Kill the Health Care Bill, Save 31 Million

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?

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments | Awakenings, Poverty, Truth, Y | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by WindHarps

Re: President Obama’s NYTimes Editorial

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

Bookmark and Share

11 Comments | Awakenings, Poverty, Remember, Truth, Y | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by WindHarps

Re: Memo Confirms White House Big Pharma Deal

August 13, 2009

Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

“It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government’s leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada — and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.”  Why am I not shocked?  “Obama is walking a tightrope here.  He wants to keep PhRMA from opposing the bill. . . .”

“Keep PhRMA from opposing the bill?”  Oh yeah, we wouldn’t want to have a bill that PhRMA opposed – not with a Majority in Congress – and, a President who was going to champion Change through Reform.  Instead, PhRMA is investing $150 million for a media blitz – in Favor.  After step-by-step revelations of this variety, how much REFORM should rational people expect?  This is the same “appeasement” mentality which has kept the disgraceful republicans empowered, as evidenced by their ongoing and concerted campaigns, polluted with the escalation of the most scandalous (“Death Panel,” “Nazi”) and vociferous Lies.  It leaves us (Progressives, commoners) trapped in a (worsening) status quo- while the other sides continue notching victories, though outnumbered 70% to 30%.  Seeking bipartisan support and consensus can be valuable in bringing together ideas toward solving certain problems.  It is in how far one (or a group) goes with that aim in mind that the original goals may evolve from advancement to insignificance, from welcoming to intrusive.  Leaders who propose major revisions regarding a cause are also expected to teach, from a solid, sustainable viewpoint – while being able to discern the quality of shared lessons.  If only unreasonable or regressive alternatives are offered as replies from an audience that is shut off from learning, or unyielding to progress, a leader with conviction will not give in and diminish the results of the revisal to such a level that a skeleton remains of an initial objective.  Moreover, in an adversarial debate, if one side is mollified to such a degree that the other loses its core, the adversary does not become an ally – since it triumphs at the giver’s overwhelming expense.

Greg Palast: “The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices.  Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices.  Got that?  In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs. . . .”

No confrontation.  No hard-fought battles.  No standing up, regardless of outcome.  No glory.  (We have seen the same scenario with respect to Wall Street (repealing the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?”), unchallenged Machiavellian bankruptcy laws, nothing immediate in credit card legislation (or even capped rates), torture as “policy” differences, various other war crimes overlooked, nationalized propaganda campaigns deemed legal, etc.)  We were sold on a warrior for change.  What did we get when it came to fighting for what was promised?  Yes, he still gives soaring speeches.  However, there will be no “Red Badge of Courage” given – if all the proletariat are left bleeding in the trenches, without ever seeing their leader elevated – beyond words.

No Reform.  No Single-Payer.  No (Meaningful) Public Option.  No 100% Subsidies (for those under the median income).  No Price Controls.  Then, Take Out The Mandate That We All Have To Buy a Policy.  PERIOD.

Update: “The Obama administration sent signals on Sunday that it has backed away from its once-firm vision of a government organization to provide for the nation’s 50 million uninsured and is now open to using nonprofit cooperatives instead.  Kathleen Sebelius . . . said on Sunday morning that an additional government insurer is ‘not the essential element’ of the administration’s plan to overhaul the country’s health care system.”  “The health care industry prefers that format. . . .”  Of course they do, “cooperatives would not have as much sway over the prices Americans pay . . . !”  A “Robust Public Option” was an element our president and Majority in Congress supposedly would not back down from.  “The majority gives, gives in, and gives away – until there’s nothing left” – Except a Mandate for Us to Buy Policies.  We are about to be delivered, defenseless, right into their anticipating hands.

