What is Stand Tall For America?
Stand Tall for America is a website in progress - and we're just getting started.
With your help, it will be the online organizing center for Americans who care about progressive policy change that tackles the tough problems facing our country -- including health care, tax reform, net neutrality, and more.
It's sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and paid for by Wyden for Senate, but it's really about you.
We really can tackle the tough problems. But only if we stand together. Only if we Stand Tall for America.
To Contact Us:
Stand Tall for America
P.O. Box 3498
Portland, OR 97208
Phone: 503-230-7115
Fax: 503-230-1128
Paid for and authorized by Wyden for Senate.
Blog
Universal Health Care: Tell Senator Wyden what you think.
Universal health care. It's a nice bumper sticker, but Senator Ron Wyden has actually produced a plan to get us there.
His plan guarantees every American universal, affordable, comprehensive, portable, high-quality, private health coverage that is as good or better than Members of Congress have today. And with the independently-reviewed cost containment measures, it's entirely paid for—with the $2.2 trillion that we're already spending today.
You can learn more about the Healthy Americans Act (surely more than you ever wanted to know), but here's what Senator Wyden and I would like to know: What do you think? Does the plan make sense? Tell us what you like. Tell us what you don't like.
It's going to be hard work passing this critical legislation, and - for all Americans - it'll take some getting used to. How will it make your life better and more secure? Will it be worth it?
Let's start a conversation about health care for all Americans.
Comments (11)
-
Dear Senator Wyden,
You have so much right in your Healthy Americans Act. I urge you to pursue your approach in the Senate with bi-partisan support.
Key points to emphasize are:
1) Current employment based insurance premiums are the most regressive tax paid by Americans. I applaud your approach that converts this unauthorized tax to income and then allows that income to be taxed at the progressive rate of each taxpayer.
2) "Affordable" health insurance means the insurer is paying for less care or paying less for each service. Americans receive too much marginally beneficial, discretionary care and market forces can minimize that utilization. A Basic Health Insurance benefit can be designed that pays fully for Primary Care (including proven prevention) and Catastrophic Care. High Co-Insurance levels in a Basic Benefit package will reduce insurer payments and volume of discretionary care and make the Basic package affordable.
3) The Reform Plan must be simplified in the financing and payment of the insurance premium. As in Medicare and Medicaid, the simplest and most reasonable approach is to have the federal and state governments combine to pay the premium for the Basic Package to the individually chosen insurer at standard age and gender adjusted rates. Individuals and groups may purchase any supplemental policy for higher levels of coverage with taxable premium payments but everyone would have assurance of a Basic Package. I recommend that all the tax credits and payments based on income be eliminated from your proposal. Get the employers out of the business of paying for basic health insurance. If they choose to offer supplemental health insurance to their employees, it should be a taxable benefit and underwritten by the chosen health insurer or self-insured.
4) With every resident covered and the premium assured and paid for the Basic Package by government with no individual excluded, the chosen insurers can reduce the overhead cost of insurance and compete for customers based on the cost of their supplemental, underwritten packages. Each state will regulate their insurers and prevent them from discriminating against those residents with known health problems. The good insurers will flourish and the inadequate will be forced out of the market.
Summary: every US resident will have private health insurance with at least the Basic Package with premium paid by government. Every resident will have access to supplemental insurance from the same insurer if they choose and are willing to have more coverage for discretionary services. The cost of insurance and the cost of care will be controlled by the market and application of government monopsony power in the market place. Any tax increase required to pay for this program will come from progressive income taxes. For most taxpayers, the tax increase will be less than the income they receive from conversion of their current regressive tax paid in the form of employment-based health insurance.
I can prove all of the assertions made in this commentary. We are working to demonstrate a Basic Affordable health insurance program in Asheville, NC. We would delight in sharing our program if you are interested.
All best to you and your colleagues in the current session.
John T. Ashley MD, MBA, FACPM -
Dear Senator Wyden,
Thanks for your leadership on this issue. I support your goals and I am annoyed by opponents who use scare tactics. Having said that, cost is a real and challenging issue. I like the specific benchmark of the medical care available to members of congress. Can you tell me what that is and, most importantly, what it costs. -
We need a government plan! The insurance companies are profit motivated and they will not change.
I feel like health care is so broken it's like trying to cross a river with ice floating in it by jumping from floe to floe and not knowing if you might be washed away with every leap. It's wearing us down as a country. I like what Dr. Ashley said.
Margie Lee, artist, Portland, Oregon -
Every time I donated to a campaign or licked envelopes for my candidates or dropped off literature, the pitch always included the dream of one day providing health care to all Americans.
If there is no Public Option in this year's health care reform, God help us.
The choice is clear: please the Insurance Industry and their Representatives in D.C. like John Cornyn, or provide a meaningful Health Care system to America. - ie. giving us a public option.
