Sustainable Middle Class

Food and energy production at the 74 MW Blue Canyon Wind Farm near Lawton, OK, consisting of 45 Vestas NM72 1.65 MW turbines.

Critics of wind power often dismiss its value because of its variability, as in “what do you do when the wind stops blowing?” This lame argument only applies for small-scale isolated systems. The wind is always blowing somewhere. The success of utility-scale wind energy rests with integration of windfarms dispersed over large geographic areas with transmission lines in place to carry the power to markets that need it. Wind forecasting also plays a key role as grid operators blend wind power with other generating sources.

Last year, the U.S. wind energy industry built 8,435 MW of new generating capacity, enough to power more than 2 million homes. Forty-percent of the nation’s new power-producing capacity was wind power.

Currently, the U.S. has wind power generating capacity of 25,246 MW, enough electricity to power 7 million households. It does so cleanly, without burning coal, without mountaintop removal, without filling stream valleys with coal mine overburden, without polluting the air with mercury and other toxins, without pumping millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, without having store billions of gallons of coal sludge, without digging for uranium, without uranium enrichment, without worrying about greater nuclear proliferation, without having to figure out where to store nuclear waste, without paying sky-high fuel prices on the roller-coaster spot market, and without pumping millions of gallons of cooling water through thermo-electric power plants.

Renewable Energy World has the article here. An excerpt:

A document prepared by the Utility Wind Integration Group in coordination with the trade associations of all three utility sectors (investor-owned, public and cooperative), along with utility studies and wind-integration experiences found that:

*Wind resources’ impacts can be managed through proper plant interconnection, integration, transmission planning and system and market operations.

*System operating cost increases caused from wind variability and uncertainty amount to about 10 percent or less of wind energy’s wholesale value.

*A variety of tools, such as commercially available wind forecasting, can be employed to reduce costs.

*In many cases, customers’ electricity costs can be reduced when wind is added to the system because operating-cost increases are offset by savings that arise from displacing fossil fuel generation.

Based on studies and surveys it conducted in different parts of the country, the Utility Wind Integration Group said, “(These studies) lay to rest one of the major concerns often expressed about wind power: that a wind plant would need to be backed up with an equal amount of dispatchable generation.”

Wind energy is rapidly maturing as a mainstream power generating source. As a counter force to nuclear and fossil fuel interest groups, it’s up to supporters of renewable energy to keep pressure on the politicians so that pro-renewable policies are strengthened, not rolled back.

Supporters of the Bill Need Franken at the Table

The American Clean Energy and Security Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives in a close vote. The bill was unsatisfactory to some House members on both the “left” and “right.” For example, in Ohio, Dennis Kucinich and John Boehner both opposed it. The vote results are here

Progressives don’t like the bill because it gives breaks to nuclear power and “clean coal.” Right-wingers don’t like it because it curbs carbon dioxide emissions; they don’t believe in global warming.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy knows this bill is about as good as it gets and wrote this press release:

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) applauds the leadership of those Southeastern members who supported this first step toward a clean-energy economy, with the House’s first-ever vote to cap global warming pollution. As President Obama stated in a press conference yesterday, “The nation that leads in the creation of a clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century’s global economy.” SACE believes that ACES will move us in that direction.

According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, energy efficiency provisions will save approximately $1,050 per household by 2020 and $4,400 per household by 2030.

Natural Resources Defense Council reports that ACES will create an average of 53,700 new jobs per state in our Southeastern region (Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida).

The Congressional Budget Office calculates that households with the highest income would see a net cost of only $245 per year by 2020, while households with the lowest income would see a net benefit of $40 in savings per year by 2020.

The bill is likely to get further watered down, rather than strengthened, in the Senate. This could be the time when Minnesota’s inability to decide the Franken-Coleman Senate race, will become a crucial factor for a major piece of legislation.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is asking citizen support for a single-payer health plan by signing an on-line petition. Sanders strongly argues that single-payer, with its comprehensive scope and cost savings is both a moral and economic imperative for our time. A few other points:

1. The number of health insurance industry bureaucrats has grown at 25 times the growth of physicians in the past 30 years;
2. Medicare (our existing single-payer system for elderly and disabled Americans) has administrative costs far lower than any private health insurance plan;
3. The potential savings on health insurance paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, is enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every uninsured American;

I strongly urge both of my readers to sign this petition. Thanks.

