Who Says Americans Don't Want Health Care Reform?

The "health care summit" has come and gone, and, as expected, partisanship is still alive and well. Instead of focusing on what is best for the country, our elected leaders took this opportunity to once again bicker amongst themselves, proving to one and all just how useless they really are.

Republicans, of course, had no intention of negotiating away any of the deep fissures between themselves and Democrats on this issue. Their main concerns going into this meeting were split between concerns for citizens and concern for industry. For example, they wanted to discuss how to make insurance available and affordable to those with pre-existing medical conditions, but also want to end "frivolous lawsuits" and expand health care cost related savings accounts. They keep bleating that the nation just can't afford this legislation (where were these budget-squeezers when the bailout bill was passed?) and that the "American people" don't want it, anyway.

Not that the GOP is entirely to blame. Democrats are quickly losing the membership that was once willing to vote in favor of their health reform bill. Back in November, the House's version squeaked by with a 5-vote majority, and even that seems barely attainable now. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-PA, is quoted in an AP article by Alan Fram as saying that some Democrats who initially voted "yes" on the health care legislation would now vote "no" because, "they went home and got an unpleasant experience" due to the way they voted.

Who are these Americans who don't want health care reform? They are not anyone I know, or the readers who write into our local paper's editorial page. Why in the world would an average person put the concerns of the insurance industry and the health care profit machine before their own financial and personal health? We, the voters, are not getting cash gifts and free cruises, or large donations to our re-election campaigns. For these congresspeople to say it is the "will of the people" is just plain ludicrous.

As usual, our needs will be ignored as congress and industry ride off, hand in hand, into the sunset. The only real way to determine whether or not the citizenry want health care reform is to put it to a vote. Would you vote against changing the system? I know I wouldn't. Funny how that idea never came up, isn't it?

Skyrocketing Health Care Costs Need Reforming, Too

Despite the months of lip service and mounds of paperwork that have come to symbolize the health care reform debate, very little has been said about controlling costs associated with health care delivery. Not only are these costs hurting workers and the economy, they are bucking the deflationary trend by rising faster than any other indicator (except, perhaps, the unemployment rate).

A blurb in our local paper Saturday stated that despite last year's low inflation rate of 2.7%, college tuition and health care were two costs that continued to rise far above that meager rate. I recently read an article about a local girl with a rare disorder, whose treatments were expected to cost tens of thousand of dollars each month. A letter to the Editor of the Valley Advocate last week praised the state-funded MassHealth insurance for paying for treatments costing $3500 per month. Over $40,000 a year for medical care? What "treatments" can possibly cost that much?

Unfortunately, this is reality. The health care industry and the insurance industry have developed a symbiotic relationship whereby each makes gargantuan profits off of spiraling health care costs. Imagine if there was no such thing as health insurance. Would people purchase these overpriced and often marginally helpful treatments? Most probably, they would not. No matter how much you feel you need it, thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for health care is not workable for most of us. We would do without, find alternatives, or stay sick, maybe even die. Medical professionals don't give health care away for free.

Such high costs are only sustainable on a large scale when people have insurance that will cover most of the costs. The higher costs become, the more people need insurance. The insurance industry thrives because without the high costs, people wouldn't need their services. Remember, no matter how high medical costs become, there are only a small percentage of claims paid compared to the millions of customers paying exorbitantly high premiums each month. At any rate, insurers raise their rates each time health costs rise, so they don't ever lose; either do the hospitals and doctors charging these rates. The only losers are you and me, the customer/patient. Oh, and don't forget that insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws, as well.

An article by Stephanie Kraft in the September 24, 2009 Advocate presents some sobering statistics. According to the California Department of Managed Care, six of the largest health care insurers rejected, on average, nearly 32% of all claims submitted in the first half of 2009. That's an extraordinary percentage of refusals for an industry whose reason for existence is to pay medical claims. Not only that, but the number of insurance administrators has increased 3,000% since 1970, while the number of doctors has only risen by 200%. The greatest surge has occurred within the last 20 years.

