December 15, 2009
Partial Reality: Howard Dean: “This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.” Corporately-Compromised Response: Sen. Durbin: “I disagree with Dr. Dean. I think if he would sit back and look at 31 million Americans who would have health insurance as a result of this bill. How do you say to them: ‘Sorry you can’t have health insurance. We think this bill can be better.'”
Yes, “31 million [additional] Americans . . . would have health insurance” – because, as voiceless and powerless serfs, they would be Compelled into buying Private Plans/Coverage. Right now, you could say to them: “Sorry you can’t have health insurance” – because you cannot Afford it. And, when we are done, it will cost even more. Yet, that’s not a problem with the Corporately-sponsored Senators or Representatives. That’s your problem, “because, hey, [they’re solving] the health care crisis! Everyone will have health care!” No Single-Payer. No Public Option. No allowance for people between 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare. No competition for private insurers. No re-importation of drugs from Canada (because of another secret White House deal with Big Pharma). Then, finally, Senator “I can be bought, often” Lieberman and his allies can be pleased with the outcome. “Is This the Best We Can Do?” Again, no. But, since a majority of the New Majority have revealed themselves for what they actually are, and who they really serve, we can take a step back and see more Truth of how “the meek” and their circumstances are regarded by the elite. Mantra: Kill the Health Care Bill, Save 31 Million. Kill the Health Care Bill, Save 31 Million.
Postscript (as an Open Letter): Senator Lieberman: “I think my colleagues know . . . that I’ve been opposed to a government-created, government-run insurance company.” Why do you hate Medicare, Sen. Lieberman? Is it because of the “Socialistic” focus on providing medical insurance as well as prescription drug coverage for people who are older, and/or those who have certain disabilities – like Veterans? Would you prefer them to be subject to “personal responsibility” mandates – even if the result was exponential agony on the streets? Does this quote from Darwin often ring in your mind? : “We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.” Why do you love private (corporate) insurance monopolies – whose focus is not on providing health care, but on denying as much treatment as possible and on canceling policies – according to a Wall Street profit model? Did you also envy Enron? Further, did it bother you that so many lost their life savings in that worldwide scam? Or, was the latter plundering their own fault for not being the fittest at the top of the chain in a dog-eat-dog survival game (pyramid)? Why do you hate regular people (us)? Is it because we did not pull up our bootstraps far enough to have stored $3 million in the bank for medical emergencies? Or, is it because our stature in life was preordained – according to you and your kind (the elect, prosperous, and chosen), whose laws are sealed within Social Darwinism?
September 29, 2009
Rose Ann DeMoro & Michael Moore
13 problems with the current health care bills (partial list):
1. No cost controls on insurance companies. The coming . . . increases in premiums, deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, etc. will quickly outpace any projected protections from caps on out-of-pocket costs.
2. Insurance companies will continue to be able to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
3. No restrictions on insurance denials of care that insurers don’t want to pay for. In case you missed it, the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee uncovered data on the California Department of Managed Care website recently that found six of the biggest California insurers rejected, on annual average, more than one-fifth of all claims every year since 2002.
4. No challenge to insurance company monopolies, especially in the top 94 metropolitan areas, where one or two companies dominate, severely limiting choice and competition.
5. A massive government bailout for the insurance industry through the combination of the individual mandate requiring everyone not covered to buy insurance, public subsidies which go for buying insurance, no regulation on what insurers can charge, and no restrictions on their ability to decide what claims to pay.
6. No controls on drug prices. The White House deal with Big Pharma, which won bipartisan approval in the Senate Finance Committee, opposes the use of government leverage to negotiate real cost controls on inflated drug prices.
7. No single standard of care. Our multi-tiered system remains with access to care still determined by ability to pay.
8. Tax on comprehensive insurance plans. That will encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, promote proliferation of bare-bones, high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies.
9. Not universal. Some people will remain uncovered. . . .
10. No definition of covered benefits.
11. No protection for our public safety net. Public hospitals and clinics will continue to be under-funded and a dumping ground for those the private system doesn’t want.
12. Many reforms don’t go into effect until 2013.
13. Nothing changes in basic structure of the system; health care remains a privilege, not a right.
Again: This is a call-out to the truly brave Progressives in Congress: If fifty-three or more in the House of Representatives, and twenty or more in the Senate, vow to kill the entire health care proposal (by voting against anything submitted without a Public Option, or which maintains the Mandate) they could show the nation what it means to be honorably brave and genuinely principled.
No Public Option; No Mandate.
Health Care Solved! Are You Poor? Sorry.