Bookmark and Share

6 Comments | Awakenings, Poverty, Remember, Truth, Y | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by WindHarps

Big Pharma & Health Insurance Corporations Salivate

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

H.R. 676

Bookmark and Share

11 Comments | Poverty, Remember, Seek, Truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by WindHarps

Public Options, Single-Payers, and Bootstraps

July 18, 2009

In his post, “The six deadly hypocrites,” Paul Krugman notes that “the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 . . . denied Medicare the right to bargain for lower drug prices. . . .”  Where are the proposals to overturn this aspect of the Act in the debate?  Easing restrictions on imports?  True reform, taking away the pharmaceutical and insurance industry’s absolute monopoly (or, at least, not forcing us further into their hands)?  Moreover, with any outcomes of the health care legislation carrying such essential importance (weight) for all of us, why the mad push/rush to get the bills passed before an August recess?  Is that a primary focus on our (long-term) well-being?  Or, is it mainly politics – as usual?  While passing a “Public Option” would be progress, terms at the heart of the measures include mandates (requirements) for everyone to get/buy an insurance policy – without considering the impact (enough) on those between the poverty and median income level.  Especially during these times (a Second Depression), forcing a new monthly bill/burden (of even $100) on our people is both outrageous and wholly regressive.  Congress should be making changes in the proposals – where, since they (obviously) aren’t brave enough to stand up for Single-Payer, then, in the least, they could offer/champion subsidized coverage of all costs for those under a certain point ($40,000?) of the median income.  (In relation, my Congressman informed me of (unacceptable) 92% subsidy provision possibilities).  After being sold out to corporate powers during Clinton’s administration, and having our entire structure/system (purposely) finished off (ENRON-style) during Bush II’s, the common people have peaked out in “personal responsibility” – and absolutely cannot afford, or find, additional “Bootstraps.”

Health Care Solved!  Are You Poor?  Sorry.

H.R. 676: Single-Payer Faq

FAIR’s Petition

Horatio Alger Bootstraps

Update: A Real Win for Single-Payer Advocates
“By a 25-19 vote, the House Committee on Education and Labor on Friday approved an amendment to the House’s health-care reform bill allowing states to create single-payer health care systems if they so choose.  Congressman Dennis Kucinich . . . proposed the amendment.”  “Rose Ann DeMoro, the executive director of the California Nurses Association . . . , said ‘This is a historic moment for patients, for American families, and for the tens of thousands of nurses and other single-payer activists from coast to coast who can now work in state capitols to pass single-payer bills, the strongest, most effective solution of all to our healthcare crisis.'”
Update: Are health care options ultimately affordable?
(Bills would require coverage, but uninsured may struggle to pay)
“Under the House bill and a similar measure approved by the Senate health committee, premium subsidies would be available to families with incomes up to four times the poverty level. . . .  But lawmakers said that federal aid for low-income families could be pared back as Congress struggles to hold down the overall cost of the legislation.”
Bill Moyers: Dangerous Alliance of Health Industry and Right-Wingers “The big drug companies are already so pleased . . . that they’ve brought back Harry and Louise — the make-believe couple who starred in TV ads that helped torpedo the Clinton health care plan — but this time they’re in favor of reform.”
Update: Harry Reid promises committee bill by recess
“The Finance Committee remains hung up on how to pay for the package, but the panel negotiators have been moving toward dropping the public option for insurance. Reid today was vague on whether he supported the public option. . . .”  Without a Public Option – the purported line in the sand, where nothing would be passed if it was not included.  Remember?  Does that mean the Mandate to get a policy also disappears?  If not, wouldn’t that be the same as “solving” the health care crisis by forcing all of us right into the private insurers’ hands – since everyone will have to buy some version of their collusively-priced product?  Not even a Public Option, in order for commoners to at least have a sense of a way out (of their traps).  No 100% subsidies for those under the median income level.  No new prescription bargaining power.  Nothing to compete with the status quo.  Nothing reformed.  The majority gives, gives in, and gives away – until there’s nothing left.  Then, once again, they (the corporate powers) win it all.  And, the lower classes suffer deeper and deeper wounds (which will never heal) under the ever-increasing weight of “shared” and “personal responsibilities.”
Update: Deal with ‘Blue Dogs’ sets up health care vote
“The House changes, which drew immediate opposition from liberals in the chamber, would reduce the federal subsidies designed to help lower-income families afford insurance. . . . ”  Medicaid: $10,830 ($5.21 hr.) x133% = 14,404 ($6.90 hr.) (does not even equal new minimum wage).  Subsidies: (What percentage?) $32,490 ($15.62 hr.) and below.  “Close to 86 percent of small businesses — those with an annual payroll of $500,000 or less — will be exempt from the mandate to provide employees with health insurance, according to the terms of the compromise.”  So, businesses (up to the elite level) will be EXEMPT from most of the new burdens?  Correct.  What about REGULAR people?  Not a chance.
Update: Speaker Pelosi: “Let me assure you: There will be a health care reform bill passed and it will make a big difference in the lives of the American people.”  We, the proletariat, are aware of the “Big Difference[s]” on the horizon, Speaker Pelosi.  They can be relieving, uplifting, and freeing.  Or, they can be regressive, oppressive, and destructive (under the guise of “no excuses” and bootstraps as “shared”).  It comes down to this: 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)? : “It’s only a new $200.00-a-month bill.  Rise up Horatio. The butcher is now to be taken as your friend.”
Update: “The deal also slightly reduced the cost of premiums for the uninsured, from 12 percent of a household’s annual income to 11 percent.”  Make $21,000?  Does that mean your new (forced) bill, a bill you did not have before, will be at least $2,300 per year?  A person making $21,000 does not qualify for Medicaid, and would be lucky in most areas of this country to be able to even afford an apartment.  How much of an impact would he or she feel?  A new $200-a-month bill might just impact that person – right into the streets.  Consider the soon-to-arrive 11% of Annual Income – TAX – a Tax Burden you did not have before – with this: “I can make a firm pledge.  Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.  Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” With these types of “solutions,” one could swear to God that we are the middle of the last administration (and former majority).