Sign Senator Sanders’ Petition

64 Percent of Minnesota Physicians Favor Single-Payer System

Recent news programs I’ve seen lately, including tonight’s Situuation Room with Wolf Blitzer have depicted doctors as generally opposing a publicly financed single-payer health plan. Today, President Obama spoke to the American Medical Association, an organization that represents about 25% of doctors. None of the television news programs I’ve noticed make any mention of the Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization some 15,000 strong made up of physicians who believe that doctors should concentrate on treating their patients instead of dealing with insurance companies.

Another example for physician support for a single=payer helth care plan comes from Minnesota.

The February 2007 issue of
Minnesota Medicine, a publication of the Minnesota Medical Association, has an article on research into physicians’ attitudes toward health care financing systems. From the study:

Despite physicians’ vital role in health care, few studies have assessed their preferences regarding health care financing systems. We surveyed a random sample of licensed Minnesota physicians to determine their preferences regarding health care financing systems. Of 390 physicians, 64% favored a single-payer system, 25% HSAs, and 12% managed care. The majority of physicians (86%) also agreed that it is the responsibility of society, through the government, to ensure that everyone has access to good medical care. Less than half (41%) said that the private insurance industry should continue to play a major role in financing health care.

If the Physicians have had enough of Health Savings Accounts and managed care, and single payer would save 20-30 percent in reduced administrative costs, why don’t we have single payer?

There’s a red, white, and blue “Contact Congress” widget in the sidebar. Those who believe the middle man, i.e., insurance companies, taking 30 cents of every dollar spent on health care is a good idea, then they should support the status quo. Those who think we cannot sustain that kind of extravagant jobs program for the insurance industry should contact their representatives in the House and Senate and demand a public option.

How comfortable are you with economic inequality? If you don’t mind if the gap between rich and everybody else grows wider, you may be a conservative. If you believe that differences in life circumstances, particularly family status, are key drivers determining who wins and who loses in the business of living, AND you’re uncomfortable with that reality, you may be a liberal.

Chris Dillow, a British financial journalist who also blogs at Stumbling & Mumbling, has suggested that what defines a liberal versus a conservative, is how comfortable one is with economic inequality. I tend to agree.

Some recent polling suggests that younger Americans are, compared to their elders, less comfortable with disparities with respect to access to healthcare. This could be an indicator of support for a more egalitarian society among youth, and a harbinger of more liberal policies in America. It’s also good news for the democratic wing of the Democratic party.

The following graph is a from a poll conducted by Diageo-Hotline. It breaks down, according to age group, respondants views of whether it is more important to control health care costs, or expand coverage to the uninsured. The youngest group, 18-29 year olds, clearly chose expanded coverage as their priority.

Image source: Diageo-Hotline Poll

Conversely, it was the oldest group that was more concerned with controling costs. Given that the elderly require more health care, on average, than the young, this seems to reflect simple self interest.

Will young Americans shift their priorities to controlling costs once they start shelling out for medical bills? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Which should we do: control costs or cover everybody? As Congress and the Prisident tussle over health care reform they’d do well to remember the smartest policies will do both.

Germany’s Successful 1999 Renewable Energy Act provides power, jobs, and investment security - at competitive prices

With renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass) already providing 15% of Germany’s electricity, Americans may wonder how they did it. The key ingredient to Germany’s renewable energy success is something called a “feed-in-tariff.” This is simply a contract between the energy producer and the energy buyer that pays the producer a set price per unit of power over a long period of time. This is essentially the same deal large coal and nuclear power generating companies have with public utility commissions. The utility companies negotiate a deal that pays for their generating facilities plus a profit.

Germany’s 1999 Renewable Energy Act opens up the energy market to small producers: homeowners, businesses with acres of rooftops for photovoltaic solar panels, farmers with open land for wind turbines. Without the feed-in-tariff, small producers, larger start-ups, and banks would not have a stable price environment to overcome excessive financial risk.

We Americans can due this. We can build a vibrant economy, with millions good jobs, around renewable energy, updated infrastructure, and environmental quality - but not without our individual efforts. For starters, there’s a red, white, and blue “contact congress” widget in the sidebar.

