[Peace-discuss] What hath got rot?

[C. G. Estabrook]

Medicare was something good from government action.

Obama is not up to the standards of a mass murderer.


Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Therefore, we should not expect anything good from government action, right?
> 
> Ricky
> 
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
> 
> --- On *Mon, 3/22/10, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at illinois.edu>/* wrote:
> 
> 
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] 
> What hath got rot? To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com> Cc: 
> "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Monday, March 
> 22, 2010, 9:33 PM
> 
> 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
> </mc/compose?to=jbw292002 at gmail.com>>/* wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com
> </mc/compose?to=jbw292002 at gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] What hath
>> got rot? To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu
> </mc/compose?to=galliher at illinois.edu>> Cc: "Peace-discuss
>> List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> </mc/compose?to=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>
>> </mc/compose?to=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.