Barack Obama: Hypocrite on Health Care, Hater on Single Payer

obama on health careby BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
When it comes to health care, Barack Obama is a hater, and a dishonest one at that.  An honest and ethical hater tells you where she or he stands, and throws down the appropriate facts.  President Obama doesn't do this.  He has claimed for years to be a proponent of single payer health care, the only practical and workable health care solution, but since his election to the senate in 2004 he has become accustomed to saying he would favor single payer "if we were starting from a clean slate" but of course we are not.  Insurance companies are powerful interests, he seems to say, and for some reason, we have to let them keep the thrid of every health care dollar they currently take.
President Obama knows there is no blank slate and there never was.  
That's not even honest hating.  It's hypocrisy.  And it's not leadership, it's caving to the parasitical private insurers.

President Obama:  Hypocrite and Hater on Single Payer Health Care

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

"...the Obama Administration's emerging health care plan is expected to be based upon a model that has failed multiple times, most recently in Massachusetts"

Obama likes to say that the insurance industry employes tens or hundreds of thousands, and we cannot just displace them.  That's hating.  But his advisors know perfectly well that single payer health care insurance would create 2.6 million new jobs , after allowing for the 440,000 insurance company jobs it would do away with a fact detailed in the groundbreaking report issued earlier this year by the National Nurses Organizing Committee.  Instead, in the spirit of a dishonest hater, Obama has tried to ban from public forums any discussion of the single payer health care option, despite the fact that it has massive support among the people who voted for him.  That is hypocrisy.
When the Obama campaign asked for house meetings across the nation on health care, the option suggested most often was indeed single payer.  So you didn't hear much of anything about the outcomes of those meetings.  If that's not dishonest hating on single payer health care it's hard to imagine what is.
Instead, the Obama Administration's emerging health care plan is expected to be based upon a model that has failed multiple times, most recently in Massachusetts, which includes "individual mandates" requiring people above a certain income level to purchase private insurance or face a fine, and provides some kind of care at subsidized rates to those with the lowerst incomes.  
A recent study by physicians at Harvard Medical School meticulously exposes the predictable failure of the  Massachusetts Plan live up to any of its promises, and explains succinctly why no "individual mandate" which subsidizes private insurance companies should be a model for any national health care plan.
It's called "Massachusetts' Plan"  A Failed Model for Health Care Reform", and you can find it online here.
In it, Drs. Rachel Narden, David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, all of Harvard Medical School deliver a withering assessment of the plan's failure, and explain why it must not be a model for any national health care plan worthy of the name.

These are the key features of the Massachusetts Plan upon which Obama's health care plan is modeled.

  1. Subsidized private insurance is made available for the poorest at reduced or no cost through a state agency.
  2. Unsubsidized private insurance at controlled costs was to be made available for those who made a little more.
  3. As with automobile insurance, those not qualifying for subsidized insurance would be fined ($912 a year in 2008, $1,068 in 2009, collected with your state income tax) for failing to purchase insurance.
  4. Employers were required to pay $295 a year for each employee they didn't give health insurance to.
  5. To control costs, funds to pay for the program were taken from the existing pool that previously financed “safety net” care for the poor and uninsured, leaving many with fewer options and less care than was available befor the “reform.”

But the subsidized health insurance policies available to the poor in Massachusetts often covered fewer services than they were already receiving under previously existing conditions, and the greater the “income” of these poor people, the lower the subsidy and higher the deductibles.  Under the Massachusetts Plan, the subsidies vanish altogether when one makes 300% of the ridiculously low Federal Poverty Level --- about $31,000 per year.


Despite the fines for persons who fail to buy health insurance under the so-called “individual mandate” plans, many remain uninsured because coverage is simply not affordable.

“...the reform law specifically exempts uninsured families from fines if no affordable private plan is available. About 79,000 Massachusetts uninsured residents received this exemption in 2007, which excused them from fines, but left

them uninsured.  

“The private insurance plans available through the Commonwealth Choice program can be extremely expensive. According to the Connector website (accessed December 29, 2008 at the cheapest plan available to a middle-income 56-year-old now costs $4,872 annually in premiums alone. However, if the policy holder becomes sick, (s)he must pay an additional $2,000 deductible before insurance kicks in. Thereafter the policy holder pays 20% co-insurance (i.e. 20% of all medical bills) up to a maximum of $3,000 annually ($9,872 in total annual costs including premium, deductible and co-insurance). A need for uncovered services (e.g. physical therapy visits beyond the number covered) would drive out-of pocket costs even higher. It is not surprising that many of the state’s uninsured have declined such coverage.”

