The generous, expansive public option on the lips of Congressional progressives, which would be open to all and compete to lower insurance prices is largely imaginary, while the president's stingy, divisive and means-tested version is all too real. But what about the third version of the public option? What is the Congressional Progressive Caucus doing to promote it, and to allow states to pursue single payer on their own?
(an unedited draft of this story was erroneously posted yesterday, this is the corrected version.)
Why the Public Option is Doomed To Fail, and What Can Be Done About It.
by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
Some highly profitable and job creating industries simply can't be reformed. Slavery and child labor cannot not be made humane and reasonable, not with kind and solicitous masters or school and limited hours for the kids. Both these practices were eventually cast aside. Allowing souless, greedy private insurance corporations to collect a toll for standing between patients and doctors may be next.
The president's health care plan is designed to preserve the parasitic private insurance industry a little while longer. In this context, the public option is a cruel and cynical hoax, an excuse not to abolish the role of private insurance death panels and toll collectors in the nation's health care system.
Nobody can read the president's mind, but he did promise to construct health care legislation in an open and transparent manner, even "on C-SPAN." Instead, Obama handed off the drafting of health care legislation to five House and three Senate committees. The most generous view is that he did this to give legislators a stake in the bills, and because there is this thing called the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
Another view is that the embedded influence of Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine were easier to conceal when spread out over several committees, where the lobbyists are themselves former congressmen, senators and their top staffers, and many current members and staff look forward to the same career paths. These are the men and women who wrote what is and will be the president's health insurance reform legislation. The result has been a half dozen versions of a thousand-plus page bill, chock full, as Rolling Stone's Matt Taibi points out, of deliberately obscure references to other legislation. Nobody can authoritatively claim to have read, much less understand all of it. And that's just the way insurance companies and the president like it. HR 676, the Enhanced Medicare For All Act, which does provide universal coverage at reasonable cost, comes in at under thirty pages.
To begin with, there are no less than three versions of the public option. The first is an imaginary public option first conceived by Political Science grad student Jacob Hatcher in 2001. It was to postpone the death of private insurance companies by forcing them to compete with a publicly funded insurer open to all comers which would drive their prices downward. This imaginary public option has never been written into law, and is not under consideration in Congress this year. It lives pretty much in the minds of the public and the lips of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, MoveOn.Org and many others. It's in the mouth of Howard Dean, who says it will be just like Medicare, only available to everybody. To distinguish it from the President Obama's version, it is usually called "the robust public option."
The second version of the public option is not imaginary, it is all too real. President Obama explicitly outlined its contours in his health care address earlier this month. Unlike the expansive and inclusive imaginary public option championed by MoveOn.Org, the president's public option will be stingy, means-tested, socially divisive, actuarially unsound and doomed to failure, unless its objective is simply to discredit the word "public" in the term "public option." The president has said it will be limited to 5% of the nation's population, those Americans too poor to afford the cheapest insurance available on his regulated "insurance exchanges" which won't be fully implemented anyway till 2013.
Hence those making more than a very small wage will be ineligible for the president's version of the public option, and those who currently get insurance from their employers, no matter how skimpy the coverage, how high the co-pays and deductibles, will also not qualify. Those who receive relatively good (or maybe not so good) coverage from their employers will pay a special tax to support both the public option and the subsidies the government will pay to enable others not quite poor enough for the public option to fulfill their legal obligation to buy shoddy insurance from private vendors.
In a social culture where Americans have been taught to despise poverty and the poor, even when they themselves are poor and near poverty, this will be bitterly and inherently divisive. It will provide economic incentive for the working poor to look down on and resent whatever benefits those even poorer than themselves receive. It turns medical coverage for the poor into stigmatized welfare subsidized by the near-poor, and all to the continuing profit of insurance companies.
And since the pool accessed by the public option will be relatively older, poorer and thus more chronically ill, it will not be economically viable in and of itself, must less of the size needed to compete with private insurers and drive their prices downward.
The only good thing one can say about the president's version of the public option is that even he is not firmly attached to it, and does not regard it as essential to his package. That's actually good news.
Beyond the imaginary "robust public option" of MoveOn.Org, and the divisive, destructive public option of the president, there is a third public option, a very real one. It;'s HR 676, the Enhanced Medicare For All bill, sponsored by John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich. Unlike the mostly imaginary "robust public option" of MoveOn.Org, it actually exists and ordinary people can read and understand it. Unlike the president's public option, which does not take effect till 2013, a fact still ignored by most of the mainstream media, HR 676 can be put into effect almost immediately. The first Medicare back in 1965-66 took only eleven months to send out the first cards and pay the first medical bills.
The White House of course, is not listening to the public outcry for Medicare For All. For example, a group of Oregon physicians calling themselves the Mad As Hell Doctors put up a web site that included an email-the-president page. After the White House received only about 5,000 emails in the first few days, it elected to block emails coming from the Mad As Hell Doctors as spam. Never mind that tracking polls as late as this June indicate majority support among the public for the simple extension of Medicare benefits to everybody.
And although the progressive caucus in Congress continues to wistfully describe its imaginary version of the public option as a line in the sand, it is neither lining up votes for a promised HR 676 floor vote, nor are they demanding that caucus members support amendments to let states to pursue their own versions of single payer in the near future. Congress is being set up to accept anything with the name "public option" and be done with it, even the president's cynical and divisive proposal. The die is cast. The Obama proposals, written by the health insurance lobbyists may pass, but they're not worthwhile. The president's version of the public option, if it stays in the bill is doomed to fail, and the MoveOn version never existed. The only possibility for the real public option, Medicare For All, this year is on the state level. That door will be opened or closed by the Congress this year.
The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus can partially redeem their sorry capitulation to the president and Big Insurance by insisting that states be allowed to go their own way on single payer, the only real public option.
Comments
Resveratrol
I don't think there's any question of "giving up" because they're not even trying in the first place. The only thing the Democrats are doing is continuing the appearance of fighting for average folks. The appearance has no substance behind it. On every issue of the post-Vietnam era, the Democrats have given the store away to the corporate interests and the interests of the richest segment of the American population.
Resveratrol
Well that seems to be the
Well that seems to be the world we live in and the problem comes when we do nothing to fix what is essentially broken. If you look at out take on engineering then you can see that it leaves a lot of be desired.
Kudos to Dr. Dean for telling the truth & warning the Dems
http://rawstory.com/2009/09/dean-health-care-backlash/
The health care bill drawn up by Sen. Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee is a “terrible mistake” that George W. Bush “would have loved” because it is a massive giveaway of taxpayers’ money to the health insurance industry, former chair of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, told MSNBC Monday night.
Dean also said he believes there is a very slim majority in the Senate that would support a health care bill that includes a public option."
