Can Max Baucus be removed as chair of the Senate Finance Committee?

[stlsaxman]

60% of Americans demand a national health care system. Baucus is the top Democrat in money received from the insurance lobby. Third in all the Senate- with only tow Republicans being paid more.

The fact that HE is chairing the Senate Committee looking at "Health (Insurance) Reform" is flat out CRIMINAL.

WE CANNOT LET BAUCUS SHUT OUT SINGLE PAYER ADVOCATES! Write someone- call someone... fuckin' DO SOMETHING! </rant>

Democrats:

MAX BAUCUS, MT
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV
KENT CONRAD, ND
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
BILL NELSON, FL
ROBERT MENENDEZ, NJ
THOMAS CARPER, DE

Republicans:

CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX

[snowdays]

1. **HERE IS A LINK TO GET ACTIVELY INVOLVED....

http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/links

[stlsaxman]

3. Thank you!

[snowdays]

6. :-)

[snowdays]

2. K and R for single-payer to be at the table.

[snowdays]

4. FOR Baucus "universal" means MEANS 12 to 18 million WILL BE LEFT BEHIND.......

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/may/sen_baucus_defines_.php

Posted on May 22, 2009
Sen. Baucus defines universal coverage


Health Care Reform Newsmaker Series: Sen. Max Baucus
Kaiser Family Foundation
May 21, 2009
John Reichard, CQ HealthBeat: I understood you to say, Senator, that you don’t expect to get to universal coverage, that you’re going to get it as close as you possibly can. Is that correct, and then, if so, what does that mean in terms of the ability to keep the health insurance industry at the table? You know, they’re saying that an individual mandate is necessary for guaranteed issue and rating reforms. Do those things then go away?

Senator Max Baucus: Oh, not at all. As a matter of fact, they’re very much there, and you’re correct in your sort of implications. A key to this is everyone having health insurance. It’s very, very hard to accomplish our objectives without everybody having health insurance. A primary objective is that everybody should have health insurance. That’s an objective in itself. Without that then… groups falling out, then it’s much more difficult to accomplish delivery system reform. We want the public and private health providers to be basically working together on delivery system reform. One way to get at that is to work with CMS.. work with the private sector. We want metrics, quality metrics so that CMS, Medicare and other providers are kind of working off the same page.

When I say we won’t get full universal coverage, CBO tells us we’ll get up to 94, 96 percent. There are always are going to be some people who just, you can’t find them, you know, don’t get health insurance. You never attain perfection. And this is going to be good. I think 94, 96 percent is pretty good. There will be, like undocumented aliens for example. We’re not going to cover undocumented… undocumented workers. That’s too politically explosive. But the main point that you want to make, the main point you are making is we will get near universal coverage. I like that word. Nearly everyone is going to have health insurance.


http://www.kff.org/healthreform/hr052109video.cfm

Comment:
By Don McCanne, MD

So according to Sen. Baucus, a key to reform is “everyone having health insurance.” By that he means that everyone will have health insurance - except the 12 to 18 million who won’t. That’s “pretty good,” he says.

Under single payer, instead of assigning an insurance product to each individual, everyone is automatically provided the health care that they need. They provide only their identification when they access care. Those individuals that you “can’t find” in advance will still receive care when they show up with medical needs. In a single payer system, everyone means everyone - no exceptions…………………

[snowdays]

5. Meeting Enrollees’ Needs: How Do Medicare And Employer Coverage Stack Up?

Here is some interesting research to pass around..........

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/



Medicare beats employer-sponsored plans
Posted by Don McCanne, MD on Friday, May 15, 2009

This entry is from Dr. McCanne's Quote of the Day, a daily health policy update on the single-payer health care reform movement. The QotD is archived on PNHP's website.



Meeting Enrollees’ Needs: How Do Medicare And Employer Coverage Stack Up?

By Karen Davis, Stuart Guterman, Michelle M. Doty, Kristof M. Stremikis
Health Affairs
May 12, 2009

One key issue in health reform concerns the relative roles of coverage offered through private insurance and public programs. This paper compares the experiences of aged Medicare beneficiaries with those of people under age sixty-five who have private employer coverage. Compared with the employer-coverage group, people in the Medicare group report fewer problems obtaining medical care, less financial hardship due to medical bills, and higher overall satisfaction with their coverage. Although access and bill payment problems increased across the board from 2001 to 2007, the gap between Medicare and private employer coverage widened.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.28.4.w521v1

Very few individuals, especially those already covered by Medicare, will be surprised by this study. It demonstrates that, compared to people under 65 with private employer-sponsored coverage, Medicare beneficiaries over 65 have fewer problems with access to care, have less financial hardship due to medical bills, and have higher overall satisfaction with their coverage.

The private insurance industry has been taking quite a beating lately, and appropriately so. Much of the criticism has been targeted to the individual and small group insurance market, especially since these more innovative plans have been quite ineffective in preventing financial hardship for those who need care.

In contrast, policy makers and legislators in Washington are claiming that the employer-sponsored segment of the private insurance market is working quite well for us, and reform should include policies to expand this market. But this study isolated the employer-sponsored segment and compared it specifically with Medicare. No contest. Medicare is clearly superior to employer-sponsored plans.....................

[placton]

7. Nope

He is just the guy our top Dems - Obama on down - want - someone to kill single payer.

[Mass]

8. can you provide a link to this number of 60 % of people demanding single payer?

I' ve seen this number for people demanding a public option next to private options, but never for single payer.

And no, there is no way to remove Baucus. But if you can get enough Democratic senators around one of this options (single payer or public option).

And there are TWO committees dealing with healthcare : HELP with Kennedy and Finances with Baucus.

[Kansas Wyatt]

9. Now what would you like for me to say to...

Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas?

'Pat, I know you Republicans have fucked us over repeatedly, every chance you got, but now a Democrat is doing the same thing to us. Are you finally going to stand up for average Americans, or are you going to take the money and run, since you played for your pay?'

Gee, maybe I could write to Senator Sam Brownback to talk some sense into Pat Roberts. How do you think that conversation would go?

I would have more luck writing George W. Bush himself. My Senators are NOT going to do a damn thing that would threaten the Insurance, Pharmaceutical, and Health Care Industries, let alone HELP average Americans.

[Stevepol]

10. K&R!