How can someone making $31,000 a year pay $90 a week in premiums alone, plus $20% of all medical bills up to $3,000 if they get sick?  Is calling this "reform" even the least bit honest?  Or is it hypocrisy?
The study makes the point again and again that access to health insurance is not the same as access to health care.  A full third of every health care dollar is already diverted to private insurance companies.  The Massachusetts Plan, and the emerging Obama Plan seem intended to preserve this cut for private insurers, even at the expense of needed care.  “...(T)he new inssurance policies that replced the (previous) free care system require co-payments for office visits and prescriptions, which are difficult for many low income patients to pay...” says the study, hence patients suffering from HIV-AIDS and other chronic conditions have had to reduce doctor visits or skip their meds due to the high co-payments that the "reform" required.
The report outlines how the advocates of these private insurance industry endorsed versions of health care reform have lied in state after state where this has been tried --- in Oregon, Maine, Vermont, Tennessee and elsewhere.  We encourage our readers to download and read it, at only 18 pages, as an antidote to whatever form of "individual mandate" health plan is finally proposed by the Obama Administration.   

Plans of this type have not lowered overall health care costs, either.  They provide no incentive to tone down the over-reliance on expensive techniques and specialists.  They fail to address the acute shortage of primary care physicians, the doctors who provide day to day, person to person coverage.  Obama's offer to "let's computerize medical records" as a cost-saving procedure sounds nice, but falls flat.  Most of the unecessary paperwork is between care givers, hospitals and insurers with a vested interest in saying no to this or that treatment, test, or medicine.  
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama declared we should judge his first term by whether, under his leadership, the nation finally enacted national health care system that takes care of everybody and lowers the cost of health care.  Now we are in the middle of a completely foreseeable economic crisis caused in part by many of the people who are advising the president.  Single payer health care has come to the fore as a viable means to create 2.6 million new jobs, a proposal that Obama's advisors neither address nor discuss.
Sixty days into his presidency, the clock is ticking.  Lofty rhetoric and lawyerly evasions are giving way to actual policies, many of them deeply disappointing to the people who campaigned and voted for this president.  It looks like national health care for everybody is a dream, that if left up to this president and his advisors, will be deferred again.  The question is, should we leave it up to them at all?

Bruce Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report.  He is based in Atlanta GA and can be reached at bruce.dixon(at)


Health care NOT wealth care!

Yes, I do believe along with the out of control pork barrel military spending, health care is a major issue that must be addressed in order to improve our economy. It is a disgrace that statusQUObama has come up with this foolish "third way" health care plan. It is a nonstarter and should be abandoned in favor of a truely universal single payer plan that will really insure EVERYONE and also reduce costs by 50%.
The neolib klinton klan hillbillies and blew dog dirty dems are clearly in charge of the attempt to add additional tax payer subsidy to a system that already wastes or health care dollars by giving sacks of cash to the corpoRATe wealth care insurers and corpoRATe drug cartels. Out with the corpoRATe criminal lot of em!
The scientifically impossible I do right away
The spiritually miraculous takes a bit longer

The Savings in "Red Tape" is more Political/Media B.S.

It's also a Trojan Horse, no doubt, for the insurance companies who'll get billions in subsidies to make "perky, user-friendly" systems of automation and billing. I expect the same results from the billions we've spent on upgrading other government computer systems, those transformations have all been wildly successful we know.  No doubt some will use the "savings subsidies" the same as the banksters will and gobble up the ethical financially sound, smaller entities. At the last Board meeting of my community's federally chartered health center I asked the blanket question about potential funding for medical records streamlining in the so-called "Stimulus" and what that stream-lining meant in practical savings.  Trust me, if you sit on the Board of a federally chartered health clinic where the balance sheet is 3 months from "red" you could use all the damn savings possible.  Not one professional on the Board, many who had experience in such, believed that there were any savings to be had in medical records stream-lining.  The complexities and nuances, the individual nature of the process of delivering medical services is not the same as ordering widgets, or building cars.
Obama gave a measly 2 Billion to federally chartered health centers who, along with other locally subsidized and operated profit and non-profit health centers SHOULD BE the FRONT LINE in health care?  The HEDGE FUND, not the Property and Casualty Arm of the largest insurance company in the world has received hundreds of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for risktaking, gambling and federally chartered health centers receive 2 Billion in funding increases.  (Of course, can we really expect much hue and cry from academia or the "experts?"  You know the answer to that question is a big fat HELL NO. They'll be too busy groveling over the federal grant money to "study" the problem).  A measly $155 Million to construct new community health centers, while AIG alone gets more than $200 BILLION. What more do you morons need to know about Barack Bushes mindset? Btw, notice that there is $1.5 Billion in funding proposed for "health center infrastructure funding "for facility construction and renovation, equipment, and acquisition of health information technology (HIT)."  If only $155 M is used to establish 126 new health centers, how much of that money do you suppose is going to "health information technology." Once again, you do the math.
"Along with introducing his picks for top Department of Health and Human Services posts yesterday, President Obama announced something that may touch closer to home for many uninsured and underinsured Americans: $155 million to establish 126 new community health centers across the United States. (You can click here to go to the list of states that will receive more funding and links to existing community health centers in your area.)
Community health centers, which provide mostly primary care and preventive services to all comers at more than 7,000 locations, served 18 million people last year. As workers lose their jobs and employers pull back on coverage, those numbers are growing, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers. By law, no one is turned away from a community health center; patients are charged a sliding fee based on their ability to pay."

