The U.S. and its cities are in the midst of a healthcare crisis caused by a broken system that values profit over quality, affordable care.

Cities faced with rapidly increasing employee health insurance premiums, including Baltimore, are cutting back on much needed services to balance their budgets.

City residents aren’t better off. Increasingly, people are going without insurance, while they put off care or rely on extremely expensive emergency rooms for preventable issues.

National, single-payer healthcare is needed now, more than ever, to free cities and families from the private health insurance industry that has profited from devastating levels of inequality in care and quality of life. It would reduce healthcare costs by removing profit and reducing wasteful spending on insurance paperwork that take up 30 percent of current costs ($230 billion nationally).

A single-payer system would make the federal government the sole insurer (the “single-payer” to doctors and hospitals) of all Americans. That’s full, universal coverage.

It would remove all for-profit insurers from the system, and require that all hospitals, which would remain private, convert to non-profit entities. Insurance industry greed, along with profiting from death and illness, would end under HR 676.

Profit Over Care

In 2007, the US spent $2.4 trillion on healthcare (4.3 times what we spend on national defense), while 46 million Americans went uninsured, including 8.1 million children.

According to the SEIU, between 2003 and 2007, the nation’s largest insurers “raised premiums, increased co-pays and deductibles; refusing coverage or charging exorbitant rates to people with pre-existing conditions; and even retroactively denied coverage to people with insurance.” Profits rose 170.2 percent, to $12.6 billion.

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, “Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent, and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.”

As premiums rise, employers expect employees to contribute more. Employee spending on health insurance has increased 120 percent between 2000 and 2006. Studies show that increased premiums directly correlate with families dropping coverage contributing to about 18,000 deaths every year

Cities, like families, are affected by increasing health insurance costs. Baltimore’s recently announced $65 million budget shortfall, partially due to rising health insurance costs for municipal employees, may force Mayor Dixon to cut police and fire budgets by 6 percent. According to Local 734 Fire Union President Bob Sledgeski, “This could have an immediate impact on citizens, resulting in less protection and longer response times.”

Maryland’s Governor, Martin O’Malley, plans to cut Baltimore’s school budget by $23 million as he deals with a $2 billion budget shortfall, partially due to rising health insurance costs. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than 30 states face deficits totaling a projected $40 billion this year.
Increasing Insurance Costs Lead to Increasing Inequality

As health insurance becomes more of a commodity only available to the rich, income becomes the most important determinant to life expectancy. A 20-year life gap separates the city’s poorest from its wealthiest. The average life expectancy in Hollins Market, Baltimore’s poorest neighborhood, is 63, while in Roland Park, Baltimore’s wealthiest neighborhood, it’s 83.

A full life, it seems, is only available to those who can afford it.

Why We Need National, Single-Payer Healthcare

Single-payer healthcare (H.R. 676) will save families money. A median income family in Baltimore (making $37,000) would pay about $1,700 a year for healthcare under H.R. 676. Now, if they have insurance through their employer, they’re paying, on average, $3,300. That’s a savings of $1,600 a year.

It will save cities money. Baltimore spends 11.2 percent of its budget on healthcare for retired municipal employees (over $120 million). In fact, Baltimore City officials estimate they will need $2.9 billion to cover employee retirement health benefits for the foreseeable future. The City would not be liable for retiree health benefits under H.R. 676, since it covers all U.S. residents. The City would also save on the millions it now spends on current employee health benefits. Studies show H.R. 676 saves cities between 30 to 50 percent in health insurance costs.

45 municipalities across the country (including Baltimore), and the US Conference of Mayors, representing over 1,000 cities with populations over 30,000, have passed resolutions endorsing HR 676 because they realize that national single-payer healthcare will save them money while covering all of their residents.

A December 2007 Associated Press/Yahoo! poll found: “Sixty-five percent of those polled said the United States should adopt universal health insurance that covers everyone under a program such as Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.”

Single-payer healthcare can save our cities by providing affordable, comprehensive, and universal coverage for every U.S. resident.

Jeff Muckensturm is an organizer and web developer for Healthcare-NOW!, an organization that’s organizing for national, single-payer healthcare. He can be reached through www.CityInvincible.org. Find out more about H.R. 676 at www.Healthcare-Now.org.

