coverage while avoiding insurers’ wrath. Medicare-
for-All proponents aspire to decouple care from commerce.

WTF are they doing?? – Managed Care Matters

Good morning all you minions of the medical-industrial complex and related businesses, Joe Paduda has once again simplified the issue before us now that the Orangutan administration has decided to repeal the ACA.

This article won’t probably convince your superiors or the wolves of Wall Street who will fight tooth and nail to see that Medicare for All never sees the light of day, just so that they can reap their precious profits off of other people’s misfortune.

But perhaps it will convince you of the critical junction we face at this moment; whether to let this happen and go back to the bad old days as Joe describes, or to move forward into a bright new day with universal coverage that does not generate huge profits for insurers, pharmaceutical companies, hospital systems too big to fail, device manufacturers, and even some physicians, but does provide all Americans the health care they deserve as a right, and not as a privilege of wealth or one’s bank account.

So here is Joe’s article:

Yesterday’s announcement that the Justice Department will move to kill the entire ACA – with NO replacement legislation – sent shock waves thru the healthcare world. And will send many Americans straight over the edge. If the Trump Administration is … Continue reading WTF are they doing??

Source: WTF are they doing?? – Managed Care Matters

Why Medicare for some is the wrong idea | TheHill

From the Overnight News Desk:

Diane Archer wrote in The Hill Monday on why half measures on Medicare for All, so-called “Medicare for Some” is not the answer to our current health care crisis.

In her article, she takes aim at the very root of the problem, commercial health insurance. This article should serve as confirmation of the issues I raised in previous posts, By What Right? and Health Care Is Not a Market.

The “pragmatists” she speaks of, naturally are many of you out there who have criticized the push towards Medicare for All, simply because you have a personal, financial and career stake in the status quo.

It is high time you put aside your personal and professional interests, and put the interests of the American people ahead of all other considerations. Doing so will improve your value as health care and related industries professionals, because you will be serving a higher cause than yourselves.

Here is Ms. Archer’s article:

The American people deserve a frank conversation about how we can guarantee access to health care as a right in this country. That conversation does not begin with Medicare for some. It begins – and ends – with Medicare for all.

Source: Why Medicare for some is the wrong idea | TheHill

By What Right?

In the annals of Western history, two courageous men stood up and challenged the establishment of their nations to act to change history or to right a grievous wrong done to an innocent man.

The first individual was Patrick Henry when he gave his “Give me liberty, or give me death” speech, and the second was Émile Zola, who wrote “J’Accuse…!,” which he wrote in defense of Alfred Dreyfus, imprisoned falsely on Devil’s Island for treason.

These, of course were not the only instances where men of good intention, rallied people to a just and rightful cause; but it was the two instances that came to mind after reading another health care expert poo-poo Medicare for All on social media.

The individual commented on an article in Healthcare Dive.com that I had discussed some days ago. The article was about how kidney care in the US was being revamped, and the individual claimed that Medicare for All would damage the care dialysis patients are currently receiving.

What this person is doing is trying to scare people with propaganda that is akin to saying Medicare for All is “Socialism.” We know that none of the countries that have such a system are Socialist. They are Capitalist. The scare tactic being used here is rationing of care. It so happens that my clinic company is a European company, and I don’t believe people in their home country are rationed dialysis care. And they have a single payer system.

In the past few days, I have seen several comments made by men and women in occupations related to, or in the health care industry. These comments generally have attacked the very idea of Medicare for All for a variety of reasons. Many of these individuals are either a part of the medical-industrial complex, or they are lawyers, employee benefits consultants, or other types of consultants to specific areas of health care. They are defending a turf.

These individuals believe they can supersede the right of all Americans to have decent, affordable health care that does not force them into bankruptcy, or to go without because they cannot afford treatment for serious illnesses or diseases, or expensive medications.

Those of you who have been reading my blog of late, know that I have been very passionate about enacting Medicare for All, either because a fellow blogger has written so eloquently about it, or for personal reasons.

So, I have decided, like M. Zola did, to declare openly: By What Right?

By what right do you have to deny millions of Americans health care? By what right do you have to even suggest that Medicare for All is too expensive, would do more harm than good, or any of the other remarks made on social media to attack the very notion of health care for all?

By what right do you have to consign others to a broken, complex, complicated, bloated, and out of control health care system, whose true aim is to line the pockets of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, hospitals, Wall Street investors, or the shareholders of these and other companies?

I don’t mind constructive criticism of this plan or that plan put forth by any number of Congressmen or Senators, but to outright state that it won’t work, or should not work, is to deny the rest of the nation the same kind of health care that the members of Congress receive.

