[Peace-discuss] What hath got rot?

[C. G. Estabrook]

No, what could be depends on what Obama was willing to press for (as LBJ did for 
Medicare 45 years ago).

Obama could have pushed for the simplest solution - Medicare for all - but chose
not to, because it would have adversely affected the profits of the elite
sectors to whom he owed his presidency.

In America, if you want to do anything at all through government action, you 
have to pay off rich people first. Obama understands that quite well. --CGE


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> The rejoinder, of course, is that what */should /*be and what */can/* be 
> depends (in this case) upon members in Congress, who are the ones who make
> and pass our laws. (You HAVE been watching the news the past year, right??)
> We'll be lucky if this bill actually makes it -- there are some good
> provisions in it -- and hopefully, when the citizenry begin to benefit from
> these, they'll quit their caterwauling and push their senators and reps to
> enact real health care reform. That's the only way it'll happen -- almost
> every elected official's first priority is to get re-elected. --Jenifer
> 
> --- On *Mon, 3/22/10, John W. /<jbw292002 at gmail.com>/* wrote:
> 
> 
> From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] What hath
> got rot? To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> Cc: "Peace-discuss
> List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 5:18
> PM
> 
> Amen, and amen, and amen.  There's no rational rejoinder to this.  None.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
> </mc/compose?to=galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [This is from the statement by Physicians for a National Health Program
> (http://pnhp.org <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.