Tip: Alliance for Renewable Energy

Did speculation in energy prices enabled by the “Enron Loophole” bring on the recession? From August 2007 to July 2008, the Commodity Fuel (energy) Price Index rose 91%

“>

Click on the above figure for a much better view of an interactive graph.

We’ve heard about sub-prime mortgages lent to people who couldn’t afford them, foolish buyers taking on more house than they could afford, unscrupulous bankers, mysterious investment products like “credit default swaps” and “credit derivatives.” Perhaps, one underestimated factor in the current recession and financial crisis may be the “Enron Loophole” and the commodity bubble of 2007-2008.

The above graph shows a 10-year history of fuel and energy price data. Between August 2007 and July 2008, the Index rose from approximately 129.8 to 248.4, a jump of 91%!

With food (food and other commodity prices mostly follow energy prices) and energy costs rising so quickly, did consumers face the choice between, on the one hand, buying food for their families and gas for their cars to go to work and, on the other hand, paying their mortgage? Did the commodity bubble of 2007-2008 stretch paychecks to the breaking point?

The Enron Loophole
So how did this happen? What led to skyrocketing commodity prices? NPR Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal interviewed Michael Greenberger, former member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in June 2008. An excerpt:

Ryssdal: Why is it so hard to figure out what’s going on in commodities markets — oil specifically?

Greenberger: Well, the reason it’s hard to figure out is about 30 percent of our crude oil energy futures are traded in what is called a dark market — that is a market that was deregulated in December of 2000 at the behest of Enron. Prior to that legislation being passed, all energy futures traded in the United States or affecting the United States in a significant fashion were regulated by United States regulators under a very careful regime that had been perfected over about 78 years and many observers believe that because those markets are not being policed, malpractices are being committed and traders are able to boost the price virtually at their will.

Ryssdal: You’re not really telling me that seven years on, we’re still paying the price for Enron, are you?

Greenberger: Well, this has been called the “Enron Loophole” and there are many legislators working very hard to close that loophole. There is tremendous concern about this on Capitol Hill and on a bipartisan basis, people are drafting legislation to try and get a handle on this and not eliminate speculation, but bring the speculation under the kind of time-tested controls that were used until Enron had its way and amended the law to escape traditional tested regulation on speculative activities.

Ryssdal: So what’s Congress going to do? Congress is going to get together, they’re going to pass a law and it’s going to say, “CFTC, fix this?”

Greenberger: Well, there are several proposals suggesting or proposing that light shine on these dark markets and some of the legislation goes further than others, but the bottom line is the speculators will, in the end, be policed. We will know who they are, what they’re doing, what their controls are, what effect they’re having on the market. Maybe we’ll find out that there’s nothing there.

Ryssdal: So just to be clear, you do think that we’re in a bubble, then?

Greenberger: I believe it and I’m certainly not alone in my belief. If you talk to anybody who trades in these markets on a regular basis, they will tell you that the markets are completely dysfunctional and out of control because of speculative activity.

So, before average American consumers, the “little people,” are convinced that it was themselves, through their own lack of discipline and unrealistic financial expectations, who carried the world to recession, they should understand the politicians and corporations built the road and led the way.

Don’t let them blame it all on you.

He’s been called an “all-around drummer.” From Stan Kenton’s Band to Weather Report, to Sting, to Diana Krall, to some great trios, drummer, author, composer, and teacher Peter Erskine keeps it fun and makes it look easy.

Power your home with solar or wind power, visit the Alternative Energy Store!

CBS has an interesting summary of the history of Guantanamo Bay here.

The history begins in 1494 with Christopher Columbus spending a night at the natural harbor he named “Puerta Grande.” Here’s a partial list of some other significant dates in the CBS “Timeline”:

Feb. 23, 1903
President (Theodore) Roosevelt signs an agreement with Cuba, leasing 45 square miles composed of both land and water at Guantanamo Bay for 2,000 gold coins a year, now valued at $4,085. Washington continues to pay the lease every year, but Fidel Castro’s government refuses to cash the checks.

1934
Under a renegotiated lease, the United States and Cuba agree the land would revert to Cuban control only if abandoned or by mutual consent.