Big Pharma & Health Insurance Companies Salivate
Mandated slaughter by way of corporate pens (Policies)
August 17, 2009
President Obama’s NYTimes editorial: Not a word about “Public Option[s]” (or, heaven forbid, Single-Payer). “But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary – truly risky – is the prospect of doing nothing.” What’s truly atrocious – truly regressive – are (corporate) democrats (and your administration) selling out every progressive/liberal aspect, resulting in the uninsured being handed over to the private insurers as “fresh meat,” – then, spinning it as Reform. “First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage. . . .” These are typically vague (hyperbolic) assertions, discounting the new weight (Mandate) about to be forcefully imposed on regular people – conveniently sidestepping all the uproar over Big Pharma/insurance company and neocon giveaways. “Affordable” is the never-ending catch phrase. It succeeds in putting everyone below the median income in bootstrap modes – because soon, there will be “no excuses.” The health care crisis is about to be solved (since we will all have to have policies – or get fines)! “Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings. . . .” That would be “savings” – like in the hidden deal where Pharma agreed to just “lock in their doubling of prices.” Furthermore, would someone grossing $28,000 consider a new monthly $200 bill as “savings”? “Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies.” In other words, if insurance companies are not satisfied with the mega-billions they are about to reap from these fifty million new “cash cows,” then, they must be “too big to fail” and/or too big to satisfy. “Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections. . . .” Since there will be no Public Option (or enough 100% subsidies), once we are herded into lines at the likes of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, what are the chances that those previously uninsured will feel newly protected? Additionally, if our president wanted to undeniably stand up and out, regardless of monied powers, for a Public Option – wouldn’t he threaten to Veto any measures that came across without it? Good news: “Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said it would be difficult to pass any legislation through the Democratic-controlled Congress without the promised public plan. ‘We’ll have the same number of people uninsured,’ she said. ‘If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they’d be insured.’” Truthout: “Any health care legislation that does not include a public option is a fraud.” With these realities there is a final question: how many millions of people will find themselves weighing the “options” of paying that yearly Fine – and being able to survive, or, buying a policy – and getting a second job? This is a call-out to the truly brave Progressives in Congress: If fifty-three or more in the House of Representatives, and twenty or more in the Senate, vow to kill the entire health care proposal by voting against anything submitted which maintains the current sellouts, or, at least the “Mandate,” they could show the nation what it means to be honorably brave and genuinely principled.
FAIR Action Alert: NYT Slams Single-Payer
August 10, 2009
The reality of corporate mentality, and control: During the campaign, Obama proclaimed, “We will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on the health care market. . . . “ Multitudes followed/believed in his progressive pledges. Then, we get this: Drug price negotiations with Big Pharma? “They’re off limits, as is reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada.” Who set the terms? Our President? Congress? : “Ken Johnson, PhRMA’s senior vice president: ‘with respect to health care reform, the line in the sand for us was price control.'” “There were reports that Obama had promised to oppose any congressional attempt to exact further money from the massive pharmaceutical industry, which would include allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices or import cheaper drugs from Canada.” “Senators are free to push for drug-price negotiations or reimportation, but they may have to do so without administration support.” The latter makes a Threat clear, as well as Obama’s primary stance on whose “line[s] in the sand” he will fight for.
Here is the present (talking points) mantra: “shared goals” and “access” (which adds to the previous outrage of “affordable”). Ken Johnson (PhRMA): “All of the questions about what was in the agreement distract from our shared goal of making sure everyone has access to health care coverage.” It is purely corporate salivation, upon guarantees of fulfillment. The enemies (those who were supposed to be aggressively reformed because of their longstanding abuse) are now looking forward – as grinning allies. This truth directly corresponds with the following, as an answer: “(The) administration’s multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have been made in private, and the results were announced after the fact.” “Both industries promised Obama cost savings in return for an expanded base of insured patients.” That would be US, the base – expanded (into their unreformed monopolies) – by compulsion.
AP: “Major insurers will accept a rollback of the industry’s restrictive practices only if they’re guaranteed that all Americans would be covered . . . a potential financial boon to the industry.” Those who set the terms reap the benefits. “‘They’ll get a big new market with millions and millions of new customers,’ said Gary Claxton, a health policy expert with the Kaiser Family Foundation.” New York Times headline: Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan. Once again, ultimately revealing. “The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care” plan (sellout). As previously questioned, “Will the common people be ‘Provided’ for? Or, will they be herded like rebellious cattle into a ‘mandated’ slaughter by way of corporate pens (Policies)?” From this, the answers, we have firm realization, which is beyond what Frank Rich described as “fear.” “The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy.”
Public Options, Single-Payers, and Bootstraps
Health Care Solved! Are You Poor? Sorry