Failure will be blamed on Democrats.
There is no point in watering down what is already a compromise (everybody knows Single Payer is true reform).
This is our last best chance at fixing the national health care nightmare.
When the doctor tells you your son has cancer, nobody worries about a lack of bipartisanship in Washington D.C.
I worry because ONE extra bill will cause me to file for Bankruptcy and we'll lose our home.
I don't care that Democrats Ben Nelson or Baucus are unable to please the Republican DeMint.
Support the Public Option or give up your own 'public option' health coverage.
Represent us and not the Insurance Industry. I beg you.
-
Senator Wyden; We must have coverage for everyone to make it work. I believe we need a public option by the federal government, which is the only way everybody is assured of coverage. Or a one payer option.Thank You!
-
Senator Wyden; I believe we need coverage for everyone in order for it to work. It seems to me the federal option is the only way to get that. Or a single payer option. But keep up the fight, it will be a tough one for sure!thanks,Les
-
YOUR HEALTH PLAN ISN'T ENOUGH!
Senator Wyden,
Why are YOU the roadblock in between Americans and REAL health care reform? When Republicans controlled government, your health care plan was a reasonable compromise, but now that there is a real chance to pass lasting health care reform with a public insurance option that will lower costs for every American far more than your plan why are you still on the fence about supporting it. Senator Wyden, please don't let your ego get in the way of our health.
-
I submitted a respectful, critical comment a week ago, but it's not displayed here... By filtering criticism, Wyden seems to be trying to create the impression that most people support his plan or something similar. That's not behavior I expect from my government...is this the U.S. or is it China, Russia, Iran?
-
There absolutely must be a non profit public option in your health care program. Or it isn't reform at all, but just another way of supporting the insurance industry. Which is the huge problem today. Either add it to your plan or vote for the House plan.
-
The government needs to stop letting the drug companies advertise their prescription drugs. All the money that is spent on advertisement just makes the drug prices go up. You can't get the drugs without the prescription anyway so let the doctors do their work and stop the graff going to the doctors to promote a certain drug.
Write a Comment
- Wyden discusses challenges in health reform effort - June 16
- Wyden’s vision for health care reform begins with making sure everyone is covered - April 24
- Providers Must Focus On Patient Outcomes - April 1
- Bills expand Oregon Caves, protect Rogue tributaries: Wyden-DeFazio, measures add 4,070 acres to monument - Paul Fattig, Mail Tribune - June 17
- Markers for ‘real reform’: Wyden outlines key elements of health legislation - The Register-Guard - June 16
- Oregon Guard units won't be broken up - Julie Sullivan, The Oregonian - June 7
- Better mental healthcare on the way for rural vets - Kevin Gaboury, Central Oregonian - June 5
- Wyden Ready To Listen on Torture Prosecutions - LoadedOrygun.net - May 28
- Wyden pleased with Obama’s court pick - Associated Press - May 27
- Wyden holds town hall in Vernonia with flood victims - Randy Neves, KGW - May 24
- Wyden introduces bill for La Pine land deal - The Bend Bulletin - May 22
- Senate approves bill revamping credit card fees - The Bend Bulletin - May 20
- Wyden: “Kept In the Dark” on Torture, Calls Cheney’s Bluff - Torridjoe, Loaded Orygun - May 18
Your health care bill makes sense to me. Thank you for supporting sponsoring it.
I'm puzzled by AFSCME's attack ads. We get a lot of them because my wife is a member of AFSCME and I usually support its positions on legislation.
Their ads claim your bill would tax health benefits. In in fact, it would create a standard deduction greater than the total (employer-employee) cost of our existing negotiated plan. Managers and professionals who currently have high-end plans would be taxed on the high-end portion of their plan. Very few union members would pay taxes on any part of their benefit. The only new tax would be paid by employers.
If AFSCME's charge reflects its preference for a "pay or play" scheme where employers would be taxed only if they don't offer health benefits (as incentive to do so and an advantage of union membership), my question is, would their alternative raise enough revenue to pay for the subsidies to low-income workers?
AFSCME's attack ads also charge that your plan would force us to give up our union-negotiated plan. In fact, we'd keep it for the term of the contract, which expires next year. When the contract expires, we could choose a plan with similar benefits. As I understand your bill, the amount the employer currently pays BlueCross would show up on my wife's pay slip in two places: as a health benefit and (partially or entirely) as a deduction paid to the plan of her choice. IN future negotiations, AFSCME could still negotiate the amount of the health benefit. It could also inform members about the merits of alternative plans.
What would like to know, though, is, why you oppose an amendment that would create public health insurance option. Is there a cost issue, or is it just a matter of getting enough votes to prevent a filibuster in the Senate?