« An Economically Created Health Care Disaster | Connecticut Man1's Blog | Double Down on Dodd! »

Dodd and Larson Get an Earful on Healthcare


Via Mark Pazniokas of the Hartford Courant, 675 angry and frustrated people showed up to this healthcare forum at Goodwin College:

On the first day of a listening tour on health care, an issue pivotal to the new Congress and his own re-election, U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd got an earful Friday.

The first comment came from a furious homeless shelter manager: He and his clients have no coverage, yet insurance giant American International Group got an $85 billion federal loan.

Over 90 minutes, the Democratic senator heard from a string of constituents, who waved their hands, hoping for a chance to describe a struggle to hang onto middle-class lives after losing jobs and affordable health care. A few were angry, others just scared.

On the way out, Dodd embraced one woman who burst into tears as she described losing health coverage for her disabled 2-year-old. Dodd held her until she stopped sobbing.

Dodd says that Tom Daschle, Obama's pick to guide healthcare reform, will be coming to Connecticut to discuss the issue. I say that they better be prepared to get another earful because the incremental changes being proposed will not answer the massive problems we are facing. Problems like this:

"[the forum] included the president of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, a reassuring signal to Connecticut's insurance industry."

Yep! Dodd and Larson think that these people are supposed to be our allies on this issue.

MA regulators: Did Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Partners HealthCare collude to fix prices and raise rates 75%?

Partners, insurer under scrutiny

Attorney General Martha Coakley has launched an investigation into whether the state's largest health insurance company and its largest healthcare provider may have illegally colluded to increase the price of health insurance statewide over the last nine years, according to several legal and government sources.

The attorney general sent formal demands for information to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts and Partners HealthCare late last week, the sources say, calling for a detailed account of their contract negotiations in recent years.

Since 2000, Blue Cross has boosted the rate it pays for medical care by Partners doctors and hospitals by 75 percent, dramatically more than the increases given to most other Massachusetts hospitals. Blue Cross now pays $2 billion a year to Partners, parent company of Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's hospitals.

Why do we put up with this?

I don't want these insurance industries' input into my healthcare in any way, shape or form. This the kind of health care the insurance giants have provided us thus far:

H/t nyceve for the video, where I encourage you to go read the entire piece and watch all the videos:

We all know that during the Bush regime, American citizens never saw the coffins of our fallen heroes coming back from Iraq. Americans are also shielded from the brutal ugliness of our collapsed healthcare system.

The traditional media is ill-informed (what else is new?), and rarely, if ever, give us frank and candid reporting about the grotesque realities of the U.S. healthcare catastrophe. So the BBC picks up the slack.

One last quote from Dodd:

"I hear people talking about a single-payer plan and the like," Dodd said. "That isn't going to happen. It's going to be a combination of public, private."

We already have a failed combination of public and private. We need the proven model of single payer and private practitioners. You want to stay in Congress with these kinds of answers, Senator Dodd?

"That isn't going to happen."

Why not send Senator Dodd a message?

"Single payer IS on the table!"

U.S. Senator Chris Dodd
448 Russell Building | Washington D.C., 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2823 | Fax: (202) 224-1083

Ya might want to mention the problem with his Blue Cross buddies, as well.

30 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

As always, thank you kindly for reading and any'n'all comments are always welcome. Though, as this is more of an action item diary, a call to Senator Dodd, John Larson or your own Congress critters would be even more welcome! :)

user-pic

CM1,
PLEASE print out my post, and take it to Dudd er I mean Dodd.
You commented but just in case here is the link.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tmcpac/2009/01/how-many-people-do-you-know-th.php

Use it in ANY manner you feel. Let me know if you need a name to put with it and I will give you more than just O¿O if you think it will help.

user-pic

I will print it out and should be able to get it to him. Either myself, or one of the Bloggers that has contact with these Congressional lounge lizards.

user-pic

There are few organizations that I loath and detest more than the insurance business. They are simply legalized bunko schemes.

C

user-pic

If they were all run in an ethical manner they would be able to provide some useful services. Unfortunately, that is not the case. But being ethically challenged appears to be a prerequisite for a leadership position across a large swath of America's industry, right now.

user-pic

But being ethically challenged appears to be a prerequisite for a leadership position across a large swath of America's industry, right now.

Ethically challenged ?? Is that politically correct for Crooks ??

Just asking....