As long as this profit-taking alliance exists, there will be no real reform in health care delivery. Our lawmakers had another chance to rectify this situation, but did not. In fact, they have succeeded in making it worse for us, by now guaranteeing increased revenue to these monoliths in the form of a requirement that each of us buy their products. Government by and for the corporations strikes again!

Health Bill in Need of Reform

Passage of the health care reform bill, now predicted to be a reality by the time Obama delivers the State of the Union address, has turned into a bipartisan slug fest. Democrats and Republicans, each claiming to be the voice of the people, snipe at each other and tear bits of real change from this legislation like wolves fighting over a carcass. And that's exactly what the reform bill has become: A carcass, a mere shadow of its former, historically reform-minded self.

Gone are the items that would benefit the masses, such as the public option alternative to private health insurance. Even an expansion of Medicare to those aged 55 or older has been pulled, thanks to the very public bleating of legislators like Joe Leiberman. His recent crusade to embarrass the Democrats while getting his name in the newspaper is supposedly based on the fact that this benefit would, "add taxpayer costs...add to the deficit. It's unnecessary." For a guy so concerned about costs, it seems odd that he never mentions cracking down on Medicare fraud, which reportedly costs taxpayers billions each year. Speaking of taxpayer costs, the new legislation will now increase most people's monthly premiums, while providing no alternative relief.

Another benefit that has fallen off the table is the hoped-for introduction of the insurance industry to the world of competition. Not only has the status-quo been preserved, but additional revenue is guaranteed by the aforementioned premium increases as well as the new bill's requirement that everyone purchase health insurance, or face fines. Reform of health insurance practices very quickly became additional legislated enhancements to the industry's bottom line.

The pharmaceutical industry also got their dibs in, winning long-term protection of their drugs patents against more affordable generics. The cosmetic surgery lobby was successful in heading off a tax on their largely unnecessary services, which could have provided a source of revenue that might have been used to offset the costs of true health care reform.

What is left? More corporate giveaways, more costs to the taxpayer. Less reform, fewer benefits and now financial consequences for those who can't or won't buy health insurance. Exactly what the GOP previously railed against, they have helped bring about. It's nice to know that some things never change.

Health Care Reform for the Big Interests

Our elected officials in Washington are currently scrambling to pass Obama's health care reform legislation before the Christmas holiday. This should be cause for celebration, and for some, it is--namely, the health care and insurance industries. For people like ourselves, however, it is nothing to cheer about.

Gone from the bill are most of the reforms that would have made this legislation truly historic. In place of these are giveaways to special interest groups like health care companies who, according to the latest issue of Harper's, spent $1.5 million per day lobbying Congress in 2009. The insurance industry, thanks to Sen. Ben Nelson, is another winner, with their exemption from anti-trust laws still intact. Holdouts like Nelson and Joe Leiberman can now be counted on to vote for this law, but at what cost?

Howard Dean, politician and physician, pointed out that the current bill is no friend to American taxpayers. Calling it "an insurance company's dream", he noted that not only will everyone be required to buy health insurance or face fines, but that insurance carriers will retain the right to deny those with pre-existing conditions. The White House, through spokesman Robert Gibbs, denied that insurance companies came out on top, saying that they "spent hundreds of millions...lobbying against this legislation". Just goes to show what that amount of money can buy.

The lack of a public option, combined with a requirement to buy insurance or face penalties, makes this legislation a losing proposition for the American public. We may wind up with a system that is actually worse than what we started out to reform. I don't know about you, but this is not the kind of change I bargained for when I voted for Barak Obama last November.

Politicians Need To Do Their Jobs and Reform Health Care

Once again, our fearless elected leaders in Washington are busy playing politics instead of doing their jobs. To wit: The current debate in the U.S. Senate regarding the reform of our health care system.

As politicians see an opportunity to get their names in the news, they start to create roadblocks to reform and trumpet loudly about how they are the only ones with the interests of the "American People" at heart. One such lawmaker is Joseph Lieberman, I-CT. Apparently still angry with the Democratic party, he has no compunction about using the well-being of the masses to force them to see things his way. Of course, not all politicians are acting out in this manner. Ever the optimist, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was recently quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "Democrats aren't going to let the American people down". So far, not so good.