Once more thing...

I set up the question by asking:  "If there are billions of dollars in medical records stream-lining to be saved, why hasn't somebody, the typical MIT, Cal-Tech savant (think Hedge fund manager or those who devise derivatives or credit swap defaults) developed the software?  Think about that one teee vee fans.  If there's a shit load of money, BILLIONS OUT THERE FOR THE TAKING,  for the intellectual property rights to streamline medical records then why hasn't Warren Buffett or George Soros invested in it?  Ha. HA. Take that laugh all the way to the bank!
Next time you see you pathetic, spineless Congressperson, ask them that question?  After all, the greatest National Security threat is the potential failure of capitalism, why hasn't the capitalist system solved the stream-lining of medical reocords? Hell, why hasn't the National Institues of Health solved it, or Harvard Medical School?  Mmmmm.

Government & computers = Billion $$ boondoogles

Why doesn't Obama cut the waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan which has reached several Billion Dollars?
How about the Billions stolen with no investigation or indictments or how about changing the FAR or government procurement process?  Medical records stream-lining subsidies are welfare payments to the insurance companies.
Take a look around your city or state and I gurantee you will conclude IT "reform" or "upgrades" is a major vehicle for fraud in procurement.  Nothing against you tekkies, just some of your crooked managers and promoters.
Take a look at how the the poor Brits got screwed:
The biggest non-military IT project in the world is crashing down around the government's ears, yet ministers are steadfastly squandering billions of pounds of taxpayers cash on the useless NHS white-elephant. 

The government is happy to write a blank cheque for this enormous disaster, as time and again the commons watchdog warns of delays after delays. 

The NHS's Connecting for Health (CfH) computer system, has been dogged by problems since its launch in 2002 in the heyday of New Labour. The biggest non-military IT computer project in the world costs a staggering £12.7 billion and is already more than five years behind schedule."
Think about it, these pathetic clowns and idiots gracing the hallls of Congress are planning on spending more than $20 Billion dollars on IT, on IT vs. health care! You would think that after Stanley Kubrick introduced us to "Hal" we idiots would have learned a thing or two about expecting computers to save the world.  After all, look at what they've accomplished in the Financial World.  HA

More Phony Outrage at Black Agenda Report RE: Obama!