Lets hope Dean is right, but let's also prove him right by not voting or supporting Dems who betray the American public.
E.Cynic:I heard the Dr.Dean interview recently on DemNow, not
impressed because he was so lacking in support for singlepayer. My skills online are no so great, but you can go to DemNow's search "box" for the interview, within last few weeks. www.democracynow.org
In your quote, he is right that the Dems are going to get hit hard by voters. Note: I mentioned WBAI, where I hear DemNow, so I add that I support the "undo the coup" movement and the "fired and the banned" at WBAI. See www.takebackwbai.org - good Ques.&Ans. videos, and see the "latest news" on home page;
Also visit: www.wbaix.org and www.wbixradio.org Both website produced by "fired and banned" Don DeBar. See the ON-DEMAND Section on each website. Independent media must be saved from the procorporate "coupsters"; WBAI is a community listener supported diverse progressive radio station undoing change by the coupsters into NPR-lite via
Pacifica Radio coup management which installed people at WBAI, with collaboration from new majority on local station board . Also see Pacifica Radio in Exile.
The public option
No matter how pretty you try to make the public option look, it will kill the industry. What makes capitalism great is competition. The public option would eventually destroy the competition because no one can compete with a government that can print more money when it needs it.online casino
Rosy ideology with no evidence
Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA Health Systems have not bankrupted or made insurance companies or "the industry" unprofitable. You make a blanket assertion with no proof, no empirical evidence. In fact, health insurance, HMO, the "industry" profits have skyrocked due in no small part to regulations that inhibit competition or monopoly power. Of course in the ideological purists world, corporations never compete unfairly nor seek monopoly power. I thought that stopping monopolies also made capitalism great? The FACTS are that health insurance and HMO profits have soared astronomically, and in fact there were huge spikes in their share prices after Obama's "Health Reform Speech." Because "the industry" read the speech as favorable to their interests--corporate profits-- and weak on the public option--competition.
Simply put, the private insurance companies have secured monopolies or tight oligopolies and exercised that power to put profits ahead of patients.
There were no actions taken against anticompetitive conduct by health insurers in the last administration, in spite of the fact that cases by state attorneys general have secured massive fines against these insurers. A lack of antitrust enforcement has enabled insurers to acquire dominant positions in almost every metropolitan market. Unfortunately, this toxic market structure has a profound effect on the nation’s ability to achieve the goals of health care reform.Simply put, the private insurance companies have secured monopolies or tight oligopolies and exercised that power to put profits ahead of patients.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/155858-health-insurance-industry-s-profi...
And isn't one reason for a lack of competition that competition for health insurance across state lines is prohibited, creating in effect 50 state health insurance "cartels"?
http://machineslikeus.com/news/health-care-debate-ruthless-science-healt...
"As Wendell Potter, who used to be the head of corporate communications of CIGNA, the highest public relations position of one of the largest health insurance companies, says in an interview with Bill Moyers, "The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so," compared to the health insurance industry's 20%.
Potter explains to Moyers the brutal calculations that go into increasing profits by denying treatment.
WENDELL POTTER: …[T]here's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.
So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.
I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.
For example, if one company's medical loss ratio was 77.9 percent, for example, in one quarter, and the next quarter, it was 78.2 percent. It seems like a small movement. But investors will think that's ridiculous. And it's horrible.
BILL MOYERS: That they're spending more money for medical claims.
WENDELL POTTER: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: And less money on profits?
WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And they think that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that's what-- that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street's expectations with the medical loss ratio.
BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?
WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.
If the government can "print" money to bailout Wall St. and feed the insatiable appetite of its imperialistic (and dumb) military industrial complex then surely it can "print" money to have healthy citizens to feed to the military machine?
Maybe you should distinguish capitalism from mercantilism.
Here's an article that takes another broader approach, you can see the industries that are amongst the most profitable, I dare say they fall into you definition of "the industry.":
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/profit_and_the_insur...
E. Cynic:good comment. Heard Potter on DemNow this AM.
Again. Something irksome about a guy who worked for/in and with the health insurance industry for 20 years before becoming a whistleblower. He's been on DemNow before.
Maybe we need to turn globilization against the Oligarchs?
What if we could "import" or recruit doctors and health care professionals to immigrate to America? I remain struck by a scene in Sicko--very moving one--where Michael Moore took a contingent to Cuba to get medical treatment. And I remember the physician in Great Britain who talked about living a excellent lifestyle under their national health care compensation arrangements.
What if we could bring competition to America from health care professionals living abroad? Maybe we could go one step up from "begging" and actually concoct a business model? Isn't part of this dilemma due to our backward and regressive system of educating and certifying doctors and health care professionals? Why is there a shortage of doctors, especially family care specialists in America? We We need to bring down some of these artificial barriers to entry.
How many professionals hailing from foreign countries with top notch credentials have to go through the training of the American medical system when they've been accomplished professionals and leaders in their countries? At the federally chartered health care center where I sat on the Board, we depend heavily on J-1 Visa physicians. Of course now with the xenophobic, chicken-little entity known as Homeland Security it's becoming increasingly difficult for foreigners, would be doctors, to enter and work in the US, although the influx of physicians from Asia continues and it seems each new practice opening is dominated by Asians or even Africans in my community.
Frankly, some of these individuals are more qualified than US doctors trained on under a system of greed and oriented towards lucrative specialization.
Perhaps, like Sicko, we need to embarrass our politicians and health care professionals by putting out a plea for doctors, nurses, P.A.s from abroad? This would require addressing the false barriers arising from Homeland Security.
If I wasn't broke as hell, I'd launch an LLC to recruit and retain foreign doctors and form practice groups and clinics, no doubt many of them will be happy to make 50% of what most American doctors make. As long as their is an artificial, contrived supply/demand issue, we will be held hostage to poor medical care.
If the CBC had any balls, or morals, or creativity, they would accept Chavez/Citgo heating oil and Cuban doctors. How about "that" for a foreign exchange to improve nation-to-nation relations? Oh, I forget, like Obama, they don't want to upset the Right Wing to do the Right Thing.
E.Cynic:creative comment. I met a cabdriver from Bangladesh when
I left my camera in his cab. I had his cab # because I had wanted to praise him to the Taxi and Limo. Commission. He was great about picking me up on a busy street. (I am a wheelchair user and cabs will pass me by. Even if illegal.) When I was out, he already gone, I realized I'd left my camera in the cab. My spouse was able to locate him and get the camera, which another passenger found and gave him. We kept in touch for a couple of years. He was very supportive of people with disabilities because his son was severely disabled by illness back in Bangladesh, and why he came here. He was a heart doctor in Bangladesh and couldn't get to take the exam in the US yet, and so was driving a cab while waiting. He eventually got to take the test and get a residency in a hospital in NYC, he told me later. We'd had a great conversation in the cab re disability, religion (he's Muslim and I'm atheist Jew) and NYC.
