[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?

Mon Mar 22 21:32:10 CDT 2010

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I just want to point out the 
roundabout admission below ( "...About 23 million people will remain 
uninsured nine years out. That 
figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually 
and an incalculable toll of suffering...") that this bill, by extending 
health insurance to an estimated 30 million who now don't have it, will 
save about 30,000 lives and a presumably somewhat larger "incalculable 
toll of suffering" avoided as well.  I'm not saying I necessarily agree 
with the figures in this, or that this bill is enough or somehow "okay by me." It isn't.  But it is interesting 
how you can pick and choose which figures to proclaim.

Again, the article does point out a lot of good provisions in the bill while it's denouncing it, and claims they could have been enacted without the bad.  This is hypothetical at best.  Where was the organized demand for this?  Where is the organized mass movement for single payer?  I'll tell you: most of them were supporting this bill in the end.

Was it the right thing to do?  We have to ask the question in the context of the world that exists, not the world that could be.

Physicians for a National Health Program, by the way, is a self-described "research and education" outfit.  They were never poised to organize this (much-needed) uprising in favor of single payer or national health.

CCHCC and CBHC both supported this bill, as did the largest health care workers union, SEIU.  

Interestingly enough, that longtime opponent of health care reform, the AMA, actually supported the bill, not that that proves anything, but they supported it because it extends coverage to most of the uninsured.  A lot doctors' groups like the plastic surgeons and neurosurgeons opposed it because they said it would interfere with patients' ability to choose their own doctors -- apparently they haven't been paying attention to what's been happening in health care the last 20 years (or maybe they have: most of THEIR patients can probably still choose their own doctors).

The US Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill because, they said, it would not control costs, it would hurt business, etc.  The AARP supported the bill because it will help make health insurance affordable to their "younger members" and improve Medicare (closing the infamous doughnut hole, for one thing).

And, personally, though I do not by any means necessarily, or even mostly, agree with the Dems, I think it says something that every single effing Republican in the House voted against it, while only 34 Dems voted no -- and not for the reasons mentioned on this listserve as problems with the bill.  

Does this mean the bill is a good one?  Of course not.  What it means is, if this bill had been defeated it would have been because THE RIGHT defeated it.  And what that means is, the Left cannot (yet) pass a substantially better bill.

Kucinich (who does not constitute a swing vote on his own) tried to hold out.  He got 0 points on the left for his trouble.  The Left attacked him BOTH for not supporting the bill initially and for ultimately "caving in" to pressure from the rest of the Left to support it.

One (and only one, as far as I know) member of the Congressional Black Caucus opposed the bill -- not because it didn't do enough to extend coverage, etc., but because it COST TOO MUCH.  
http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2010/03/davis_black_caucus_split_on_he.html

Do we have to agree with Barbara Lee?  Of course not, but the question is -- and it's a serious one, not rhetorical -- how exactly can we envision single payer or national health actually happening?

I'm sorry, but can somebody show me the organized movement for single payer that could have carried it through?  

I do know of a few good (imperfect, of course) groups that are organizing for single payer.  I support them.  Some of the loudest critics of this bill in this discussion do not.  (Again, most of these groups supported this bill in the end.)  I believe they will keep fighting for what we ultimately want.  I believe that is the only way it will ever happen, and I support that.  I hope you will, too.

Peace,
Ricky

"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn

--- On Mon, 3/22/10, unionyes <unionyes at ameritech.net> wrote:

From: unionyes <unionyes at ameritech.net>
Subject: [Discuss] Fw: [Peace-discuss] What hath got rot?
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@smtp103.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com
Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 6:57 PM

----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:47 PM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] What hath got rot?

> [This is from the statement by Physicians for a National Health Program (http://pnhp.org) on the Dear Leader's triumph.  --CGE]
> 
> 
> As much as we would like to join the celebration of the House's passage of the health bill last night, in good conscience we cannot. We take no comfort in seeing aspirin dispensed for the treatment of cancer.
> 
> Instead of eliminating the root of the problem - the profit-driven, private health insurance industry - this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of Americans to buy private insurers' defective products, and turn over to them vast amounts of public money.
> 
> The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:
> 
>     * About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.
> 
>     * Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.
> 
>     * Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.
> 
>     * The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net
> hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.
> 
>     * People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.
> 
>     * Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.
> 
>     * The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017...
> 
> 
> It didn't have to be like this. Whatever salutary measures are contained in this bill, e.g. additional funding for community health centers, could have been enacted on a stand-alone basis.
> 
> Similarly, the expansion of Medicaid - a woefully underfunded program that provides substandard care for the poor - could have been done separately, along with an increase in federal appropriations to upgrade its quality.
> 
> But instead the Congress and the Obama administration have saddled Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new taxes on workers' health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today...
> 
> 
> A genuine remedy is in plain sight. Sooner rather than later, our nation will have to adopt a single-payer national health insurance program, an improved Medicare for all. Only a single-payer plan can assure truly universal, comprehensive and affordable care to all.
> 
> By replacing the private insurers with a streamlined system of public financing, our nation could save $400 billion annually in unnecessary, wasteful administrative costs. That's enough to cover all the uninsured and to upgrade everyone else's coverage without having to increase overall U.S. health spending by one penny.
> 
> Moreover, only a single-payer system offers effective tools for cost control like bulk purchasing, negotiated fees, global hospital budgeting and capital planning.
> 
> Polls show nearly two-thirds of the public supports such an approach, and a recent survey shows 59 percent of U.S. physicians support government action to establish national health insurance. All that is required to achieve it is the political will.
> 
> The major provisions of the present bill do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to "wait and see" how this reform plays out, we cannot wait, nor can our patients. The stakes are too high...
> 
> 
> 
> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100322/f18dd15c/attachment-0001.html>