The sticking point is, again, the public option part of the reform bill. Without it, real reform seems close to impossible. But, never mind. Instead, some Democrats have suggested expanding Medicare to cover most, if not all Americans. This idea actually makes sense, and many others have also made this very suggestion. Back in September, I read an editorial piece by George McGovern, who strongly urged this very thing. It makes sense: Medicare is already a thriving concern, and, though reform of the system is necessary for its continued survival, it seems to get the job done. Root out the corruption, and it could actually be a model for other countries to emulate.

Currently, 29% of the U.S. population is covered by public insurance through either Medicare, Medicaid or the military, according to an AP article by Hope Yen and Frank Bass. Another 16 or 17% have no insurance at all. Why has it become so problematic to extend benefits to a little over half of all U.S. citizens? The percentage would probably be much less, if the new system were voluntary, since some of those persons have private insurance they are happy with, others are students covered by their college and still others are covered by various state programs. It would make much more sense, however, to have just one public system in which the rules are uniform and the paperwork less odious. Yet, no real headway has occurred in this respect. Why?

Perhaps when our lawmakers take a break from trading team members, we will find out. In the meantime, pressure from each one of us is necessary to insure that health care reform actually delivers the promise of "health care for all".

The Catholic Church Interferes With Health Reform

The Catholic church has now jumped on the bandwagon of those entities who, for some reason or another, feel entitled to dictate the terms of the health care reform legislation. Not only are these "special interests" being given a hands-on role in shaping laws that will affect every single one of us, they are supplanting the voices of regular Joes and Janes.

Unlike the insurance industry, big pharma, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. who put their money where their mouths are, the Catholic church is wielding clout without spending a penny. According to an AP article by Julie Hirschfield Davis, bishops managed to get language restricting abortion coverage into the legislation merely by threatening to influence the voting behavior of Catholics.

I have never liked the way the Catholic religion treats women. I am sure that there are many of the opinion, like myself, that the true position of this church and many "pro-lifers" is less a genuine concern for the zygote/embryo/fetus in question and more a desire to control the woman harboring it. Even though these bishops are all old men who will never have to face such an issue, they certainly seem to consider themselves experts on the subject. There are other niggling concerns about their involvement: Since they don't pay taxes, what gives them the right to try to influence legislation? Also-and this is a biggie-have they never heard of the "separation of church and state"?

This concern for "innocent life" comes from an organization that knowingly allowed and enabled pedophiles to masquerade as clergy in order to satisfy their perverted cravings, ruining countless young lives in the bargain. For decades after, as well, the Catholic church used parishioners' donations to pay out as hush money to keep this whole sordid affair secret. Only when victims reached adulthood and decided to seek redress through the courts did the whole business get a good airing. So much for saving innocent lives.

Of course, none of these interests could have such influence if they were not allowed to by our own government. Obama promised change, but so far Big Industry and Big Government are still indistinguishable. Now we can add Big Religion. I don't know about you, but this isn't exactly the type of change I'd envisioned.

Health Reform in Jeopardy, Thanks to Big Insurance

Once again, just as it looks as if this country might actually enact some semblance of health insurance reform, special interests restart their interminable bleating. Of whom am I speaking? Why, the health care insurance lobby, of course!

A Washington Post article by Ceci Connolly reports that, on the eve of a Senate Finance Committee vote on the $829 billion, 10-year health care reform bill, big trouble has erupted. Not among legislators, but between the Obama administration and the insurance industry lobby. They are claiming, for the hundredth time, that enactment of the bill will cause private insurance premiums to skyrocket. How can they possibly know that? Because they set the rates, that's how. Oh, and by the way, who made them such an integral part of this discussion, anyway?

The article says that Obama has spent much time and energy bargaining with various special interest groups. The carrot has been the promise of nearly 50 million new subscribers. That, apparently, is not enough. Lobbyists are complaining that not enough of these additional customers will be young and healthy (read: pure profits). They are worried because the bill would reduce penalties on those who don't immediately participate in the new insurance "requirements". To them, this means more older, sicker people will sign up, thus driving up costs (read: drive down profits).
Oh! Not that! Excuse me, but where is is written that government is required to guarantee private industry high profits?