Okay, more phony outrage is again being shown by the writers here at BAR regarding Obama's "plans for America" from healthcare to boycotting Durban II. Pin all the blame on white racism while you are it too, why don't you, as if the African-American Obama Gatekeepers have nothing to do with why this Obama Fraud gets away with literal murder in places like Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan and that Obama is as much of a war president as any white man has been!!!! Get over the white man b.s. for now because Obama now represents this "post-racial" America that many in the Black Community have bought into, while, of course, others have not. Yes, America is a racist nation as are many other nations on the planet. It is not my Fukkin fault that Obama refused to attend the UN Conference on Racism known as Durban II. If I was the president, I'd be there. And I am a white man willing and ready to go there to tackle the issues of Racism! As a white man, I also support Reparations!!! How about that-a white guy for human and civil rights!!! Yes, and I supported what Rev Wright said too, and that he was correct in just about everything he said. I saw the Black Community throw Rev Wright under the bus.....yet that white guy, Tim Wise supported Rev Wright and at a Press Conference no less. Have the writers at BAR ever openly embraced Rev Wright? That white guy Paul Street stood up for Rev Wright too. Geez, we white people are so awful--all of us! Thanks to Mr. Ford and Mr. Dixon who lump all white people together without being precise and specific against generalizations, you would think I am a mean person, when I am hardly at all. I am offended by some of the generalizations hurled at "all white folks" when you need to clarify white folks whom make power decisions or the elite white ruling/political class which I am not a part of any more than any other person trying to make it. Yes, I get the generalization that as a white man, somehow, by the color of ,my skin I automatically benefited from the structural racism here in the United States. So far none of my family members have been appointed to USSC or been in Congress or owned a station like BET or taken the oath of office. There are no preachers in my family either to speak of. Let's get back to this phony outrage about Barack Obama here at Black Agenda Report. As a born skeptic, I am starting to have my doubts on the sincerity of Dixon and Ford's criticisms of Obama here week after week. At the same time Dixon and Ford criticize Obama, they will in the end equivocate and say they support Obama, even with all the doubts that they have about him. Thus, I am beginning to distrust the "honest critiques" that are supposedly levied at Obama here at BAR. Until, Ford and Dixon prove otherwise, I will argue that their criticisms of Obama are nothing but hollow screams which wreaks of phony-ass outrage. Running a sham article about Obama's healthcare plan is just more recycled hackery. It is a well known fact that, in regard to healthcare, and during his run for the president, the "precious one," Obama said that he would:
1. Require large and midsize companies to provide health-care coverage or pay a fee into special fund that would help create a public health plan patterned after what federal employees enjoy. Workers could continue to get their coverage through their employers or choose the new federal plan.
2. Subsidize the purchase of health insurance by the uninsured, buying coverage through the new federal health plan or the private sector. [Key word---private sector here]
3. Require parents or caretakers to purchase health insurance for all children, stopping short of a mandate for universal coverage but seeking universal access to health care.
Q: How many Americans get their health insurance through an employer?
A: Since World War II, employer-sponsored health insurance has been the norm. In a September report, the Employee Benefit Research Institute said 62.2 percent of non-elderly Americans had employment-based insurance in 2007, or about 162 million people under 65.
Q: Is this number rising or falling?
A: The percentage has fallen from a high of 68.4 percent in 2000, but last year's numbers are about where they were in 1994. In other words, the percentage of people with employer-based coverage is mostly unchanged over the past 14 years.
Q: How about those without insurance?
A: The latest estimate of the uninsured U.S. population by health-care experts is about 45.7 million. That's up sharply from 39.6 million in 2000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The number is down from 47 million in 2006. This is thought to be due to increased enrollment in government programs.
Q: There are about 300 million Americans — what about the rest of them?
A: Most Americans over 65, about 41 million of them, get their health insurance through Medicare. Another 40 million of so Americans, mostly poor or ill, get coverage through the state-based Medicaid system. Another roughly 12 million fall into overlapping coverage of one sort or another and fall off the official count.
Go to:


If the cult members truly wanted to prevent premature death, there's no way in hell they would support the fraud known as "universal access." "Universal access" is just a continuation of our current system of winners and LOSERS. 
Employer-based, private insurance kills. Sicko

Obama is a Fraud!!! Barack "Fraud" Obama!!!

Barack Obama is a fraud, plain and simple. Enough said already about him, early here in the p.m. on the east coast.
Obama always had the most inferior healthcare plan compared to Kucinich, Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Chris Dodd. That did not matter too much to the Obama Kool-Aid drinkers who bought into his phony-ass antiwar stances. Obama is the biggest fraud ever!!!
All I can say is stop drinking the Obama Kool-Aid from the empty suit sitting in the Oval Office.
Bottom Line--Obama's Healthcare Plan Always Sucked!!!!

Obama =

the 21st-century spelling of C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Dude's a social climber and nothing more.
Leaders come from movements, not marketing strategies.
What a disaster this guy is...

No middleman necessary

Any healthcare plan that keeps the insurance companies between people and actual care is nonsense. It's not cost effective and the time,paperwork, co-pays, premiums, and worry exacerbate illness. I was never a fan of Obama but I still resent the stupor that he has willingly fed our people into. Not only can the insurance companies be eliminated, the costs of medical procedures do not HAVE TO be what they are. The cost of sickness maintainance drugs do not have to be what they are. I'm also concerned with the myriad of illness being brought back by soldiers. Conditions that are effecting the soldiers as well as members of their family including newborns. How can the "healthcare" system be repaired on one end while exacerbated on the other? And why in the hell is "organic" food so freakin' costly!? If something is "natural" why does it cost more? Why should healthy eating cost so much. How much is the health"care" system being stressed simply because of poisonous foods? I don't mean to rant but I so resent that maintaining a high level of sickness has become big business and that we have a president who has not even been effective in feigning concern - and a populace too desperate for "hope" to call him on it.

all good points

The majority of the public wants single-payer. How do we get it?
I think your points were excellent.