C

user-pic

Anything less than ethical when you are in a position of power is criminal, IMHO. So... Yes.

user-pic

Thanks for posting CT man. That video is great. Fax has been sent. I want to design a new Whack-a-Mole which will have Dodd and the rich Jackson Hole dude in the video pop up so we can smack them.

user-pic

Agreed. Great post & video CT man. When I hear Dodd say "this isn't on the table," it makes me wanna do more than go Whack-A-Mole on him and his pomade. "Pound-A-Ferret" maybe.

All 3 videos at your link - nyceve- are worth watching. Walmart, Bernie Sanders, the people of Kentucky, all of them.

And the insurance companies - and the rest of the finance sector - go before Congress & demand hundreds of billions because their "financial risk management" methods were flawed... while at the same time, they argue that dumping physical risk onto flesh & blood is ok... well, it's beyond repulsive. Pound of flesh. Real world.

They want YOUR pound of flesh.

user-pic

I read that whackamole statement and just knew a hair joke was on the way. LMAO

user-pic

I will send the senator a letter tomorrow. Thanks! J

user-pic

Thank you kindly.

We really need to be on alert for any and all Congress critters that try and tell us they won't even consider what most experts - the Doctors, Nurses and other care givers - believe is the best solution.

If it were up to me? nyceve (TOO MANY bLOGGER EXPERTS OUT THERE TO LIST) and a few other experts on the problems and solutions from PNHP and other single payer groups would have a seat at the table to negotiate any and everything.

user-pic

I just faxed my letter to Dodd!

user-pic

Thanks kindly! Every bit of pressure we can muster will help.

user-pic

An important post, especially the message to contact your legislators. There is still time to get some action going in the single payer direction. See what my patients have to say at an "Obama-Biden Health Care Discussion" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WukOIsG5dA These citizens are in the district of Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who recently assumed the post after the death of long time single payer supporter, Tom Lantos. She is among the persuadables who could develop a reputation as a real leader if she stepped up on this issue.

user-pic

I am willing to bet you know more about the problems from the inside than I do. I will watch the video tomorrow with keen interest. Thanks for sharing.

user-pic

Go back and read some of his early blogs in particular. You'll see he's been ON this!

user-pic

A disabled two year old. And w vetoed SCHIP?

Keep up the coverage CM. Really fine material.
I will see what I can get out of CSPAN.

I personally have a lot of respect for Senator Dodd.
Sometimes committee hearings start out being for show, for propaganda purposes (which is not a bad thing) and Senators and Congressional Representatives are actually swayed as a result of what comes out of the hearings.

user-pic

About the Committee hearings and what we have seen so far... I wrote this the other day in response to a diary by Chicago Dyke at Corrente, and it is just some food for thought:

Obama has just invited you to rage on healthcare...

But were you too busy raging too notice the game?

Did Dems pull the health care football, like chicago dyke says, à la Lucy et Chucky Brown? Or did Obama just leave all you Obamabots and Obamaholics your marching orders?

1. Clyburn says the ultimate stupid. A stupid so surreal that not only does it go against what Obama promised, put Daschle in place for, but it also goes goes against H.R. 676 that Clyburn has signed onto in support of.

2. Backlash is unreal. (I am waiting Obamamaniacs... Where is you efin' rage?)

3. Obama and Pelosi (Maybe even the doltish Reid?) statement: We must have single payer NOW! NOW! NOW!

Or, at the very least, they say that we must have health care reform NOW!

The Obama Head Fake:

I saw a few people write about it and never really saw any there there.

Bob Morris at Polizeros had this to say in one of his threads, the other day, concerning Obama's reaction to Oxy-Rush:

"There’s a story about FDR like that. Some people went to the White house to lobby for an issue. He said, ok, you’ve convinced me, now go out and bring pressure upon me.

Chess. Yeah. During the presidential campaign I noticed liberal blogs would get upset at Obama because something negative was happening and he seemed to be ignoring it. Then, a week later, you realized he dealt with it just fine without you really noticing what happened."

IOW: Obama, via Clyburn, has given us a reason to genuinely rage now. Backlash, Please. More backlash! Create a movement Obama-lovers...

And that is what it is. The Single Payer Health Care Anti-Massacree Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the
guitar.

I could be wrong but...

You won't get anything you want if you sit there staring at this font...

