it’s stuff like this that makes people angry about private health insurance
by problembear
you just can’t ever trust a weasel. or the politicians who work for them. and it looks like MT’s state legislature, just like our congress, is useless when it comes to helping us out of this mess.
that is why we need to start talking now about starting a citizens initiative in this state to create a decent non profit alternative to private health insurance in montana by 2012. i don’t care if we start a whole new pool or just add to the state of montana’s government provided health insurance. all i do know is montana’s workers, small businesses and self employed families cannot afford to wait any longer for decent, reliable health insurance for our small businesses, employees, farmers, ranchers, self-employed workers, sole proprietors, and our families.
the baucus bill written by his friends in the private health insurance industry didn’t fix this. it only made it worse. now, at least until the supreme court declares it unconstitutional, we will be mandated to buy from a poorly regulated and shoddy overcomplicated system which gives private health companies carte blanche to do whatever they want and charge as much as they can get away with.
i am damned tired of it and it is time to rear up on each of our hind legs and let the politicians know that we will enact this ourselves if they don’t have the guts to create a better publicly financed option which is reliable, affordable and reasonable.
i am too damn angry about this to wait for some watered down insurance exchange in fact……come to think of it. i want a simpler alternative…
i am getting tired of dealing with the byzantine shell games played by health insurance weasels in this country. who has time to read all the different contracts written by lawyers to screw us? if our leaders are too chicken then maybe it is time the people took matters into our own hands with a citizens initiative campaign in 2012 to create an alternative of our own.
-
Recent Comments
Steve W on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ingemar Johansson on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Rob Kailey on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ingemar Johansson on Is UM Discriminating Against F… ladybug on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
January 26, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Is a Medicareforall type option possible on state level? How does that get funded?
January 26, 2011 at 6:27 pm
medicare is in enough trouble as it is.
i kind of envision this as for workers, small business employers, the self employed and their families. in short, available to every working person or business who is spending lots of cash for crappy insurance already and would like a more reliable and affordable alternative. this would not be available to seniors already covered under medicare.
i see this as a way to make decent health care affordable to small businesses and private workers in this state by pooling the risks and eliminating profit.
January 26, 2011 at 7:05 pm
I’m all for it. I don’t know that 51% of Montanans are, but it’s worth a try.
January 26, 2011 at 7:11 pm
i would bet it will be more than the 70% of montanans majority for payday lending regulation. most montanans work for small businesses or are self employed or have family members who do. it is a no brainer. and any politician who doesn’t jump on this with both feet is brain dead.
January 26, 2011 at 8:38 pm
I’m in.
January 27, 2011 at 8:40 am
Vermont is making some moves toward single-payer, the result of years of serious research and movement building. My guess is the 2012 ballot will be crowded in Montana with referenda from this legislature — attacks on public services, etc. A lot of energy and money on the progressive side will be encouraging voters to cast “no” ballots. I like the idea of a well-thought out ballot measure, but I’d wait for 2014. Reworking a health care system is a tricky thing to do.
January 27, 2011 at 2:14 pm
matt. it is just this kind of maundering, sticky-footed bureaucratic political cowardice that is driving people away from democrats in droves. people expected more to be done about health care insurance two years ago. defensive maneuvering isn’t going to get anyone any decent insurance any sooner.
this isn’t about strategic party politics. i could care less about that. this is about citizens putting together a plan to provide an alternative to private health insurance here in montana. the need to do something now is way past arguing about. god knows you argued for patience and understanding so that baucus and his minions in the health insurance industry could screw up the health care reform bill.
i and about two thirds of montana have had about enough of the patient approach. it is way past time to do this ourselves now.
you go ahead and maunder away there in oregon on their problems and we’ll worry about more crucial time frames in montana here, m-kay?
January 27, 2011 at 2:47 pm
pbear, the one who brought up “party politics” was you, not Matt. Matt’s advice is prudent. He wasn’t writing about being patient for the sake of being patient. He was pointing out how to implement your plan correctly, and get the job done; as opposed to pissing in the wind, and losing because of it.
January 27, 2011 at 4:30 pm
so far i am batting 1 for 1 on ballot initiatives there rob. but thanks for the advice….
this isn’t about single payer. i am savvier than that. and all matt wants to do is slow things down until the watered-down exhanges become available wherein all the private insurers will simply collude on prices and make a big show about being competitive with each other….
and that is IF the bill survives that long between the supreme court and wingnut tinkering. (along with an almost complete lack of public support)
savvy about that one too. remember, who wrote the baucus bill and think about whether we should wait another two years and suffer through more premium raises from these weasels. i don’t think montana’s small businesses and private company workers can wait that long. do you?
especially when you put it into the context of needing to create more good paying jobs in this state. people are tired of handouts rob. they want to work and they want decent reliable and affordable health insurance when they do work. not a bunch of weasels to waste all of our time argueing them every time we or our family members need to get something done. that is the point of this. not politics. this is about people. i don’t give a damn what party they are from. everybody is in the same boat of higher premiums and wasted time dealing with weasels who don’t want to pay.