Jan. 1, 1959
With the triumph of revolutionary forces led by Castro, the United States bans its servicemen from entering Cuban territory.

November 1991
A flood of refugees arrives in Guantanamo from Haiti. Thousands of Cubans join them in 1994. Officials say eventually more than 45,000 Cuban and Haitian migrants are held in tent cities on the base. Most Cubans are admitted into the U.S.; most Haitians are sent home.

Jan 11, 2002
A U.S. Air Force plane from Afghanistan touches down at Guantanamo carrying 20 prisoners, marking the start of the detention operation.

July 30, 2004
Pentagon creates military panels of officers to review each detainee’s “enemy combatant” status on a case-by-case basis. Lawyers are banned from these so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

June 29, 2006
The Supreme Court rules that President Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

June 21, 2007
The Associated Press reports that the Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo detention facility and move terror suspects from there to military prisons on U.S. soil.

I’ll add one more:

May 21, 2009.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney blasts President Obama’s proposal to close Guantanamo Bay prison.

It took a freshman Democratic senator from Ohio to provide the leadership, but Senator Sherrod Brown and 27 cosponsors have taken a big step, one likely to make them targets of the insurance companies and Big Pharma, by introducing a resolution to include a public health insurance option in any Senate health care reform bill.

Listen to Sherrod Brown’s comments.

The press release follows:

May 21, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Twenty-eight U.S. Senators today introduced a resolution calling for the inclusion of federally-backed health insurance option in health care reform. The Senators’ resolution says that any reform of our nation’s health care system should give consumers a choice of an affordable, federally-backed option to introduce competition in the health insurance market and contain health care costs.

The Senators’ resolution expresses that the “presence of a federally-backed insurance pool” would provide consumer choice and benefit “Americans who have become unemployed, live in rural and other traditionally underserved areas, or have been unable to attain affordable health insurance.”

The resolution states that “any efforts to reform our Nation’s health care system should include as an option the establishment of a federally-backed insurance pool to create options for American consumers.”

“This is about consumer choice and introducing competition in the health insurance market,” Sen. Brown said. “Private health insurers always manage to stay ‘one step ahead of the sheriff’— finding new ways to limit care and pass costs along to the consumer. Giving Americans the choice of a quality, federally-backed, health insurance option will keep private insurers honest and make health care affordable.”

“I strongly support including a public health insurance option in health reform,” said Sen. Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care. “We need to provide quality, affordable coverage for the millions of Americans the insurance industry has failed – a federally-backed health insurance option is the only reliable way to do just that.”

“A public health insurance option is critical to ensure the greatest amount of choice possible for consumers,” Sen. Schumer said. “We believe that it is fully possible to create a public plan that delivers all the benefits of increased competition without relying on unfair, built-in advantages. If a level playing field exists, then private insurers will have to compete based on quality of care and pricing, instead of just competing for the healthiest consumers.”

“We have a moral obligation to ensure all Americans have access to affordable and high quality health care,” Sen. Levin said. “One step toward achieving that goal is to ensure that we explore all possible health insurance options, including a federally-backed health insurance pool, as we continue to move forward in determining the best way to reform health care.”

“All Americans deserve the option of affordable health insurance plans,” Sen. Leahy said. “A public option will give those in need of coverage access to quality care, maintain patient choice, and reduce the nation’s overall health spending. We cannot afford to neglect true reform to our health system any longer.”

“The purpose of reforming our broken health care system is to make sure all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care, plain and simple,” Sen. Menendez said. “By ensuring that families have a real choice of health insurance options – and that one of those choices is a quality, federally-backed plan – we can help guarantee that families will have good options for health care that they can rely upon and afford.”

“In the greatest country in the world, health care should be a right, not a privilege,” Sen. Stabenow said. “A public insurance option encourages competition and provides families with a valuable choice to keep the insurance they have now or purchase this option. Public insurance is an essential step in guaranteeing that when a worker loses their job they doesn’t also lose their insurance. And most of all it will mean that every American family has access to affordable, quality healthcare.”

“Improving our health care system to increase quality and improve affordability is the ultimate and long-neglected goal,” said Sen. Casey. “A public option can help this effort by increasing competition in the market and maintaining patient choice.”