Today, groups representing doctors, nurses, healthcare advocates and labor unions are applauding the Philadelphia City Council for passing a resolution in support of national, single payer health care (HR 676) and two state single payer bills.

The resolution, sponsored by Councilman Greenlee and Councilwoman Tasco, makes Philadelphia the 28th city and 46th local government to pass a resolution in favor of HR 676, the National Health Insurance Act, sponsored by John Conyers (D-Mich.). The resolution also calls for the enactment of the two single-payer state bills, SB 300 and HB 1660.

Nearly 40 people watched the city council pass the resolution. One audience member, Walter Tsou, MD, MPH, former Health Commissioner of Philadelphia, said of the resolution, “Single payer is a win win for Philadelphia. It not only would give 160,000 uninsured Philadelphians health insurance, but it would redirect hundreds of millions of city dollars toward other important priorities, like libraries and fire stations.”

Jed Dodd, a Teamster Union official who represents railroad construction workers in the Northeast stated, “Single payer health plans ensure all people living in the United States access to quality health at a fair cost. Ninety-seven percent of the resources allocated to support these plans are spent on health care. All other plans waste 30% of these resources on insurance companies who provide no health care to anyone and ironically make more by limiting access to health care instead of making people well. We are heartened that the Philadelphia City Council has endorsed a health care plan for the people of America.”

A fact sheet circulated to Council members demonstrates that if HR 676 were enacted, the city would save $539 million a year, enough to cover its budget shortfall of $2 billion over 5 years. In addition, the bills would guarantee access to comprehensive healthcare at less cost than what average families currently pay for care.

Sabrina Nixon, a medical technologist at Temple University Hospital, and a member of PASNAP, said, “As a healthcare professional of 20 years and a parent, I see that HR 676 would not only fix the current healthcare crisis, but eliminate every parent’s worry that their child will not have access to quality healthcare once they turn 18 or as they move between jobs. If HR 676 were passed, the dream of universal healthcare will become reality.”

Groups that have signed on to a letter asking the Council to sign the resolution, many of which were present at the vote, include: Healthcare-NOW; Healthcare for All – Philadelphia; Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals; United Steelworkers Local 10-1; International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees Local 3; Faculty and Staff Federation of Community College of Philadelphia, AFT 2026; Pennsylvania Federation of the Brotherhood of Maintenance and Way Employees – IBT; American Medical Students Association; Physicians for a National Health Program; Philadelphia Chapter Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; Citizen Access; and Leadership of Neighborhood Networks.

A coalition of major labor unions and liberal organizations has recently created what it calls “a national grassroots campaign organizing millions of Americans to win a guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all.”

Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is a project of three major unions, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), along with MoveOn and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Elizabeth Edwards is a spokesperson for the new coalition.

With its $40 million budget, HCAN could put a lot of muscle into the fight for a universal, single-payer system that would make the government the sole insurer (the “single payer” to doctors and hospitals). Unfortunately, instead HCAN favors a mixed public/private system that would allow Americans to “keep your current private insurance plan, pick a new private insurance plan, or join a public health insurance plan.”

While HCAN’s “health care for all” slogan will resonate with labor and the left, the group’s actual proposal has met with a skeptical response from, among others, the California Nurses Association and Physicians for a National Health Program. Both fault HCAN for failing to support the United States National Health Insurance Act (H.R. 676), aka “Medicare for All,” introduced in February by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). The bill now has over 91 co-sponsors.

So why doesn’t HCAN support single-payer? According to Richard Kirsch, HCAN’s national campaign director, “One point of this approach [giving people the choice of private insurance or Medicare] was not to scare people away from reform or to make it easier for the opponents of reform to panic the public.” HCAN apparently thinks single-payer is not popular enough among labor, elected officials, or the public to be politically feasible—but they’re wrong.

H.R. 676 has significant labor support. To date, over 445 labor organizations, including 36 state AFL-CIO chapters, 110 Central Labor Councils, the United Steel Workers, the United Auto Workers, and at least 14 AFSCME and SEIU locals have passed resolutions supporting the bill. Interestingly, both SEIU and AFSCME have passed resolutions supporting H.R. 676 at national conventions, showing that there is strong rank-and-file support for single-payer.