January 27, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I’m truly astounded at your ability to read Matt’s mind.
And apparently the success has gone to your head. It is remarkably easy to sell an initiative that negates an unpopular established practice, like the payday loan thing. That isn’t of the type of any of the rather nebulous proposals you’ve made here.
But, offering you the benefit of a doubt, please answer a few questions:
1) Who is this “we” of which you write that should be discussing a citizen’s initiative?
2) Which plan do you favor, or is there a plan at all? (Keep in mind that BCBS is already supposedly a non-profit so the idea of a non-profit insurance company of the type you suggest will find it hard to gain traction. Now, a public option/collective is a better idea, but that involves …
3) Where is the Cost/Benefit analysis of a public offering in a low population state such as ours? Who would write such a thing for you?
4) The ‘slime devils’ you fought before spent a rather tiny amount of money in defense, though it may have seemed huge to you at the time. I don’t think either of us have illusions about how much money the opposition will throw against such an initiative as you propose. Getting straight to the heart of Matt’s comment, where do you suppose the money to counter their lies will come from when progressives are already fighting off initiatives concerning reproductive rights, the selling of our Constitution to extraction industries, environmental defense …?
I’m not giving advice, problembear. Matt did, and it was financially practical, not political. I’m uncertain I agree with him based solely on the idea that an initiative of this sort often fares better with larger voter turnout, which means 2012 would be a better time. Either way, no one, weasel or otherwise, is arguing with you. You wanted to have the discussion. Fine. But there’s a word that applies when you want to moderate the discussion to be only what you want to hear when you want to hear it. That word is petulance, and you’ll notice that there’s a very fine line between anger and it.
January 27, 2011 at 5:51 pm
you raise some good points rob. i do think 2012 would be better. the we is everyone and i will attempt to tone down my opposition to those who counsel going slow.
cost/benefit analysis is the bailiwick of accountants and i am not one.
i agree that a public option which would enable small businesses and workers to choose coverage from the state of montana’s health insurance program would be quite popular and might in fact work to democrats advantage in bringing a better turnout to the polls much like the marijuauna initiative helped to elect jon tester by attracting many more votes in missoula during the 2006……hmmm.
maybe a more polite way of stating my message to matt would have been- perhaps if the democrats went on the offensive once in a while and showed people that they are looking out for the average workers in this state, they wouldn’t wear out their defense simply responding to the idiot wing-nut attacks.
something to think about is the fact that the independent movement is growing as people become more and more disillusioned with the uselessness of both parties.
but of course, if democrats showed some usefulness to folks struggling to survive in this economy by leading in the effort to make health insurance more affordable in montana, then i could see much support for the center returning to them.
January 27, 2011 at 5:55 pm
and rob- everybody by now knows that private insurers like BC/BS calling themselves non profits is just a shell game. they were subsumed by wellpointe long ago.
unless it is publicly owned in some real way and unsellable to any private entity, then it is not a real non profit in my view.
the board of directors must represent the public that they serve and they cannot own shares. the purpose would be charity, like hospitals use to be before they were taken over by the donors. the mission statement of this entity should be to operate in a solvent fashion but that it’s sole purpose for existing would be to serve the members – perhaps a cooperatively owned entity where everyone is a voting member.
January 27, 2011 at 6:07 pm
perhaps something similar to R.E.I. or COSTCO for health insurance?
i will try to read up on their mission statement and articles of incorporation to see what they did.
also- perhaps missoula’s GOOD FOOD STORE would be a good model for the entity.
i like the idea of the initiative of free enterprise but with the dampening effect of a mission statement & articles of incorporation which takes away the personal profit motive and replaces it with good savings and reliable benefits spread accross the entire membership.
if we can somehow graft paragraphs that utilize the good management and initiative of these organizations with the solidity and dependability of public statewide ownership we might have a model for delivering a good product and treating the members as customers should be treated rather than the way private insurers currently treat its customers (like rubes and country bumpkins ripe for fleecing by cleverly worded weasel words)
i know whenever i have an issue with something at costco, rei or the good food store, i am treated like another owner – not just another rabbit to be skinned and left for dead like BC/BS does.
January 27, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Vermont has Bernie Sanders and a governor and legisture that are not owned by corporations/Tea Party
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/19/937473/-Vermont-Considering-Single-Payer…
January 27, 2011 at 6:13 pm
While I have a long list of political issues where I disagree with Matt, I have long felt that Singer is one of the brightest and most creative minds the Democrats have in Montana when it comes to political strategy.
If I were a Democrat wanting to make constructive change, I would listen to Matt.
January 27, 2011 at 6:18 pm
i am not a democrat. just another worker looking for decent health insurance.
matt was very effective in 2006 and 2008.
January 27, 2011 at 7:21 pm
“any politician who doesn’t jump on this with both feet is brain dead.”