Is this supposed to be what we are supposed to do? Pick up the phones and rage against the Congressional machine? You might think Obama is ignoring it... But how will it end?

Oh yeah... "I won"

Keep one eye on the game...
And the other eye on the prize.

user-pic

There aren't a lot of health care systems that have no private component whatsoever. I don't care if Dodd supports single-payer or not. An American universal coverage system will be different from all the others, just as they are all different from each other.

We need to go back to first principles: Everyone should be covered for everything, people should not have to take financial considerations into account when making medical decisions, and costs must be controlled. There are a lot of ways to accomplish this. But I agree that it's not likely we'll make much progress if the existing insurers are in the room.

user-pic

My biggest problem with their plans, so far?

None of them have been simple enough - nor explained clearly enough - (beyond H.R. 676's straight forward 27 page plan) nor have they addressed all of the issues.

How the heck are we supposed to know what they are trying to sell us with the disjointed statements and actions coming out from top to bottom in the Dem Leadership? And, of course and as mentioned above, is it all a game. and we are winning already?

Either way, it is infuriating and we need to let them know.

user-pic

I don't agree that "everyone should be covered for everything," because it doesn't make sense medically or financially. For example, an 80 year old with colon cancer who is bedridden should not get a lung transplant, or any number of other advanced treatments.

People should be covered for the treatments that they can actually benefit from, and there are systems which can objectively evaluate that. If a person wants to get any treatment, regardless of how hopeless their situation, then there should be insurance that they can purchase for that purpose. Even with said insurance, they should not get "bumped" to the top of a transplant list just because they are willing and able to pay for it, however.

user-pic

The important thing is that rationing can not and should not be based on profit. That is simply immoral. I would rather trust the Doctors to make rationing decisions based on common sense and the "for the good of all" principles.

user-pic

Ethics in Health Care! YES!!! Kudos!

user-pic

I meant "everyone covered for everything" as a starting point. I believe that policy should be made by starting with the ideal and then removing the impossible. The problem with not covering that 80 year old with the bad lung is that a wealthy 80 year old can get a lung, but a poor one can't. I don't see any way to justify that inequality.

Personally, I believe that we have the resources to make this problem disappear almost completely. By eliminating the profit motive and getting everyone into a national system, we eliminate the costs of denying care (the insurance companies spend a lot of money on this), of inadequate preventive care, and of overtreatment based on the compensation structure.

But "covered for everything" also means that everyone is covered for medical, dental, and mental health care, as well as for prescriptions. It's evil how dental and mental health care are covered so much more inadequately by most plans. "Everything" means all health care from getting your teeth cleaned or getting a physical, to open heart surgery and long-term rehabilitation, to visiting your shrink or getting your cholesterol pill at the pharmacy.

user-pic

What you and I are talking about is basically the same thing. In my scenario that 80 year-old could not be bumped up on the list for a lung no matter if she/he bought the hospital. Other therapies that would ultimately not achieve a cure, this person could buy and try.

My point is that an 80 year-old, otherwise healthy, tennis player, who could most likely benefit by a fancy treatment, would be able to receive it. Why? Because they would most likely be able to benefit.

My mother (82) was diagnosed with lung cancer 2 years ago. We declined chemotherapy. She is weak, but walks with a walker (to the smoking room) and is in no pain. If she had taken chemo she would most likely be dead.

People who want to throw everything at a diagnosis are not always making the best decision.

Absolutely agree; rationing of health treatments (bad term, but is often used) should NEVER be based on a person's ability to pay, but ALWAYS on their presumed ability to benefit.

user-pic

Over at Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/28/ask-podesta-qs/#comments

They are taking questions to be answered later on today by John Podesta. I am question #46, and have 18 recommends so far. My question is about Universal, Single-Payer health care with a reference to Zeke (Rahm's brother) Emmanuel saying that it is off the table, and the plan is to phase out Medicare and Medicaid in favor of insurance-based coverage.

Go and ask away, and "rec" mine if you agree, so he will understand that this is an issue we take very seriously!

user-pic

Thanks for posting the link to your comment CVille. I've rec'd it, and hope others here will do so also.

user-pic

Also: your comment was #46 when I was there, for those who would like to recommend it. It only takes a minute to register at thinkprogress.org for those not all ready registered.

user-pic

I already did! And it is at #6 in the top rated comments. lol

Leave a comment

Connecticut Man1

user-pic

Following: 26
Followers: 28

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address