---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Peloquin Date: Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:27 PM Subject: Regarding the Jan 13th call in To:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
The PUBLIC OPTION that you are advocating will not control health costs, but will allow the private health insurance companies to cherry pick healthier people for their insurance. The public option will be a failure.
Didn't you read the Congressional Budget Office report on the public option?
It is disgusting that the AFL-CIO misinforms its members about health care. I have forward your email to 30 or so people and will announce it at a union meeting on the 12th.
But when I call I will be pushing medicare for all.
SEUI and CNA (California Nurses Association) are engaged in an internecine battle. CNA puts out thier side of the story at the website SEIU (Serving Employers Instead of Us) and SEUI counters with "Shame on CNA". Both SEIU and CNA are spending significant resources advertising these sites on the progressive blogosphere. CNA spends a significant amount of time promoting Single Payer, both nationally and in California. SEUI - not so much.
This battle intensified into a brawl at a recent event, when several SEUI members allegedly assaulted several event organizers.
CNA posted this video about the disturbance:
How does this affect the movment for single payer?
The danger of the health care union war is that nurses may be turned off to joining any union, while energy and resources that could be spent against management or for national health insurance will instead be directed toward combat with other unions. But a resolution to the conflict doesn’t look to be coming soon.
The chief executive of Haven Healthcare took millions from the nursing home chain for personal use, including the purchase of a yacht and three apartment buildings in Connecticut, according to a state audit. The actions by chief executive Raymond Termini are a major reason for the chain's financial troubles, John F. McCormick, audit manager for the state Department of Social Services, said in the report Wednesday.
If Democrats enact something like the health-care bill emerging from the Senate Finance Committee, they may call it a legislative victory and it may keep the campaign donations flowing from the insurance industry, but the Democrats would surely infuriate millions of American voters.
Indeed, it seems like some Democrats, such as Sens. Max Baucus and Kent Conrad, have lost themselves so much in the inside-Washington reeds of legislating a convoluted compromise acceptable to the insurers, that they are inviting an angry backlash from average Americans.
The danger for Democrats is that this industry-friendly legislation would impose new burdens on citizens, including government fines for failing to sign up for a health-insurance plan, without guarantees that the coverage won't be almost as crappy and expensive as it is now. ...
[K]ey elements of the bill, like the so-called shopping "exchanges," aren't to take effect until 2013, meaning that Americans will have watched this messy process unfold for months and then be told that the current system, which has cruelly pushed millions of sick people into bankruptcy, will get four more years to bankrupt more Americans.
By contrast, Medicare, the single-payer health system for senior citizens, was signed into law on July 30, 1965, and took effect on July 1, 1966, less than a year later.
If Democrats enact something like the health-care bill emerging from the Senate Finance Committee, they may call it a legislative victory and it may keep the campaign donations flowing from the insurance industry, but the Democrats would surely infuriate millions of American voters.