“Health reform should provide consumers with the full range of choices to meet their needs,” Sen. Merkley said. “A public option will provide competition that will keep private insurance companies honest and help improve service and lower health care costs for everyone.”

“Ensuring that every American has access to quality, affordable health care is a national priority,” Sen. Gillibrand said. “With more than 47 million uninsured Americans and millions of families and businesses struggling with rising health care costs, the time to act is now. We cannot have a system in which the only choice is private plans. Everyone should have the option of buying into a not-for profit public plan at a rate that they can afford. I am proud to join with my colleagues to fight for the inclusion of a public plan option in health care reform.”

“In this tough economy, we need to do all we can to help families afford to see a doctor, buy medicines they need to stay healthy and choose the health care coverage they need,” Sen. Lautenberg said. “Greater choice and greater competition helps ensure consumers can get real coverage at more affordable prices and should be a part of national health care reform.”

The resolution was sponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Bob Casey (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tom Udall (D-NM), Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), Roland W. Burris (D-IL), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD).

Thanks to Senator Brown and all the cosponsors!

Maggie Maher has a fine post over at Health Beat about common myths concocted to attack the Canadian single-payer health system. The post features an article called “Mythbusting Canadian Health Care Part I” by Canadian Sara Robinson. It’s the best and most spirited “fisking” of arguments thrown up by the health care for profit crowd I’ve seen.

Ten myths queued up for busting are:

1. Canada’s health care system is “socialized medicine.”
2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
5. You don’t get to choose your own doctor.
6. Canada’s care plan only covers the basics. You’re still on your own for any extras, including prescription drugs. And you still have to pay for it.
7. Canadian drugs are not the same.
8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
9. People won’t be responsible for their own health if they’re not being forced to pay for the consequences.
10. This all sounds great — but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn’t the system in bad financial shape

Sample:

5. You don’t get to choose your own doctor.

Scurrilously False. Somebody, somewhere, is getting paid a lot of money to make this kind of stuff up. The cons love to scare the kids with stories about the government picking your doctor for you, and you don’t get a choice. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

For the record: Canadians pick their own doctors, just like Americans do. And not only that: since it all pays the same, poor Canadians have exactly the same access to the country’s top specialists that rich ones do.

FDR was right. “All we have to fear is fear itself.”

An earier version of this post appeared in this blog on February 8, 2008.

Last week, Jesse Ventura stopped by the Larry King show and had some interesting comments:

Jesse Ventura: I would prosecute every person who was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it, I would prosecute the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law.”

Larry King: You were a Navy S.E.A.L.

Jesse Ventura: Yes, and I was waterboarded [in training] so I know…It is torture…I’ll put it to you this way: You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

Tip: Washington Babylon

Let’s take matters into our own hands and organize our own health program.

It’s just an idea for now, but think about this: an expanded Medicare single payer health program option has been blocked in the U.S. Senate with Max Baucus making the lead block. Not one senator has introduced in the Senate a companion bill to H.R. 676, the single-payer “Medicare for All” plan in the House of Representatives.

The government won’t expand Medicare eligibility to compete with for-profit health insurance companies, like the U.S. Postal Service competes with FedEx, or the way U.S. Treasury Bonds compete with corporate bonds. To expand Medicare eligibility would not be an unprecedented intrusion of government into the private sector. It would simply expand an existing program. The power and money of the insurance companies is too great for the politicians to resist. The only losers would be health insurance and drug companies. It looks pretty clear, insurance companies and Big Pharma have bought the politicians.

But, they don’t own us. They screw us.

Brainstorming COHO
I suggest we forget about asking the government to open up Medicare to make it available to all who want an efficient health payer system. Instead, let’s construct a quasi-government organization made up of single-payer supporters, including medical providers and professionals who know how to operate large, not-for-profit organizations.

There are millions of us out here who are convinced single-payer, not-for-profit is the only moral and economic way to run health care. There’s plenty of evidence to support this. Let’s start thinking outside the box. We’ve been beating ourselves against the walls of that box for too long. Let’s take matters into our own hands and organize our own program.

Let’s go COHO!