There are many doctors in NYC who are from other countries. Nurses, too - both in hospitals.
Kill the poor
Enlightened:
As far as finding loopholes for pre-exisiting conditions, it's already done. The bills under consideration have provisions allowing insurers to charge high rates on the basis of age, so age will serve as a proxy for pre-existing conditions. Also weight, smoking, etc.
So we get a mandate forcing us to buy private insurance, a fine if we don't (can I get health care if I pay the fine?) and weak-ass protections against the exploitation of insurance companies.
Still no guarantee I can get health care. Still no right to health care. Still no protectinos against bankruptcy when the bullshit insurance doesn't pay for health care.
Great.
The poor are "expendable" in a "Christian Nation"
You are right Cripes as I've linked in other posts, Ezekial Emanuel is the goddamn guru of rationed care. It's a crying shame we've lost our goddamn mind in this country. The right wing is actually more on than off point about death panels. The rationing that will take place lends credence to their fears. As I said on our local radio last week, "their (RW) grievances are not entirely off base, they are poorly articulated. And of course it's a damn shame that they attack the weakess and most politically powerless in society. Which is why, if there is a God, she will surely see them burn in Hell.
Cripes, ask the folks, especially Black folks defending Obama when will this shitty bill go into effect? I am willing to bet a donation to BAR that 8 out of 10 have NO IDEA it won't go into effect until 2013!.. That alone should arouse these craven, ass-kissing, worthless bastards. If GWB pulled this shit they'd be crying out until their lungs burst. Just like the phony progressive anti-war movement and phony Blacks had hissy fits about the Iraq war but are church-mouse-like (RATS actually) silent about Af-Pak.
Speaking of our "perpectual war." The antiwar movement's resurrection or resuscitation is also a starting part for genuine health care reform.. Michel Chousoduvsky makes this linkage at global research ca. WHERE IS THE LINKAGE BEING ARTICULATED TODAY!!! . Michel points out that the military expenditures and the bailout expendictures togehter, aborb THE ENTIRETY OF FEDERAL REVENUES, leaving nothing but TAXES to pay for everything else. How in the world have we failed to remind ourselves that the WOT, and militarism is bankrupting the social safety net?? I found a Heritage Foundation article the other day that had the audacity (and evilness) to argue that it was essential to cut federal health care outlays so as not to sacrifice military expenditures. This shit is all planned, nothing is accidental.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15254
You pathetic m.f'rs who dare invoke MLK, REMEMBER, MLK agitated during a time of TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS and a failed war in Vietnam. And LBJ, despite his failures, and given the political climate in Texas (where plantation owners--cotton-- went to CONTINUE SLAVERY) LBJ mustered the courage and fortitude to beat the living shit out of pols to get Great Society Programs.--particulary Medicare and Medicaid. Interesting to say the least, No excuses for Obama you putzes. Where was LBJ's electoral mandate? Compare his mandate to Obamas, and you see the difference between a man and a boy.
Defund these ill-fated illegal wars of aggression and use those monies for health care and a social safety net. WHERE IS THE LINKAGE between warfare abroad and deprivations at home?? The fact that African Americans ignore/abdicate this argument is living proof that they are just as beholden and smitten by Obama as the Right Wing authoritarians were smitten and beholden to GWB. What's the difference? None that can be articulated.
How do some of you worship and praise God knowing in your heart of hearts Obama ain't shit? Making excuses for this chump? LBJ could have only dreamed of Obama's mandate. Yall rot in hell with Obama.
E. Cynic: pls see NotDeadYet website - it's a point of view that
is invisible: the entire debate about death panels left out my "peeps" - disabled people. The organization, Not Dead Yet was started in the last decade. The blog is written by Stephen Drake. I hope you will take a look at the short, good postings. (I don't know what blog entries are officially called.) Especially as you are "media"...In fact, Stephen Drake and one of the founders of the group, Diane Coleman, are on radio or newspaper interviews when they can get noticed. www.notdeadyet.org It's got some really good articles and links.
MLK-LBJ
You pathetic m.f'rs who dare invoke MLK, REMEMBER, MLK agitated during a time of TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS and a failed war in Vietnam. And LBJ, despite his failures, and given the political climate in Texas (where plantation owners--cotton-- went to CONTINUE SLAVERY) LBJ mustered the courage and fortitude to beat the living shit out of pols to get Great Society Programs.--particulary Medicare and Medicaid. Interesting to say the least, No excuses for Obama you putzes. Where was LBJ's electoral mandate? Compare his mandate to Obamas, and you see the difference between a man and a boy.
**********
Of all of the courageous things that MLK did, his speaking out against the Vietnam war was, perhaps, the most. At the time, it was an extremely unpopular position but he spoke out anyway.
Also for LBJ, getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed was an amazing feat of political skill, head bashing and persistance. In "those days" a cloture vote required 67 votes. The Senate filibuster lasted 57 days and the last speaker was Robert Byrd who spoke for more than 14 hours. The Democrats today give up if the Rethugs threaten a filibuster. It's sickening.
I'm pretty sure the Democrats don't care.
The Democrats today give up if the Rethugs threaten a filibuster. It's sickening.
I don't think there's any question of "giving up" because they're not even trying in the first place. The only thing the Democrats are doing is continuing the appearance of fighting for average folks. The appearance has no substance behind it. On every issue of the post-Vietnam era, the Democrats have given the store away to the corporate interests and the interests of the richest segment of the American population.
It's like slow suicide to continue supporting the Democrats. They don't care about you, unless you are very rich and/or an officer, director or majority shareholder of a big corporation. If you don't fit those categories, they will appeal to you for your vote, and then turn their backs on you when it comes time to make legislative decisions.
I would suggest that all readers of Black Agenda Report should examine which of the 535 members of the US Congress has actually undertaken steps to help uninsured and underinsured Americans. As far as I can tell, the nearest thing I've seen is the bill that Conyers and Kucinich put together, but which neither Conyers nor Kucinich is trying very hard to push through. This suggests to me that Conyers and Kucinich are props, they are stooges to give us the impression that someone is fighting for the poorest segment of America.
However, there's not much evidence that anyone is trying very hard to pass any legislation that actually would help any of us uninsured or underinsured Americans. There's just a whole lot of talking and not any real action.
The Hypocrisy and self-aborption makes ME sick
I came across this article today, share it with your friends. Slightly off subject, but provides facts/arguments striking at the heart of the craven "ownership society's" arguments. Especially those self-absorbed, over achieving pricks, the reformed 60s/70s druggies who are now part of the "ownership" society and management class, little stinking petty bourgeoisie, the "chattering class." The title says it, all, fake, hypocritical m.f'rs.:
http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/news/la-fi-harney20-2009sep...