Bookmark and Share

15 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by WindHarps

Health Care Solved! Are You Poor? Sorry.

June 19, 2009

With so many millions of us without health insurance (or even the ability to afford it), something had to give.  Right?  Well, remember all the promises during last year’s campaign?  Solutions!  Solutions!  “Health care for all!”  I, for one, sensed a disaster – for the POOR.  Why?  The stage was being set with proclamations of “mandatory” requirements for citizens to buy Private Policies.

And here it is: House Democrats Unveil Plan For Health Care Overhaul “House Democrats on Friday answered President Obama’s call for a sweeping overhaul of the health care system by putting forward a . . . bill that would require all Americans to obtain health insurance. . . .”

Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Schumer: “We support a Public health insurance option that would foster greater competition in the marketplace.”  Does the word “option” mean we may choose to participate?  Or, will we find ourselves forced into making a choice between only two options?  “This month, Congress is working on new reform legislation that will make quality health care available and affordable for all Americans.”  Multitudes who were looking to you to actually provide health care through a Universal (Single-Payer) system will wonder where you discovered figures somehow making this “affordable,” since, to them, you are about to put so many on the street.  “The whole reason for health insurance in the first place is to spread costs among as large a group of people as possible, so we all pay a reasonable amount for quality health care….”  Again, “a reasonable amount,” – just where and how did you come up with those figures?  How “reasonable” do you think a man or woman grossing $23,000 a year will consider it?  Any chance they, or even husbands and wives grossing $34,000, might prefer health care – as provided – at no cost – as opposed to being required/mandated (like car insurance – where you get fined without it)?  We know the covers, like “for those making under a certain amount, it will be free.”  Yeah, and that’s how it all starts.  Later, the gates widen with a “reasonable/affordable” co-pay – even for the minimum-waged.  Further on, it becomes only rational, within “personal responsibility”: Even they (the poor) should work out payment plans when the time comes to cover those new “deductible” requirements/mandates.

Of our citizens, 63% support a Universal/Medicare-for-All/Single-Payer system.  It’s the Will of the people.  Obama has the presidency – and a majority in Congress.  There are no tactics, or waves, of propaganda that would have arrived in this battle which could not have been overcome.  And still, they did not have their own Will – to stand up.  Instead of fighting (all the way) – primarily for the people, the weak-kneed cohorts cowered (once again) in the face of corporate and politically minor powers.

Can you afford this?  “Not our problem.” Are you at or below the middle class?  “Sorry (bootstraps).”  Are you Poor?  “Again, sorry (get a third job). Furthermore, if you are poor (or, whatever class) and this ‘Mandatory’ Bill is enough to be seen as a death knell (since you absolutely and literally cannot afford another bill), do you think we care?  No.”  Why?  “Because, hey, we’ve solved the health care crisis! Now, everyone will have health care!  Get it?  We are heroes.”  Yes, many millions of us will get it, eventually – as the sounds of those final nails in our coffins are pounded (for our own good).

InNeed-Poor

Update (06/25): “Health Care Reform Bill Price Tag Goes Down.”  How?  “Senate Finance Committee members said they found $400 billion in savings earlier this week, largely by reducing the amount of subsidies for low-income people to buy insurance.”  It’s only the beginning.  Prepare your bootstraps and find those third jobs.

Public Options, Single-Payers, and Bootstraps

[ FAIR’s PETITION ]

Bookmark and Share

18 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by WindHarps