Why are these lobbyists being given a spot at the bargaining table? Why are they privy to information that we, the taxpayers, are not? Here's the reason: Money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the health care industry has stepped up its charitable giving to legislators and won the number one lobbying spot. Nearly $134 million has been donated to the cause of the moment, health care reform. Or, more specifically, ensuring the failure of same. Well, I guess that explains their having such influence! Meanwhile, the rest of us poor stiffs, who surely have contributed more en mass to the federal coffers than those guys, get no say, it seems.
What a country!

It's common knowledge that the health care lobby, which include pharmaceuticals and insurance, was the reason for the Clinton's failure at health care reform 15 years ago. Have we learned nothing? Apparently. We are going down the same road, once again. The health care industry will preserve its stranglehold on this country and continue to collect obscene profits in the bargain. Millions of people will continue to suffer needlessly over the inability of this nation to create a workable health care delivery system. Now, that's what I call a victory.

Paying for Health Care Reform

The current debate about health care reform seems to have moved from lies and scare tactics (finally) to concerns about cost. How, conservatives ask, are we going to pay for this project? This is a pertinent question, since the current legislation calls for $900 billion over a ten-year period. Well, I have a suggestion: Let's cut back on war.


Without getting into whether the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were warranted or perceived to be winnable, let's just look at the numbers involved. A Los Angeles Times article from March 2003 describes the contractor feeding frenzy regarding federal contracts to rebuild Iraq. Right off the bat, these were offered as "cost-plus-fee" meaning, it seems, that the sky was the limit on profit margins. Bidding was done in secret, with most bidders enjoying close ties to the Republicans and the Bush White House.


An editorial in our local paper in August of 2006 speaks to the skyrocketing bills associated with the Iraq war. The Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction had just released a report, which featured Rep. Henry Waxman commenting, "We've squandered $50 billion". Equipment and weapons disappeared and meals never materialized ($88 million down the tubes right there) as Bechtel, Halliburton and their subsidiaries enjoyed feeding at the public trough.


Stuart Bowen Jr.'s 2008 audit brought even more good news: $100 billion had been spent on reconstruction efforts in Iraq, many of them of dubious quality. Some were never started, many more were terminated early. The money, apparently, was still paid despite the lack of results.


The National Priorities Project presents the grand total so far: $915.1 billion spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a request for $130 billion more pending in the 2010 federal budget. Let's see...over $900 spent in eight years, so the same amount spent over ten should be a breeze!


I know that war will always be with us, unfortunately. If we had saved only half the cost of these two conflicts over the past eight years, however, we would not be worrying about how to pay for health care reform now. This year, I suggest that we fund health care and use whatever is left over for war. Sounds like a plan.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Throws its Weight Around

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using its considerable clout to prevent forward motion on two issues of import to American workers:  Health care reform and the filling of three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board.

The conservative Chamber is using television ads to promote its website, ResponsibleHealthReform.org.  I checked it out and found it to be full of misinformation, stating a a government-run health plan would "control costs...by limiting access to health care treatments and delaying access to physician and hospital care". It states that a public option would increase costs for those with private insurance, if indeed those poor companies could survive in such an environment.   Now, never mind that these and other erroneous myths have been debunked by no less an expert than President Obama himself.  Or that mega-corporation Wal-Mart has recently come out in favor of health care reform.  The Chamber still persists in spreading these lies.  Why?

Well, it seems that they are worried about additional taxes on business.  All right, but business generally passes on those costs to consumers, so where's the problem?  If they are really concerned with fiscal pressure being put on average Americans, then why do they oppose a plan that would alleviate spiraling health care costs?

On the labor front, the Chamber of Commerce has become obstructive as Obama tries to fill three vacant seats on the National Labor Relations Board.  Since January of 2008, the NLRB has been stymied due to its lack of membership.  The Democrats would not fill those seats during the last part of the former administration, fearing appointments that would shift the Board entirely against labor.  Now the Chamber is calling for a hearing on one appointee, a former labor lawyer.  Gee, I wonder why.