NATION'S HOUSING
Homeowners who 'strategically default' on loans a growing problem
A study shows that people who abruptly and intentionally abandon their mortgages often have high credit scores, in stark contrast with most financially distressed borrowers.
By Kenneth R. Harney
September 20, 2009
"Research using a massive sample of 24 million individual credit files has found that homeowners with high scores when they apply for a loan are 50% more likely to "strategically default" -- abruptly and intentionally pull the plug and abandon the mortgage -- compared with lower-scoring borrowers."
The Federal Reserve, the same thieving bastards at the root of the bailout have known this for a long time. Any broke ass American busting their ass to get "the American Dream" ain't "strategically" walking away from their "McMansion." Triple A credit for toxic assets, derivatives et. al and 520 credit scores for hardworking, taxpaying, socially responsible others (especially minority victims of ever-present redlining and credit evaluation abuse).
The next time one of those effete liberals, the cosmopolitan narcissistic know-it-all talks to you about "personal responsibility" show them this article and tell the shut the f/u! I saw the same shit during the 80s S & L crisis. Bitches (lenders) wouldn't give me $500 for X-mas while rich f***ks were walking away from massive debt and getting new loans, and THEN defaulting on them also.
Two sets of rules, the root of this country's failings. If If these effete, pricks were so "smart" they'd realize a healthy workforce and society means a more competitive, more productive, creative one. Isn't that's what the f***king capitalist system is all about? It's the twisted logic used by the rich, how the hell are you going to sell goods if everyone's broke as hell? Funny, ironically, that's what's happening right now as people are saving and trimming debt, those who aren't flat out treading water or drowning.
But I guess you need a Harvard degree or IMF/World Bank insight to figure that one out?
Let's start a movement from state to state, region to region, progressives should/can have more influence on state and local politics, especially given the cesspool called Congress.
how will goods be sold to broke consumers?
Great comments by Enlightened Cynic. I would only state that multinational corporations do not care of american consumers can buy their product Their greedy eyes are now focused on the "markets" of burgeoning super economies like India and China. Sadly the American consumer and worker, are SOL. Asia has cheaper wages with fewer labor regulations in addition to billion+ populations ripe for "middle class" accoutrements.
What was stunning to me was hearing commentary about the G-20 meetings where random pundit-economists tried to say that global economic problems were caused by Asians saving too much and spending too little, as Americans spent too much and saved too little. So there will be a major effort to get Asians to spend more of their savings.
Is that bizarro world or what?
Class and Division
American culture and the "Every man for Himself" mentally our society has is what creates the socially divisive environment in America. I don't think that anybody has the right to look down their nose at or resent someone who is down on their luck at the moment financially and may not be able to afford health insurance, and there is nothing wrong with using tax money to help these people, as long as they don't get to content with living off tax funded health care on a long term basis.
-Nikki-
"as long as they don't get
"as long as they don't get content with living off tax funded health care on a long term basis."
It's no more for the citizens of this country - be they taxpayers or not (actually, everyone pays some taxes - if you buy any product, you pay sales tax) - to live off tax funded health care on a long term basis than it is for corporations to continually live off taxpayer dollars via corporate welfare, foreign policy that feeds defense contractor coffers, and bailouts when industry wide Ponzi schemes go awry.
I think that "goddamn piece of paper (GWB's term, not mine)" called the US Constitution mentions something about a government of/for/by the people. If we have a govt that is supposed to work for the people, then providing quality health care should be one of the "for"s to which we aspire, or better yet, to which we demand. The right to decent health care (yes, Max fucking Bachus, I mean the "Cadillac plan you hoard for yourself but chide other citizens who may have or desire such) is just or more important as any right mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
In EVERY situation and EVERY demographic, there are always a few trying to "get over" or scam the system. However, most of the poor and down on their luck would love to have a "good job" so they can make money, have nice things, and take care of selves and family. Most are not "content" to endure the bureacracy/bullshit of social services and unemployment offices and live off the public dole. More important, access to quality health care regardless of financial circumstance shouldn't be considered some type of welfare. It should be a basic human right. Our political leaders are so concerned about other nations' human rights abuses. They can't take off their hypocritical glasses to see their own human right misdeeds right here in the US.
Health Care not optional
Nikki:
I'm glad you don't think we should have a society that looks down on people who can't (individually) afford health insurance, but I don't think that's enough. You've bought into the idea that everything should be commercialized, even life, health and human rights, just to insure the profits of evil corporations. I don't agree.
In truth, millions of people cannot individually afford health insurance, and with current prices about 13,000 annually, going up to 30,000 annually by the 2020's, many millions more cannot afford it. Maybe you, too.
We don't assume that people who can't individually pay for fire or police protection, or streets or schools for their children, should just do wiithout. That would be a social evil; poor (and not so poor) people's homes would burn, they could be mugged and preyed upon without consequence, barred from public roadways and raise a generation of illiterate children. Is that what we are as a society?
Withholding health care, NOT INSURANCE, is the problem. We don't need INSURANCE at all, we need access to health care, and removing insurance companies from the equation would free up 500 billion every year FOR health care, more than enough to cover the fifty million or so that live without it. Even that 50 million figure is minimal, since even in a year , many millions more are without insurance as they move from job to job, or get sick, or are simply droppped from coverage.
In our lifetimes, almost all americans are without any form of health coverage for considerable periods of time. Mostly when they actually need it. And don't count on medicare taking care of you when you're too old or sick to BUY health "insurance." You'll have to wait two years AFTER enrollment to social security to get medicare. I guess that's another efficiency measure by the government actuaries to reduce the number of beneficiaries by natural attrition.
The Mark of the Best, is it 666 or red ink?
Well stated Cripes, I heard the otherday that Chile instituted universal health care, a country with a median income of around $13,000. The problem, as you state, is that we are not "human beings" anymore, we are "integars," "numbers," and calculations, statistics. It is immoral to reap EXORBITANT PROFITS from human suffering. No one is arguing no compensation for services, training, education and experience. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that insurance company profits (you pick the insurance) are premised on NOT paying out claims or premiums for services, are about MINIMIZING their financial outlays, about investing your premiums in real estate (think Prudential). With the all-to-classic examples of this behavior manifested where people having home owner's insurance for 25 years+ with no claims, are all of a sudden get dropped when they file 2 modest claims in 1 year. Get too sick or have two many accidental occurences in your auto or home policy and see if "you're in good hands with All State?" (Have we forgotten the Katrina insurance claim nightmares so soon?)