Brian Schweitzer, anyone? If you wait until 2014, he’ll be out of office and looking for something to do (unless he runs against Rehberg or something). I am imagining he’ll be as popular then as he is now, so whether various people here like him or not, if he came out in favor of something like this it could stand a better chance of succeeding. No one to my knowledge has ever seriously accused him of socialism, and he did make his name ‘addressing’ the issue of health care costs.
January 27, 2011 at 9:18 pm
whoever jumps on this first is fine with me, pw. republican or democrat or whatever. i am sick of partisan politics. it hasn’t done anyone who works for a living much good lately in this country.
one thing i do know however is that if your dog is a picky eater, all you have to do to cure it is to set his bowl of food near another dog.
he’ll dive right in then.
if the republicans are first to come up with some sensible ideas to find real savings in health insurance for desperate families out there (not that old crap about liability) and it starts to get traction, dems are dead for a long time.
January 27, 2011 at 9:46 am
Yes, the time is now to start the work on this while everyone is focused on this screwed up health insurance reform bill. Start by looking at what Vermont is doing. How did they start?
We should also get an initiative to establish a state public bank like the Bank of North Dakota. We need to take control of our economic security and our health.
Thank you for pointing to this story.
January 27, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Banks
http://www.truth-out.org/us-states-consider-starting-their-own-banks59084
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/path-to-a-new-economy/bank-on-it-how-cash-starved-states-can-create-their-own-credit
January 27, 2011 at 4:10 pm
this isn’t about single payer lynn. doubt if that would fly in montana. this is about creating a non-profit entity which workers and small businesses in montana could opt to pay into rather than the private insurers who seem hell bent on bankrupting everyone.
repeat this is not about single payer. simply a ballot initiative to create either another entity to provide a competing choice that would be 1. reliable and 2. affordable for the majority of montana’s private workers.
i don’t care if the nuts and bolts of it mean creating a whole new entity or simply grafting it onto the existing state public employees health insurance system. all that matters is that it forms a big enough pool of employees to enable montana to offer a plan that has affordable premiums for anyone who needs a more affordable health insurance plan. this would include the self employed, small business owners, sole proprietors and the majority of the employees of small businesses in this state
January 27, 2011 at 4:39 pm
I’m like you, I just want something straight forward and HONEST. I wanted the Public Option because I don’t want my money going for a CEO’s yacht up keep
Opening the State Legistlatures insurance program to any state resident who want its could be a start.
January 27, 2011 at 4:51 pm
not sure about how to go about doing this yet lynn but thanks for the support. i may not be very bright but i am relentless.
learned it fighting for wilderness areas many years ago….
endless pressure, endlessly applied. and you never give an inch.
January 27, 2011 at 4:18 pm
while i think it is a great idea, just like singlepayer- this doesn’t look like a good match for the politics of montana either lynn.
we have lots of strong local banks here to choose from. most of them with few exceptions did not go in for the stupidity of lending 125% of the value of houses back in 1999-2005 like a lot of the national banks did. we have a few branches of those idiot banks around here like wells fargo and bank of america. but for the most part 90% of our banks steered clear of the bailout mess. in fact, most of our locally owned banks are rated as high as banks can be rated. and they are lending for worthy projects and businesses.
so no, i think this fits california most likely, but there is no great groundswell of main stream support for state-owned banks in montana. i could be wrong. if i am, chime in with some info please.
January 31, 2011 at 6:51 pm
health care reform is pointless without affordable choices. now it looks like baucuscare is going down in flames legally because of mandates …. today a judge in florida declared the baucuscare bill illegal.
here is the ruling in it’s entirety… http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905937/Health-Care-Ruling-by-Judge-Vinson
here is a portion of judge vinson’s conclusion for those not choosing to read the entire text of the ruling….
“The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized byeveryone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvementsthat will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a waythat the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of howlaudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act,Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again,this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems andinequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, itis hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”…..
kinda looks like baucuscare is in deep trouble.
now let’s all get busy in montana working on a citizens initiative for the 2012 election to create a public option in our state which provides workers and small businesses with a decent affordable alternative to private health insurers.
what a complete waste of time. if public option had been created instead of mandates in this bill in the first place it would have been a resounding success. now it looks like the legal challenges are about to destroy it.
good. it was a p.o.s. bill written by the private insurance industry and rubber stamped by max baucus which should never have been enacted in the first place. huge premium increases and continuing abuses by greedy private insurers leaves this country with no logical choice. it is time to provide public option health insurance in this country. but, after two years of fighting this, i am unwilling to waste any more of my time trying to convince corrupt politicians in bed with the health insurance industry to vote correctly. it is way past time to just do it ourselves by voting for public option health insurance state by state through the citizens initiative process. it is time for montanans to work together to provide our citizens with decent, dependable and affordable health insurance. no more mandates. no more insurance weasels writing our laws. no more baucuscare.
we want real choice.
we want public option.
January 31, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Pbear, the WSJ has this summary: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/01/31/key-excerpts-from-mondays-health-care-ruling/