The mission statement of the U.S.Chamber of Commerce is as follows:  "To advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility."  I think its members need to remember that trying to influence lawmakers to see their point of view through obstruction, lobbying and PAC contributions is probably not a responsible interpretation of its "mission".

Obama Tells Congress Like It Is

Last night, Barak Obama addressed the U.S. Congress and the nation to "set the record straight" on the issue of health care reform.  Since then, the talking heads have been discussing ad naseum every little detail of that speech, not that that's unusual.  There were a couple of unusual things about this speech, however, not the least being that Obama made it at all.

Obama, as he himself admitted, is not the first President to attempt this Herculean task.  Truman tried in the late 1940s as did the Clintons, disastrously, in the early 1990s. The difference between those former heads of state and Obama is this:  He's not backing down.  Not that I blame the other two for doing so, considering the flack they encountered.  But this is a different time, and Obama is a different person.  He gets out there and tells it like it is, in no uncertain terms.  If he says he'll "be the last" President to reform this nation's health care system, well, dang it, I believe him.

The other unusual occurence was the lack of courtesy shown Obama by  Republican Representative Joe Wilson.  I can't remember any other congressperson acting out in such a manner during a Presidential address.  Even Clinton, who was hounded non-stop by Republicans during his two terms in office, was never publicly shown such disrespect during a televised speech.  And all Obama is trying to do is reform the health care delivery system not for himself or those in congress, but for the American populace.

Even after the speech's concessions (it looks like the "public" part of "public option" is out) the Republican rebuttal by Rep. Charles Boustany still exuded peevishness.  Not willing to admit that the administration had ceded ground, Boustany's speech mostly bleated that both parties should "start over".  Well, sure.  I guess if I was getting paid whether or not I delivered any results, I'd feel that way, too.  What we need is for these guys to stop wasting taxpayer money and get the job done.  Let's hope Obama's speech will have that effect.

The Public's Option to Deny the Truth About Health Care Reform

Recently, the media has been full of the "town meetings" that congressional representatives have been participating in for the purpose of discussing health care reform.  Instead of disseminating much-needed information on the subject, these meetings have mostly been free-for-all shout-fests in which citizens deride their congresspeople for attempting to "bankrupt the country", foster a "government takeover of health care", and create "death panels" with the proposed reforms.  Lawmakers have faced hostile crowds that burn them in effigy, equate President Obama with Hitler and, outside a public forum in Connecticut, loudly suggest that Christopher Dodd take a "handful of painkillers" with a whiskey chaser to treat his prostate cancer.  Nice.  All because this administration is trying to come up with an alternative to the current health insurance status quo.

I've noticed something about the people who attend these meetings:  they are, for the most part, older.  By "older", I mean that they are Medicare recipients.  Is it possible that they do not know this?  If they do, do they not know that Medicare, in fact, is a government-sponsored, single-payer insurance plan?  That seems unlikely.  What then, is the genesis of their battle cry, "Keep government hands off of my health care"?  How can the government stay out of a plan that they administer?  Additionally, Medicare is not a choice; if you are 65 years of age, you participate, period.  As far as I know, the current reforms have never required anyone to segue onto the public option insurance, if it ever comes to pass.

Of course, if these persons are so fond of the Medicare program that they shout down any suggestion of change, then why wouldn't they want the same for their children, and their grandchildren?  Another question is why each forum seems dominated by the elderly.  Are these meeting being held during the day, when only retired people can attend?  Or has there been some quiet organizing going on, by parties unknown?  I really don't understand why these people are so intent upon derailing this issue, since it doesn't affect them directly.  Not that there is anything wrong with voicing your opinion about current events, whether they touch your life or not.  However, the vitriol being aired suggests that Obama is considering outlawing the Early Bird Special, rather than trying to make health care affordable for working-age people.

