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

[John W.]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Marti Wilkinson <martiwilki at gmail.com>wrote:



> I have a friend who has an unemployed daughter with a one year old son. Her
> daughter was told by the state that she did not qualify for Medicaid.  In
> order for me to get medical coverage I had to fight tooth and nail and go
> through Tim Johnson's office before I was able to get coverage for myself
> and my daughter. In the process my own life was put in danger. So I would
> much rather see a watered down version of health care reform pass, than no
> reform at all. As Ricky pointed out, there is not a strong enough grass
> roots movement to push a single payer system through congress.
>
> Right now we have people who do qualify for assistance but who are not
> getting it because we live in a state (Illinois) that lies to its citizens.
> Even here we have private clinics who can legally refuse to treat patients
> who are on a medical card and that is obscene.


How does the new health care 'reform' bill change that?  Does it fund
Medicaid?  Does it mandate that Medicaid patients receive the same care as
non-Medicaid patients?  What are the penalties for non-compliance?



> When I was covered with employer provided group insurance I had to have a
> number of things pre-approved and pre-qualified by my insurance plan. This
> included surgeries and treatments for endometriosis to my later diagnosis
> and treatment for breast cancer. Our current insurance system is designed to
> be affordable and available  for people who are well and not people who are
> sick.
>

And how does the new health care 'reform' bill change that?  Does it make
health insurance more affordable and available for people who are sick?  If
so, how?  What are the enforcement mechanisms?  And does it provide that
health insurance companies can no longer require pre-approval for medical
procedures?



> Currently I work with people who are close to retirement age, but who are
> not old enough to qualify for medicare. Additionally, it's hard for them to
> find good paying jobs that offer decent benefits. It's one of the many
> downsides to being amongst the ranks of the under-employed. I have
> co-workers who have to decide between paying the power bill, buying
> groceries, or getting medications.  If Medicare can be expanded to include
> some of the people I work with that can only save a few lives.


Does this new bill expand Medicare to those under 65?



> I make less money now than I did when I was drawing unemployment and I hope
> that finishing my masters degree will lead to an improvement in my own
> personal circumstances.
>
So do we all, Marti.



> That being said sometimes, as a collective, we have to take what victories
> we can. There are things about the current bill I do not like, but it shows
> potential to be better than the system we have in place.


Better in what way(s)?



> Anyone who believes that we will somehow convince congress to implement a
> single payer system through a grass roots process is, in my not so humble
> opinion, living in a fantasy world. As long as corporations have the
> financial clout to lobby congress and contribute heavily to campaigns the
> ability of the grass roots will be limited without having substantial funds
> and resources at its disposal.


Precisely.  I believe, though, that single-payer was not even tried.  It was
not even on the table as an alternative.



> Marti
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>>   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<Undisclosed-Recipient%3A%3B at smtp103.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
>> Date: Monday, March 22, 2010, 6:57 PM
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <
>> galliher at illinois.edu <http://mc/compose?to=galliher@illinois.edu>>
>> To: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<http://mc/compose?to=peace-discuss@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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100323/cc570228/attachment-0001.html>