The event was essentially a speak-out on the need for a government-administered Single Payer health care system. This is the basic model that is working much more efficiently and effectively in the other industrialized countries. In the United States we get, on a cumulative basis, roughly half the health care at twice the cost. Many outcome statistics for broad demographics of people and conditions treated show inferior health and quality of life outcomes. A World Health Organization study ranks the U.S. system 36th best, just ahead of economically-challenged Cuba. Another ranks the United States 21st out of 21 countries ranked.

The event was unique in the health care debate, because it incorporated many other current activist issues along with the historical experiences for activists and residences of Berkeley. Speakers talked against the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Another spoke of the little-publicized transporting of nuclear waste through city streets. Food Not Bombs served food for everyone who was in People’s Park that day. It happened amidst the student and worker unrest at U.C. Berkeley and the statewide U.C. system. Several Berkeley Liberation Radio DJs organized the event, at a time when the station is continuing over 10 years of unlicensed broadcasting under repressive conditions created by the FCC and radio industry conglomerates which result in institutional interference, along with infrustructural and economic marginalization.

One health care activist described the situation well when she said that the current bills are not about health care reform, but rather about health care financing reform. But it does not appear to address the costs which continue escalating far ahead of inflationary activity in society in general. Incredible levels of personal and family bankruptcies and home foreclosures are direct results of medical debts, including for the insured. New, expanded revenue streams and significant government subsidies to the industries appear more likley to reinforce rather than turn back the excessive cost to consumers and governmental budgets.

As a country, we pay almost twice as much as the next most costly country. I consider the premium subsidies more of an industry subsidy than a personal one. Even if subsidies are provided for lower and middle income people, those individuals will probably still be priced out, because they will probably be forced economically to buy or take policies with thousands of dollars of deductibles before anything is covered, followed by co-pays, along with limited coverages that may exclude entire conditions and procedures that a working class or lower income person needs and can never afford. These conditions are bringing on increasing levels of long-term personal debt and societal economic destabilization. Working conditions in the industry are often dismal due to the escalating administrative load on direct service providers and increasingly authoritarian hierarchies operating under an overload of increasing legal and administrative demands and excessive drives for high levels of profit and expansion.

The benefits of exclusions for pre-existing conditions, denial of coverage all together, arbitrary canceling of coverage, and caps on the amount that can be charged to people with high-cost, high risk conditions are very significant reforms. But I don’t think as much is gained as is lost for the individual and economy with the plan that is currently negotiated. If the changes include a mandatory, viable public option available to all with strong provider networks and quality of care, along with the elective for states to institute Single Payer systems which can serve as evidence-based demonstration projects, the debate on whether or not to support this becomes more complex and reality-based. In my opinion, if the Obama Administration and Congress want to intervene in these areas, they can put up bills to eliminate these practices without an overall financial restructuring plan, then go on from there working on an overall reform plan that might include more overall involvement and develop broader approval.

I believe the bills which are coming up should be defeated because they may well devote a high level of economic resources that take us further away from effective reform. Then Single Payer activists can work hard to pressure the government and industry to allow Single Payer and a viable public health infrastructure can be analyzed and negotiated.