“The impression is created that the parameters of serious discussion range from Obama’s amorphous position, on the “Left,” and the hated corporations on the Right.”

Glen Ford, writing in the Gangbox Black Agenda Report, has some tough criticism for President Obama’s recent handling of health care reform. Some excerpts:

Far from passively taking the health care predators “at their word,” the manufactured rapprochement between the White House and the health predators was yet another carefully scripted act of classic Obama political theater. The cast of characters that are permitted to perform in the drama are chosen for the purpose of exclusion, not inclusion. Single-payer advocates, who represent the views of strong majorities of Americans, are excluded from the production by the Grand Director, President Obama. The impression is created that the parameters of serious discussion range from Obama’s amorphous position, on the “Left,” and the hated corporations on the Right. When the Fat Cats and the Top Cat ultimately shake hands, a national consensus is declared. It matters little that the biggest majorities to coalesce around any major issue in contemporary American life have been squeezed out of the discussion….

Democrats on The Hill dutifully behave as if single-payer is a verboeten subject. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi enforces the Obama line: “Over and over again, we hear single payer, single payer, single payer. Well, it’s not going to be a single payer.” Case closed.

Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus conducts ludicrous sham hearings – shamelessly dubbed “public roundtable discussions” – based on the Obama White House template: no single-payers allowed. On May 5, eight single-payer advocates, three of them physicians, were arrested for attempting to break the wall of censorship. The “Baucus Eight [7]” were followed on May 12 by an additional “Baucus Five [8]” when two registered nurses from the California Nurses Association, two doctors from Physicians for a National Health Program, and a patient advocate were arrested for violating Obama’s taboo against single payer advocacy. The nurses group headlined their press release [9] following the arrests: “Nurses, Doctors Arrested But Insurers Get a Seat at the Table.”

Without the President publicly pressuring Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) to include single-payer advocates, such as the 15,000 member Physicians for a National Health Program Baucus’s “roundtable” hearings, it’s easy to understand Glen Ford’s frustration, and think maybe he’s right.

When it comes to health insurance and health providers, how much choice do we Americans really have? Like many Americans, I get family medical insurance through my employer. I pay for half of the premium and my employer pays the other half.

I didn’t choose the plan, the company leaders chose it. I’m told we have good insurance, comparatively speaking. Basically, if we get service through the network, we pay 20% and the insurance company pays 80%. If we go outside the network, we pay 40% and the company pays 60%. In reality, it’s more complicated than that. I can’t understand the breakdown of fees in many of the bills we get.

We live in Michigan, near the Ohio border, and have Michigan BC/BS. The nearest level 1 trauma center and most comprehensive medical services are in Toledo, Ohio. Many of our medical providers are out of the network, I’m finding out. I suppose we could move closer to a large Michigan city, but we sort of like it here, where the kids are in school and housing costs are lower.

If I had the choice of buying into a national program, like Medicare, the in-network vs out-of-network, in-state vs out-of-state problems could go away. If I changed jobs I wouldn’t have to worry about transitioning to another insurance plan.

Medicare for all: a single payer for everybody who wants it, for their whole lives. I want that choice. Let us pay half the premium to Medicare and our employers can pay the other half, like they do now. Let Medicare compete with private insurance.

Jack E. Lohman, who writes the blog Moneyed Politicians is on a mission for campaign finance reform and single payer health reform. He’s 70 years old, a retired business owner and describes himself as a “center-right Republican.”

Jack’s the one who introduced me to the idea, which is based on market competition and freedom of choice:

“Open up the Medicare system to the people and let them decide. Allow any employer or employee to opt into medicare at actual cost! If Medicare is too expensive, as conservatives charge, they’ll get no takers. If it is indeed more efficient, it will prevail. As a current Medicare beneficiary, I’ll put my money on WPS, Wisconsin’s Medicare Administrator.”

H.R. 676, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act sponsored by John Conyers (D-MI) now has 74 cosponsors, all Democrats, in the U.S. House of Representatives. That’s nowhere near enough votes for passage but the bill is alive.

H.R. 676 has no companion bill in the Senate. It needs one. It’s time. The Senate is the part of our government most resistant to single-payer, as the Baucus hearings have made clear. Our Senators won’t act unless really pushed by their constituents.

It’s time for a big push.