By what right do you have to tell the millions of uninsured and under-insured, “sorry, we don’t believe in Medicare for All, so you will just have to suffer, so that we can keep our jobs, and collect our fat paychecks.”

I have yet to hear a logical answer to why the US should be the only Western nation to not provide its citizens with universal health care. Some say it is too expensive. Do you mean, it is more expensive than spending taxpayer money on weapons of war? Or on a wall on our Southern border? Or a space force?

Do you mean that it would raise taxes, first on the wealthy and corporations, and later everyone else? Well, maybe the rich and the corporations should pay more in taxes. Polls seem to indicate that as much lately.

Another line of attack says that providers would be hurt. Do you mean that certain very wealthy physicians, surgeons and specialists, would see their incomes cut in half? Do you mean that hospitals could not buy each other up and become larger conglomerations that raises health care costs, instead of lowering them?

I thought medicine was a calling, not a get-rich quick scheme.

Oh, and what about the pharmaceutical industry that uses Americans as a cash cow while the same drugs, manufactured overseas, by the same companies, cost a fraction of what they do here, and have made men like current Federal pen occupant, Martin Shkreli, a wealthy man. Why not allow Americans to import those very same drugs from Canada, the UK, Israel, Mexico, etc. so that they can have their insulin and other life-saving medications without having to cut the dosages in half or go without altogether.

By what right do you have to defend the status quo? To make huge and obscene profits? As I wrote in Health Care Is Not a Market:

“…they are deciding that they have the right to tell the rest of us that we must continue to experience this broken, complex and complicated system just so that they can make money. And that they have a right to prevent us from getting lower cost health care that provides better outcomes and does not leave millions under-insured or uninsured.”

“…not all these individuals are doing this because of their jobs. Some are doing so because they are wedded to an economic and political ideology based on the free market as the answer to every social issue, including health care. They argue that if we only had a true free market, competitive health care system, the costs would come down.”

“…the free market companies have jacked up the prices simply because they can, and because lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry have forced Congress to pass a law forbidding the government from negotiating prices, as other nation’s governments do.”

Instead of trying to tear down Medicare for All, why not offer your expertise and knowledge to improving the Medicare for All bills introduced to Congress, as well as other plans, especially the proposal by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP)?

Those of you who are not familiar with the legislative process, something that at times has been compared to the production of sausages, it isn’t pretty. There is a lot of negotiating and horse-trading that occurs before a bill is passed and signed into law. Unfortunately, given a Republican President, and his lapdog, Republican Senate, none of the introduced pieces of legislation will pass the Senate, even if the House passes it.

So, consider this, by what right do you have to step in the way of progress for all Americans to get health care? By what right do you have to put your economic interests ahead of the health needs of others? By what right do you have to be cruel and inhumane, to let people die, get sick, and suffer needlessly, just so that you can sleep at night?

I hope that once you do consider this, you won’t sleep at night, because it would mean that you are not just greedy little cogs in the medical-industrial complex, but rather, kind and compassionate human beings who are motivated more out of love, than out of what’s in it for you if things don’t change.

By what right do you have to tear down something that has not even been passed and implemented? Why don’t we enact Medicare for All, and see if all the criticisms you have will come true or not? Could it be because you know deep in your heart it will, but are afraid to say so for fear of what your colleagues would say?

And finally, by what right do you have to play God with other people’s lives? You have already predicted that Medicare for All will fail, so why even bother? You are basing your opinions on what you have been told by free market ideologues, academics, business leaders, Conservative media, and politicians.

So, who cares if the poor die, if the elderly die, if children born with crippling illnesses and diseases die, if young people stricken down in the prime of life die, etc., as long as someone can make a hefty profit off of adverse selection, and the outrageous cost of desperately needed medications that they cannot afford?

I know what you are going to say to yourselves, and to me. That I don’t know what I am talking about, that I am wrong on so many levels, that I don’t have the experience in health care that you do. Well, I really don’t care what you will say. Do you have compassion and concern for your fellow citizens, or are you minions of a heartless, soulless Capitalist system that grinds people down for profits and wealth?

Patrick Henry stirred a people to revolution against a tyrant, Émile Zola rallied a nation to free a man unjustly accused and sentenced to hard labor in the most horrible prison ever constructed by Western man.

You can do what is right. You can defend Medicare for All, and even improve on what has already been proposed, but don’t attack it. Doing so will only cause more pain and suffering to millions of Americans, and will make investors, stockholders and providers and industry leaders wealthier, and the rest of us, poorer. Both spiritually and materially.

You are better than this.