Is there anyone with critical thinking faculties who doubts the insurance companies won't find loopholes re: pre existing conditions? (I shared a personal example a week or so ago). The insurance lawyers flush from the obscene insurance profits will be in billable hour heaven. If you don't think the mechanisms are already being fleshed out to find loopholes to and around the government's claim that individuals won't be penalized for pre-existing conditions, well.. then I have beachfront property in Death Valley you might be interested in.
Last, you don't need a PhD in health sciences to figure out that the US is going to fall behind CONTINUOUSLY as other nations invest in their populations health and wellbeing. The sickness of greed infests more than just health care, it's symptoms and collateral damage loom much wider.
Kill the poor
Bruce Dixon correctly identifies the heart of all exploitative, dangerous domestic policy "reforms" (ha!) over the past three decades: it is the successful tactic of pitting the near-poor against the poor, by extending the most pitiful, punitive social benefits to the wretchedly poor and selling it as a huge giveaway to welfare cheats, thereby insuring both the profits of entrenched corporations and the hatred of the bulk of the populace for the policy--while fingering the destitute as the culprits.
It's an amazing example of nazi-style, big-lie propaganda they have used over and over again to great effect, giving the rabid right plenty of fodder for their moronic radio and teevee talking heads, and cover for the stealth Dems to cry, "it's sooooo haaaaard to do the right thing."
I'm sick of it and progressives must learn how to tell the truth loud, and hold the criminals up for public scorn.
It's a shameful and pitiful fact that americans are too ready to demonize and punish the poor; those who have the least power and influence, and blame them for all social problems, while the banks and corporations are skinning them alive. What idiots.
A good summation of "liberalism" in the Clinton/Obama Era
"...it is the successful tactic of pitting the near-poor against the poor, by extending the most pitiful, punitive social benefits to the wretchedly poor and selling it as a huge giveaway to welfare cheats, thereby insuring both the profits of entrenched corporations and the hatred of the bulk of the populace for the policy--while fingering the destitute as the culprits.""
Well stated.
A good summation of "liberalism" in the Clinton/Obama Era
Coming from you, I'll take that as well-earned praise.
But, honestly, these guys have no shame, and there's no dog they won't beat on behalf of their corporate masters.
9/29 TUE: NYC MEDICARE FOR ALL MARCH
-FORWARDED MESSAGE BELOW-
9/29 TUE: MEDICARE FOR ALL MARCH
MARCH & RALLY for "MEDICARE FOR ALL"
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009
RALLY AT 4:00 PM:
Bristol-Myers-Squibb
345 Park Ave (at 51st St.) [#6 to 51st St. (at Lex & walk a
block west with traffic); E, V [NOT F] to Lexington Ave (at 53rd
St.); B, D to 47-50 St./Rock Ctr.]
MARCH AT 5:00 PM:
from Park Ave. & 51st to AETNA,
99 Park Ave. (at 40th St.)
~~
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:17:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: PatLevasseurP AT aol.com
Subject: MARCH & RALLY for "MEDICARE FOR ALL" TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009
Cc: stein.jones AT verizon.net
I suspect many of you, like me, have been frustrated with the "public
discourse" regarding the healthcare issue. I want to call your
attention to a forthcoming demonstration in Manhattan that at least
offers an opportunity for single-payer advocates to sound off and,
hopefully, be heard.
The main slogan of the demonstration isn't "Single Payer Now,"
because the level of the discussion of this issue has been so
pathetically low that the term "single payer" is virtually unknown to
the general public. Instead, the demand is for "Medicare For
All." While the two slogans are not exactly identical in meaning,
they are close enough, and at least the latter will be widely understood.
Anyway, here are the particulars:
MARCH & RALLY for "MEDICARE FOR ALL"
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009
RALLY AT 4:00 PM:
Bristol-Myers-Squibb
345 Park Ave (at 51st St.)
MARCH AT 5:00 PM:
from Park Ave. & 51st to AETNA,
99 Park Ave. (at 40th St.)
So there you have it. My personal opinion is that whether Obama's
plan passes or not, the fight for decent healthcare for all has just
begun and will be a long one. This demonstration represents a
worthwhile early step in the struggle. I hope to see you there.
Cliff Conner
P.S. The sponsoring organization is the Private Health Insurance Must
Go! Coalition (PHIMGC). Here is its "mission statement":
"The Private Health Insurance Must Go! Coalition (PHIMGC) is a
growing and diverse New York City-based non-partisan organization
focused on education, legislative advocacy and direct action in the
fight for single-payer healthcare reform and HR 676."
Its website is: www.phimg.org
John, thanks for link; heard Ajamu Sankofa on "Educ At The
Crossroads", two weeks ago, Th. 7PM, WBAI, with Basir
Mchawi and Sol McCant. I didn't copy the url correctly
at the time. Couldn't locate via google, sigh.
Note: I support the "undo the coup" at WBAI and other
Pacifica Radio Network stations - see
www.takebackwbai.org for information. The home
page has good Ques.&Ans., videos (one with Basir
Mchawi) and see "latest news" link near top of page.
I also support the websites produced by Don DeBar,
one of the "fired and banned" from WBAI by the new
coup management, from his news spot on the
morning show, "WakeUpCall", which has had one hour
cut recently, as well. See www.wbaix.org
WBAI-in-Exile news, including videos of Cynthia
McKinney on her Gaza trip, some of Glen Ford's
commentaries from here, and more.
Also see www.wbixradio.org for interviews on the coup,
rallies to undo the coup with speakers, and a joint
meeting of the Harlem Tenants Council and Take
Back WBAI in July, 2009. Go to the ON-DEMAND
section of both websites: www.wbaix.org
and www.wbixradio.org
Edit add: Sometimes when I type in a link and then
attempt
to go to it, it doesn't go through. It might be my skills,
but the url is correct. So if the link doesn't go through
for www.takebackwbai.org or www.wbaix.org or
www.wbixradio.org type it in via your usual method.
(I'm not yet online two years --- late starter.)
No credit for Obama!
@HenryS - "If Health Insurance Reform is signed into law by President Obama, it will be one of the major political coups of the past several decades and a testament to his intelligence and skill. It is unfortunate that those skills couldn't have been used to force "Medicare for All" down the throats of the congressional reactionaries"
What is your point? Is it that anything Obama signs into law regarding health care reform is acceptable? Are you saying if he signs a health care bill, that would be a demonstration of his intelligence and skill? To who and what intelligence and skill? Would credit not go to the bipartisan group led by the very corrupt Baucus and the gang of five? Would you be willing to give them credit for their "intelligence and skill" for their ability to take from both the healht care insurance and industry on the one hand, and the multitudes who pay high premiums to give to the oligarchs and moguls of the industry and those without health insurance on the other? In my humble opinion, it is such double-speak that plays into the hands of this man and his apologists. Your criticism of Obama is valid and to the point but contradicted by sentiments you seem to have repressed like so many so-called progressives who tell us that they voted for Obama just to give him a chance; that they knew all along that he would be bad news for our community and other "minorities"....