Now, I am of the opinion that, after 65 or more years on the planet, one should be able to discern truth from lies better than, say, an 18-year-old with much less life experience.  Ellen Goodman, in a recent editorial, has shed a little light on why elders are behaving this way.  I have always liked Goodman, who seems able to tell it like it is without being nasty or insulting.  She points out that the senior contingent was the only group not supportive of Obama's presidency.  Knowing that, Republicans have been courting them in an effort to overturn this latest attempt at reform.  A Republican-sponsored "Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights" is feeding this frenzy, inferring that the reforms on the table would provide health care for everyone younger than 65 only at a cost to Medicare.  Sure, Medicare reforms are also underway, the most positive of which entail closing the costly "doughnut hole" in  drug coverage.  There are no plans to ration coverage of any kind for older folks, or to force life-or-death choices on the frail.  These inferences are just untrue.

So, to older Americans, I say:  Please be a driving force for Medicare reform.  You know better than the rest of us what works and what doesn't in that program, and your voices should be heard.  But, please, please don't use your collective power to deny better health care delivery to those younger than you.  Your grandchildren will thank you for it.

Public Option: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow

One of Barak Obama's key campaign proposals was the overhaul of the current health care system.  Like many others, he recognized not only the need for change in this area but also the American citizen's desire for it.  Back then and even as recently as this past July, a publicly-funded insurance alternative to the current system was a cornerstone of this proposal.  Then the ranting and raving started (not that there's anything wrong with ranting).  This important piece of the puzzle went from being, in Obama's words, "...the best way...to force insurance companies to compete and keep them honest", to, less than one month ago, "...not the entirety of health care reform (but) one tiny sliver of it".  What happened?

Well, to put it simply, the Republican Party happened.  Or, more precisely perhaps, pressure on the GOP to scuttle this proposal in favor of "health insurance cooperatives" in lieu of a government-sponsored, single-payer system.  Do you smell a lobbyist here?  Now, I don't know that such a system wouldn't work, and I know that other countries use them with success.  However, according to T.R. Reid, author of "The Healing of America", his research of these co-ops has shown that the heavy hand of regulation is what actually makes them workable.  In other countries, these co-ops are not allowed to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions or deny payment for needed care.  If they try, the insured gets the next month's premium for free.  Now, there's a concept!  They are also not allowed to raise premiums on their own; if they do, they face steep fines. Have you heard of anything like this falling from the lips of those pushing this notion, though?  I sure haven't.

I admit that, besides this core issue, I'm in the dark as to what else is being considered in the arena of "health care reform".  Besides prescription drug negotiations to close the "doughnut hole" in Medicare, I really don't know what other reforms of our health care system are being discussed, and I've actually been paying attention.

Since no real reform seems imminent without a public alternative to private insurance, I think that all the other stuff (whatever it is) should be pushed to the back burner, at least for now.  Change coming in small steps is usually more palatable to most people, so, I say, just concentrate on the public option segment right now.  Too bad if the insurance companies and  "big pharma" don't like it--it's the one thing that will make the biggest, most positive change in the lives of most people.  And, ahem, isn't that supposed to be what this is all about?

"Death Panel" Propaganda Attempts to Derail Health Care Reform

As commonly occurs during debate surrounding legislation that would actually benefit the majority of Americans, a vocal minority creates a catch-phrase to try to tilt the scales of the discussion in their favor. Who are these people? Usually they are groups that stand to lose something (read: money) if the legislation goes forward without their input. The health care reform debate is no different.


I don't know who came up with the term "death panel" to refer to language regarding end-of-life counseling. I do know that somehow Sarah Palin, never afraid to say the most nonsensical things in a public arena, has become their poster girl, claiming that "bureaucrats" will be empowered to deny health care to persons such as her "...parents and ...baby with Down's Syndrome", based on how much these panelists feel such persons contribute to society. Huh?


Now, the foregoing is silly enough to be laughable if not for the fact that, apparently, people are believing this nonsense. Notwithstanding Mark Twain's famous comment on the American populace, I'm still reeling from the realization that educated adults actually think that their government is drafting laws to decide who lives or dies based on cost considerations. The language only requires that Medicare cover this counseling, which I understand to be things like pain management, hospice care, living wills, etc., if it is desired. How is this wrong or "evil"? Notable, too, is the fact that this language is not new, and has been supported by Senate Republicans. So, what's the problem?


Hopefully, those behind this ridiculousness will be exposed for the muckrakers they are sooner rather than later, so that the rest of us can get back to the necessary task of making health care available for all.