The Revolutions IS being Televised: Gil Scott meet Orwelle

There will be no Single Payor nor any other social welfare legislation of import benefiting the working class of America. What you are watching on the Tee Vee is a Revolution of the oligarchs.  We have the Centrist" Democrats, the Blue Dog "Conservative" Democrats pushing back on the "Liberal" (Right Wing Clinton II) Administration of Obama. And the GOP threatening "revolution."  Amerikka has turned into a f***king reality Tee Vee show.   You'd never know from watching the Tee Vee American facism is blooming right before your eyes. The wealthy elites are consolidating their political and economic power.  The media and the Amerikkan mythology makes the average self-interest first Amerikkan oblivious to all this.  Your neighbors won't complain when you're arrested under the Patriot Act for organizing protests as long as the shelves at Wal-Mart remain full.  (They didn't like u anyway).  The Oligarchs are stealing America blind right before our eyes and nary a whimper from the population.  Mass outcry over "AIG Bonuses" obscures the $183 Billion of your tax dollars AIG funneled to B of A, Merrill, Deutsch, Barclays and other manufacturers of "toxic assets."  The media won't even tell you this "funneling" was a second helping of your wonderful tax dollars at work.
No sooner has the phony and manipulative hew and cry over the bonuses subsided than Obama and Timothy roll our their grand scheme to make all US taxpayers hedge fund owners. Here's the good part, us taxpayers get to put up over 90% of the risk, but the shysters and fraudsters and banksters get to reap all the rewards.  But you might want to buy some of that bank stock because you can look for to even GREATER MONOPOLIES IN AMERICA once the dust has settled.   Now here is the bad part: "What happens when the beanie babies you thought were worth $100 a piece are actually worthless?  But the government paid $80 for them, but subsequently the "free market" decides the government f***ked up, and they are actually only worth $10?"  Well guess what Tee Vee fans?  In case you don't get it, the Government intends to hit us up again!  Uncle Sam will just say, "my bad," the Banksters need more money so they CAN LEND IT TO YOU HA!.  So as the Bankster/Oligarch Revolution continues to roll out along with the military escalations abroad, DON'T EXPECT JACK SHIT.  Did you notice how after the press conference urging "Sacrifice" the next day the President unveiled the taxpayer "hedge fund" plan and sat down personally with the 5 or 6 of the largest bankster CEOs in Amerikka?
 I love it, "Virtual" town-halls for the masses, White House 5 Star Chefs, and face-time for the Banksters.
As long as Cramer and Erin Burnett can tell you that that housing starts went up 5%, unemployment stats "weren't as bad as we thought," as long as they can debate whether we are in the midst of a "bear" or "bull" market, or if bank stocks are getting stronger, some of you, most of you will continue to have "hope" that those worthless Beanie Babies are still worth $30 to $50 bucks, unfortunately for you, the Gov won't bailout your shitty Beanie Babie Enterprise but will continue to tax your ass to bail out the banksters and derivatives holders, the OLIGARCHS.  I know the topic is health care, but my point is don't expect single payor or much anything else, expect more "sacrifice."
Some of you don't like Matt Taibbi, so what, read him anyway, the "Revolution is being Televised."
The Big Takeover: ...How Wall St. Insiders are using the Bailout to Stage a Revolution"

It boggles my mind

as well, how blatant the different treatment is. There's been no talk about the salaries/benefits/platinum parachutes of the Wall Streeters, yet the auto workers are demanded to take a cut in pay and pay more in health "insurance" premiums. Even the GM guy told to leave is walking with 15m (?). "Polls" are saying Obama's approval rating is down but where are the voices verifying this? NOTHING has been done or even proposed to truly help the common citizen. The top heaviness of monies and resources persists. I continue to see the building of "luxury apartment/condos" here in NYC. Who is able to pay for these apartments. People I know who were laid off 7, 8 months ago have yet to find a job. It remains unclear from state to state how long unemployment will be extended. I know several people retired from civil servant jobs who are worrying about their pensions. I haven't seen ANY reassurances coming from this administration toward the common people. Even the refinancing of mortgages mean very little if one has no job. WTF?

yes, where's the help for regular folks? & keep rent regs alive

Besides new condos for the rich, there's the Mayoral backed rent reg-
ulation destruction.  I'm older.  When I was a teen, and rode subway
into "the City" from Bklyn, I wondered how could there be so many people
to pay the high rents when I visited a museum on Upper E. Side, Man.?
NYC is majority renters, as you know.   Where's help for the poor and the unemployed?
Why are public sector workers in so much danger in re jobs and in re
any retirement?  Note:so many people don't live to collect social security.
So many women were not covered, based on raising kids or jobs. A mess.