My Point
What is your point?
********
Good question, because I 'm not sure what it is either, other than speculation of what is going on in the Administration. The inner workings of this White House are less clear to me than during Bush's eight years.
At this point in time, I'm not buying the "faux liberal" rationalizations of the President's policy decisions. ie. that he is the "front man" for Emanuel, corporations, etc. I think on the issue of Health Care, he is calling the "shots" and has had a clear idea of what legislation would have the best "chance" of getting through Congress and the best political strategy to get the job done. Health Care "reform" was/is to be the centerpiece of Barack Obama's first term. His overriding motivation is the be the President to pass "heath reform"; the details of the "Reform" are based on what could get through Congress, not what was good policy.
"contradicted by sentiments you seem to have repressed like so many so-called progressives who tell us that they voted for Obama just to give him a chance".....
For what little it is worth, I voted for Cynthia McKinney. But back to where I an going with this, I think that the "progressives" placing the blame for "Health Insurance Reform" on Republicans, Blue Dogs, Gang of six, etc. misses the point that the place to apply pressure for change is the President. To begin to apply that pressure, President Obama"s "Health Insurance Reform" needs to be defeated in Congress. If this legisltion becomes law, it will kill "Medicare for All" for at least another decade.
Another illustration of the damage that will result from the Democrat's sell out on health care: From PNHP blog
"The legislators’ reluctance to control premium costs comes despite the fact that they intend to require virtually all Americans to get health insurance, an unprecedented mandate — long sought by insurance companies — that would mark the first time the federal government has compelled consumers to buy a single industry’s product, effectively creating a captive market.
“We are about to force at least 30 million people into an insurance market where the sharks are circling,” said California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a Democrat who served as the state’s insurance commissioner for eight years. “Without effective protections, they will be eaten alive.”
'ONE SNAKE WITH TWO HEADS"
When will the blinded by Obama realize that in America we have
"One Snake With Two Heads", that has been playing us for fools for decades?
Obama is a Buffalo Soldier for Wall Street, he says one thing and does another.
JUST A REMINDER
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch
"The health care controversy in this summer's congressional town hall meetings is unreal. Obama and the Republicans are both hiding the obvious fact that, in this world depression, most US health insurance companies are bankrupt because of derivatives — the toxic assets you've heard so much about. AIG is the largest insurance company, and it is bankrupt. The Hartford just took $3.5 billion from the Treasury and is bankrupt. MetLife just lost $1.5 billion in three months, all because of derivatives. The other insurers are in varying stages of bankruptcy, which is why they now support Obama's "corporate state" health care plan, even bringing back Harry and Louise to help dupe you. Republicans and assorted right-wingers accuse Obama of wanting a government takeover of health care. Obama's goal is quite different: he'll make sure that there's no single payer option, and no public option, thus betraying the Democratic base. Instead, everyone will be forced at gunpoint to buy insurance for lousy care from the bankrupt private companies, giving them a colossal permanent bailout — a windfall bonanza. Medicare and Medicaid will be looted and destroyed in the process. Seniors will be told to die early to save the bottom line. Obama's plan comes straight from Wall Street, where the bankers are already getting a bailout of $24 trillion under his administration. This is why Obama has brought out his goons to beat up protesters who don't want euthanasia and genocide"
Webster Tarply.
www.actindependent.org
to Henry S -- please look carefully
The inner workings of this White House are less clear to me than during Bush's eight years. At this point in time, I'm not buying the "faux liberal" rationalizations of the President's policy decisions. ie. that he is the "front man" for Emanuel, corporations, etc. I think on the issue of Health Care, he is calling the "shots" and has had a clear idea of what legislation would have the best "chance" of getting through Congress and the best political strategy to get the job done.
With all due respect, Henry, you're not paying much attention to Obama's Administration if that's how you conclude. Obama's plans have been clear from the start. He never intended to make health care reform any "centerpiece" unless you are talking about public relations scams, pretenses offered as fraudulent mockeries of sincere attempts.
Obama has been a servant of big insurance since his days entering the political scene. He learned, as most ambitious and greedy Americans learn in their early adulthood, that being a servant to big corporate interests is what gets a person involved with power and money. Obama's track record as an Illinois legislator and a US Senator both reveal a corporate apologist, eager to do whatever his biggest campaign supporters (financially biggest) want.
Where Obama is leaving his mark in American politics is clear -- he wants to ramp up "technology" spending. He wants Arne Duncan to turn the public school system into a huge captive market for predator corporate interests. He wants to expand the "space program" to finance more expensive gadgetry that won't solve any of America's problems. He wants to continue Bush/Cheney Admin goals on "national security" and "terrorism". He has solidified the destruction of individual civil rights, he has continued the detention and torture agenda, he has not taken us out of Iraq, he is escalating "war" in Afghanistan.
And you say a person couldn't figure out what Obama is about?
I say you haven't been looking very closely. On health care reform, his "czar" is Kathleen Sibelius, former Kansas Insurance Commissioner. Sibelius was put into the KS Ins Commr spot to reform KS to make it "business friendly" for insurance companies. Does that seem like a pro-consumer appointment for the Federal Health Care Czar?
One or two more
"And you say a person couldn't figure out what Obama is about?"
Doesn't seem to be happening....I gave up reading most "progressive blogs" because of the twisted rationalizations of where Obama was going with his agenda. Even the ACLU, when sending out e-mails calling attention to the latest Dept. of Justice outrage, may place blame on Eric Holder but with Obama it's "we know he wants to do the right thing but.." I don't see how any change in policy direction is possible if the President is not held accountable and so far "Progressive Dems" refuse to do that.
Back on the Health Care subject, a point that I have not seen brought up is what was involved with his deals with the Hospital Associations. The worst was their agreement to reduce re-imbursements to "Disproportionate Share Hospitals" by about 50 billion dollars. DSH hospital and clinics are the Public Hospitals and other facilities that provide care for the most vulnerable member of society. They are also the facilities that often provide trauma and burn care.
Just like with the White House meeting with the Insurance Executives, where no groups representing patients were invited; there were no representatives of Public Hospitals present when the decisions were made to cut their funding.
My Point
(Somehow I just lost my comment; and it was to long to re-do, so just a few point)
I totally agree with you analysis. I was tring to refute to "rationalizions" of disappointed Obama supporter that somehow he is not really responsible or "in-charge" of policy. Your statement about track record in the Illinois State Senate is, perhaps, one of the strongest points supporting the "fact" that Barack Obama has set the direction for Health Insurance Reform and he isn't a "frontman" for Rahm Emanuel.