Why? Because H.R. 676 takes health benefits off the bargaining table, allowing labor to focus on other key issues. A position paper from the New Jersey State Industrial Union Council explains: “H.R. 676 can create a real opportunity for white- and blue-collar workers. When negotiating a contract the final two issues always are wages and medical benefits. The benefits will always affect wages, and the employer will cry that their health insurance costs limit their ability to give raises.” With health care a non-issue, unions can concentrate on wages, safety, and organizing more workplaces.

And given the budget crisis states and municipalities across the country are facing, the support of AFSCME’s leadership for HCAN rather than single-payer is particularly questionable. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than 30 states face deficits totaling a projected $40 billion this year. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, representing over 1,000 cities with populations over 30,000, unanimously adopted a resolution supporting H.R. 676, which, in their view, will save municipalities millions. According to Healthcare-NOW!, a national organization founded five years ago (not to be confused with HCAN), even a small city could save millions of dollars.

HCAN seems to be out of touch with the American public as well. People aren’t scared of a national health program—quite the opposite. USA Today reported the results of a December 2007 Associated Press/Yahoo! poll: “Sixty-five percent of those polled said the United States should adopt universal health insurance that covers everyone under a program such as Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.”

While mixed public/private plans like Massachusetts’ are beset by problems and have left many uninsured and over-charged, single-payer has become increasingly popular. With HCAN’s full support, H.R. 676 could be even closer to becoming reality. It’s our only hope if we truly want quality “health care for all.”

Jeffrey Muckensturm is a freelance writer and activist living in Philadelphia.  He can be reached through www.CityInvincible.org.

Resources: Health Care for America Now, www.healthcareforamericanow.org; Jim Kuhnhenn and Trevor Tompson, “Poll: Economy, Health Care Top Issues,” USA Today, December 28, 2007; Richard Kirsch, “Why Not Single-Payer?,” the Now! Blog, blog.healthcareforamericanow.org, July 15, 2008; New Jersey State Industrial Union Council, “For HR 676 One Plan, One Nation Campaign And Regarding Health Care for America Now The Trojan Horse,” www.healthcare-now.org.

Note: This is the full article I had published in the October/November issue of Dollars and Sense.

Both AFSCME and SEIU were instrumental in creating Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a lobbying group whose chief objective is to support Barak Obama’s healthcare plan. HCAN is critical of private health insurance companies for their desire to put profit over the lives of their customers. But they won’t go as far as removing private insurance, as single-payer would, from the system completely.

Richard Kirsch, HCAN’s National Campaign Director writes, “One point of this approach [giving people the choice of private insurance or Medicare] was not to scare people away from reform or to make it easier for the opponents of reform to panic the public,” in his blog post “Why Not Single-Payer?“

Sadly, Richard Kirsch is wrong–Americans are ready for reform. 59% of the nation’s physicians and 65% of people nationwide believe that: “The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.” Even the rank and file members of AFSCME and SEIU voted to endorse the most widely supported single-payer healthcare legislation, HR 676.

The labor issue of Dollars and Sense should be on newsstands soon. Please check it out.

Once again, I used WordPress to develop the site and redesigned, with my friend Brian, a theme by Brian Gardner. WordPress has been a joy to work with, and I plan on using it for future projects.

Let me know what you think of the new site.

It seems that “the declines occurred because HUD changed guidelines in late 2006 for counting the homeless, requiring an interview with each person counted. In 2005, counters could use their judgment to determine if a person was homeless.”

It’s easy for the the government to reduce the amount of homeless people by changing the definition to include less people. Some cities include people who are living with relatives, because they don’t have a permanent home. The Federal government, however, decided not to include them anymore. Problem solved.

Claiming that there’s less homeless people is dangerous because Bush will now claim that cities don’t need as much help or funding. HUD, and the right, shouldn’t be so quick to tout easily disputed “accomplishments.”

Below is the film in its entirety. However, I suggest renting or buying a copy to support the filmmakers.

