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.

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".

Senate Refuses to Consider Health Care Bill

Now that the House has finally passed the landmark health care bill, the Senate has stopped it dead in its tracks. Why? Because it contains the dreaded "public option", which would give all Americans a publicly-funded alternative to those vultures we call "private health care insurers". Why is this a bad thing? In the words of Joe Lieberman, I-CT, it's "a matter of conscience". Is this the same "conscience" that allowed Lieberman to accept approximately $1.5 million from the health care industry over the past few years? Give us a break.

According to an Associated Press article by R. Alonzo-Zaldivar, the problem that many Senators see with the bill is the idea of a government-sponsored insurance plan competing with private insurers. Well, it's about time they have some competition, wouldn't you think? Since they've been protected by their friends in high places from just such a debacle up to now, it certainly seems overdue. Of course, we never heard any conservatives railing against that issue during tirades about the "socialist" tendencies of a public option health insurance entity.

Earlier today, I heard yet another conservative senator stating that a public option would cause such a crippling national debt that successive generations would never be able to pay it off. Well, maybe our congresspeople could donate their contributions from lobbyists toward that end. Seriously, though, do you remember hearing any of this kind of talk while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were being planned? Or when our elected representative handed over nearly $800 billion in corporate welfare checks to inefficient, mismanaged mega-corporations? They passed that package so fast, I'm not sure there was even time to print all the rules and regulations involved. Which, I guess, is why there weren't any.

Lieberman also stated that he was against a public option for fear that it would become a large, expensive entitlement program. Well, shame on us for feeling as if we, as citizens of one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, are entitled to guaranteed health care coverage--even though we would be paying for it ourselves. Corporate bailouts? Now, there's an entitlement program!

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?