As a State Senator, Barack Obama sponsored the Illinois "The Health Care Justice Act" and then worked with Insurance Lobbyists to introduce amendments that "gutted" the legislation.
"Lobbyists praised Obama for taking the insurance industry's concerns into consideration.
"Barack is a very reasonable person who clearly recognized the various roles involved in the healthcare system," said Phil Lackman, a lobbyist for insurance agents and brokers. Obama "understood our concern that we didn't want a predetermined outcome."
On health care reform, his "czar" is Kathleen Sibelius, former Kansas Insurance Commissioner.".......I think Sebelius is just another mouth piece. Obama likes to keep the policy formulation and decision making in the White House. The person who is the "go to" on Health Insurance Reform" is Nancy-Ann DeParle, his "Health policy czar".
"Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Barack Obama’s health policy czar, served as a director of corporations that faced scores of federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions, according to government records reviewed by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.Several of the companies were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator. Several of the cases ended with substantial fines paid to the federal government, even though the companies admitted no wrongdoing
Perhaps Obama is a "front man" for another Emanuel?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/eman-s15.shtml
"Ezekiel J. Emanuel is a close advisor to the Obama administration on issues of health care policy. He currently serves as a special advisor on health policy to the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and is the chair of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health.
He has authored several books, including most recently Healthcare Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America, which elaborates his plan for restructuring the US health care system. [1]
In March, Emanuel, a breast oncologist, was appointed to the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The 15-member body was authorized by Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to provide “information on the relative strengths and weaknesses of various medical interventions” in relation to federal programs.
Obama has pledged to slash more than $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid as part of his health care plan. Utilizing comparative effectiveness research (CER), this council will recommend cuts—in the form of cost-cutting “efficiencies”—to these federal programs for the elderly, disabled and poor. The cuts are central to Obama’s overhaul of the health care system and are supported by all versions of legislation currently under consideration in Congress.
For decades, efforts to slash Medicare benefits have been frustrated by political opposition, particularly from the working class and senior citizens. The appointment of this body is a thoroughly anti-democratic effort to ride roughshod over this popular opposition to implement deep cuts that will severely impact the health and lives of millions of Americans.
In his advisory capacities, Ezekiel Emanuel—the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel—has been placed in a strategic position to influence the Obama administration on these policies. An examination of Emanuel’s vision of health care restructuring reveals that Obama’s proposals have been informed by many of its guiding principles. Key among them are the defense of a health system based on private profit and the delivery of class-based, rationed medical care for the majority of Americans.
His recommendations about who will and will not receive certain health care services proceed from the premise that health care must remain subordinated to private profit and that “reform” must be geared to cutting the cost of health care for corporations and the government.
To give some examples, in a piece published in the November-December 1996 Hastings Center Report, Emanuel writes that “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [2]
A more recent article, appearing in the January 2009 Lancet, spells out his attitude towards limiting “scarce” medical resources for the elderly. “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination: every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.” [3]
He explains why adolescents might receive care at the expense of infants, arguing: “Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.” [4]
In all of these scenarios, Emanuel presents the necessity of rationing as if scarcity of medical services and technologies were a natural occurrence, rather than the result of the organization of society on a capitalist basis.
In reality, there are already vast resources that could be devoted to providing quality health care for all members of society, and all the objective prerequisites for exponentially increasing these resources."
Resources
"In reality, there are already vast resources that could be devoted to providing quality health care for all members of society, and all the objective prerequisites for exponentially increasing these resources."
************
Starting with the $600 Billion a year that the Insurance Companies suck off from patient care. Next is the 2x that Americans spend for Medicines compared to the rest of the World or for that matter the VA system. Obama's "deal" with the Pharma industry is his approval for them to increase revenues by 98% over the next ten years. That works out to be another $3-4 trillion for Big Pharma.
The rough breakdown in where the $2.3 trillion/year for health care comes from is: 60% tax dollars, 20% employer based insurance and 20% cash out of pocket by the patient. Obama's "necessary" employer based Insurance system puts in 20% . There is more than enough money being spent now to cover health care for every person in the country. As an example, a reasonable estimate is that to provide health care for the 47+ million uninsured would cost about $3-400 billion a year. Compare that for the "overhead" on the system by Insurance Companies and Drug Companies and there is no reason that it can't be done; other than greed, bribes and the desire for fame and political power.
Cuts in Medicare on the way.. Change U can believe in
Now tell this to our lovable parents, aunts, and uncles or grandparents with the picture of Obama on the living room wall, next to the ones of MLK and John F. Kennedy. See if that will shake them from the sleep. Maybe they'll replace the Koolaid Man with Malcolm X. I've said all along, when Black folks finally figure out they getting f***ked in the pocketbook, the patina will wear off. (Where's the stimulus money?) Spread the "good news." "Change is a coming." When grandma and Aunt May can't pay the deductible for their chronic illness, them "crackers" hollering about "death panels" won't seem so deranged. (Not all are bigots mind you). Plus, Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahmn's brother and Obama chief policy advisor on health care has written openly and brashly about rationing health care, about using cost/benefit analysis to withhold health care from little ol ladies with dementia; check out the World Socialist Website for that interesting tidbit.
From the "rag" and chief propaganda organ of the Oligarchs, Wall St. Journal: SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 Democrats Close Ranks to Defend Health Bill's Medicare Cuts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125371567686934179.html
Perhaps our seniors who remember the Civil Rights era when it meant something could catalyze some real "change."
Where's the Stimulus Money?
Do you mean the money from the Incumbent Re-Election Act of 2009?
The so called Stimulus Bill was designed to release funds in early 2010 to juice the economy for the Fall Elections.The projects are almost entirely pet projects of the Congresspersons already on the drawing board with connected contractors already chosen.
The projects will spend proportionally little on labor with the bulk of the money going for equipment rental, materials and of course ... profit.
Yes, that "money"
The money that was suppose to trickle down, albeit, presumably at a faster rate under Dems than GOP trickle down. The question was tongue in cheek though literal. I work in contract compliance and last week I got a call from a Dept. of Labor hire and my state's Comm. on the Status of Women. Both concerned about contractor noncompliance in meeting hiring goals for women and minorities. Well, surprise, surprise, what the hell do you expect from "shovel-ready" projects, who do you think they favor, the large white AGC contractors or small/upstart Black, White and Hispanic ones? Uncle John can't compete with his old backhoe, skidloader and 4 transient workers for multi-million dollar projects. And did you really think the AGC, responsible for two of the most seminal anti-affirmative action decisions in the 21st century (Croson v. Richmond & Adarand) would gleefully hire or subcontract women and minorities? (I'm thinking to myself as I converse). Just as in politics, these structures (training/hiring) must be in place to work. I warned people about this bullshit but they refuse to listen. We got "the Black President" now and our socially conscious Dem (thieves) are in power surely he and they will look out for us?"