This tactic only serves two purposes. First, it lends to the right-wing’s highly pushed notion that Obama is an elitist. What could be more elitist than forcing the poorest of the poor away from, rather than invite them into, your surroundings? Even the Republicans say–at least for now–they’re not moving a local homeless shelter from their convention’s surroundings.

And second, it shows that the Democrats, including Obama, prefer to ignore homelessness and other urban issues (though, homelessness is a rural issue as well), rather than face them head on thus emphasizing the party’s shift to the right–or more accurately, Obama’s previously consistent centrist views.

The presidential candidates must start taking urban issues seriously. Their incredible lack of interest in poverty, homelessness, transportation, and sustainable infrastructure show that they’re not in touch with reality, and that photo opportunities are more important than those most in need.

Homeless athletes from all over the US will converge on Washington, DC from June 27 though June 29 to participate in the Homeless US Cup soccer tournament. The tournament, which includes about 10 teams and 55 athletes playing short-field street soccer, will determine which players move on the Homeless World Cup this year in Melbourne, Australia.

The US Cup tournament, which is organized by Street Sense, Inc. and the National Alliance to End Homelessness, coincides with the theatrical release of Kicking It, a documentary which follows six homeless men from around the world who played in 2006’s Homeless World Cup in Cape Town, South Africa. The documentary focuses on the players’ backgrounds (including a war refugee, heroin addict, and former foster child) and their newfound desire to change their lives after competing in the world soccer tournament.

Homeless World Cup organizers say, “We use football [soccer] as a trigger to inspire and energize people who are homeless to change their own lives.”

The results are interesting: 73 percent of homeless participants claim that the tournament has changed their life for the better while 92 percent claim to have a new motivation for life.

Besides the motivation of the players to better their lives, the tournament also helps raise awareness of homelessness, and often changes peoples’ negative perceptions of the homeless. Over 64 nations are expected to field teams in this year’s Homeless World Cup in front of more than 100,000 spectators, and after competing in the Homeless US Cup, the players selected for the US national team will play exhibition matches throughout North America.

Organizers of the World Tournament claim: “From 160 spectators surveyed before watching a game at the Copenhagen 2007 Homeless World Cup, 20% admitted a negative perception of homeless people, 21% stated no opinion and 58% claimed a positive view. After watching a game, their views had shifted significantly with 85% claiming a positive perception, 12% had no opinion and only 1% shared a negative view.”

While the players’ stories and new positive attitude are moving, the tournament’s overall impact on homelessness here in the US and globally is questionable. Both the Homeless US Cup and Homeless World Cup focus on the participants’ individual problems over the systemic socioeconomic issues that cause homelessness.

Laura Flanders, host of GRITtv, echoes this thought in her interview with Kicking It director Susan Koch, an Emmy and Peabody award-winning filmmaker. “But they don’t stop being homeless, right? I mean one of the questions running through my mind was, ‘This is all very nice and the get to go to South Africa and compete, but their economic situation hasn’t changed.’ At least we don’t see it change,” says Laura Flanders.

After competing in the Homeless World Cup, for example, only 35 percent of the homeless participants secure employment of some kind, and only 44 percent improve their housing situation.

The problem is that participants only receive a finite amount of assistance while the tournament is active, not the prolonged help many people need to stabilize their life and housing situation. This leads to difficulty fielding full teams in the US, where the priority for many homeless people is finding employment and permanent housing.

“Anthony Lyons, manager of the Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, has been trying to start a local homeless soccer program since early fall 2007. However, Lyons is facing a major problem: getting local homeless people to participate,” says the Independent Florida Alligator.

Byron Woods, a Gainesville, Florida homeless man says, “How I look at it, money needs to be spent on more important things, such as adequate shelter.” Woods also says, “It would be hard for the homeless to participate in a team sport while they are struggling to find long–term employment and permanent shelter.”

Despite its inability to address the systemic causes of homelessness, the awareness the Homeless US Cup tournament and the Homeless World Cup tournament bring to homelessness is valuable. The Homeless World Cup has increased its participants and spectators every year, and its impact on the nation’s consciousness can only grow stronger. The Homeless US Cup, while not the sole solution to homelessness, is part of a larger effort to raise awareness of American homelessness and our need to take further action.