My dept. is funded via HUD so the calls are starting to trickle in..."where's the stimulus $?" It would be funny if it were'nt so tragic. There's a reason Obama equates "poor" to the Middle Class, the words "poor" never roll off his lips.
E. Cynic: just want you to know that l was here and read it.
HUD...funding. I appreciated your line re thinking as you wrote.
Me,too. I just realized that compliance: Ques.Does that include people with disabilities?
Why the Public Option is Doomed To Fail ~ Dixon
An absolutely brilliant analysis of our current situation ...
Agree...The most to the point
Agree...The most to the point analysis of the political scam called "Health Insurance Reform", in the fewest words and with the no political BS. The best that I have read.
ObamaCare Takes Form: Race to the Bottom vs. Our Aspirations
In spite of recent news that 45,000 die each year in the US from lack of insurance, it’s clear that business and government want healthcare “reform” to control their costs while protecting and stabilizing the insurance, drug, and hospital industries. It’s not about providing everyone with comprehensive, affordable healthcare, let alone equal healthcare! It’s about forcing everyone to buy private insurance, with little assurance the insurance will cover them, or be affordable. It’s déjà vu of the bank bail-out; insurance companies will clean up. And forget undocumented workers.
Reducing healthcare costs for government and corporations is top priority. The House’s HR 3200 says half of the $1 trillion 10-year cost would come from savings in Medicare. Obama’s health speech said most of his $900 billion plan would come from savings in Medicare and Medicaid. And Max Baucus’ Senate Finance Committee plan doesn’t require any payment from companies that don’t offer insurance, unless the workers qualify for the skimpy government assistance.
Business and government are unwilling to do the things that could really control costs: (1) eliminate private health insurance with its outrageous profits and administrative costs (single payer), (2) negotiate drug prices and hospital charges, and (3) put doctors on salaries so their practices are no longer businesses with built-in incentives to either over-treat us or under-treat us.
So how do they plan to save at least $400-500 billion over ten years? Obama talks about eliminating the overpayments to HMO-based Medicare Advantage plans, which is good, but CBO estimates this will save only $150 billion. Obama talks about preventive and primary care, comparing drugs and treatments for effectiveness, systematic care of chronic disease, and electronic medical records. These would give better care, but don’t save much money, say knowledgeable experts. Without single payer, negotiated drug and hospital prices, and salaried doctors, the Medicare savings these plans need would require ending Medicare’s “entitlement” status; its budget would no longer grow automatically as enrollment increases. This is a major threat.
Even as Obama, Baucus, and Pelosi assure us that single payer is off the table, people continue to demand it. Obama officials, who organized the huge Sept. 2 rally at San Francisco City Hall for the public option, were openly hostile to the many people with single payer signs, asking some to move so as to “not block the view.” But the people whom the Obama officials brought to the rally loved the single payer signs, and cheered the people carrying them (including Gray Panthers).
Whatever private-insurance-based plan is chosen, it will neither provide care nor contain costs, as the Massachusetts plan shows. Meanwhile we must demand the plan include the Kucinich amendment so states can have their own single payer plans. This struggle will continue.
And, 500 amendments in the Senate, or more? But, wait, the Confe
Conference Committee is a danger zone, if a bill passes both houses because that's where things get taken out, deals are made...
I support HR676. (I have medicare.)
Health Care delivery and Outcome Disparity
"The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus can partially redeem their sorry capitulation to the president and Big Insurance *******"
I have given up on the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They have rolled over for President Obama they same way the Ms. "Impeachment off the table" and the rest did Bush's bidding.
The CBC has made disparity in health care a major policy objective. Hopefully they and possibly the Hispanic Caucus will show the way to better health care and vote "No" on Health Insurance Reform.
Here is a recent study from "commie"Canada showing that UHC Single-Payer essentially eliminates disparity to health care access. "This study looks at inequities in a country that has already established an equitable, universal financing system for health care: Canada. Three important conclusions: 1) Physician visits for both primary care and specialists were equitable regardless of the income level of the patient, 2) Physician visits for primary care were equitable regardless of the level of the educational achievement of the patient.....
"Other Ideas"
In his big speech on this scam, Obama referred to even his own pathetic "public option" as something that could be dropped in favor of "other ideas."
So, translated into truth, that means there is not going to be any public option of any kind. Just watch.
Health Care
I am getting sick of Obama apologists blaming Republicans or Blue Dogs for this worse than nothing "Health Insurance Reform" legislation. I would like to know how the Blue Dogs forced the President to have the secret White House meetings with the power elite of the health Industrial Complex. The deals, worth trillions of dollars over the next ten years, were made behind closed doors with Pharma, Hospitals and the Insurance Industry. For Obama to co-opt the major opposition to "health reform"and at the same time diminish their funding to Republicans was political genius; it was also immoral. As President, he his performing the same role as when he was an Illinois State Senator and worked with the Insurance industry to cut the guts out of "The Health Care Justice Act" that he himself sponsored in 2003-4.
I also think that the disappointed "progressives" who rationalize their confusion over the President's policy initiatives by saying that he is a "front man" for Rahm or that he is making mistakes or that he is too easily influenced, etc. are really the fools. That "self" rationalization from the "faux left" is more socially corrosive than the rantings of semi-sentient racists. Barack Obama has always been in charge of his destiny. He uses but is never used. If Health Insurance Reform is signed into law by President Obama, it will be one of the major political coups of the past several decades and a testament to his intelligence and skill. It is unfortunate that those skills couldn't have been used to force "Medicare for All" down the throats of the congressional reactionaries.
Will Obama Enablers ever get their head out of their ass?
I remember reading an Arthur Silber essay in 2008, in it he wrote a line saying in essence, "the Democrats do what they do because the want too." "Get over it, it doesn't hurt that bad and only for four years."
When will progressives and African American supporters of Obama and the Democrats get their heads out of their asses? I'd suggest that perhaps that they take a trip down memory lane and see what essayists have written about the Democrat's VOLITIONAL ENABLING OF RIGHT WING POLICIES.
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/09/stupider-than-shit.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/04/democrats/index.html
httphttp://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2122-danse-macabre-an-apology-to-democrats.html://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/08/blinded-by-story-liberals-and.html
Interesting stuff
Obama is really a good leader of Amarica and i think that he is first Prisedent of Amarica who want a pacefull world.
Acai Force Max