Beth's Health Care Reform Blog

A humorously serious look at life’s trials & tribulations,
American politics, religion, and other social madnesses by Beth Isbell.

Moderator: roxybeast

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 11th, 2009, 3:50 pm

Republican leaders and right wing commentators have been stirring up the crazies and lunatic fringe with bald face lies and fear mongering with outlandish claims that Obama supports death panels & the like. Republican leaders and right wing commentators have been stirring up the crazies and lunatic fringe with bald face lies and fear mongering with outlandish claims that Obama supports death panels & the like. Who needs government run death panels when we already have "for profit insurance company death panels? After all, everybody knows that "for profit" death panels kill much more efficiently and pay better dividends. The returns are just killer!

Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic & Policy Research:
"The lunacy was most clearly in evidence in former Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that President Obama's plan would force her to stand in front of a "death panel" to argue for the life of her baby with Down Syndrome. This "death panel" is a complete invention by Governor Palin. There is no twist or turn or contorted permutation of President Obama's plan that would prevent Ms. Palin from providing as much health care as she wants to her baby. ... Of course, there is absolutely nothing in President Obama's plan that resembles rationing. He certainly intends to limit the type of medical procedures that the government would fund, but opponents of the plan don't want the government to fund any procedures. So, how is restricting the procedures funded through a government plan rationing? Anyone who wants to is entirely free to buy as much health care as they want outside of the government-subsidized plan. Where is the rationing?" Full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-bake ... 56136.html
Howard Dean refutes Palin's sensational lies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-de ... 55878.html

Arianna Huffington ... health care reform without a public option, cost controls or a new focus on prevention is not worth passing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h ... 56127.html

A rational view of the problem:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-micha ... 56147.html

While Obama's plan contains no death panels, such panels do exist in the current system - every time insurers deny critical claims to enhance their profits. They do this daily! Consider this commentary by Kathleen Reardon, a Professor at USC's Marshall School:
"When insurance companies deny coverage to critically ill patients because of what they deem "pre-existing conditions," they sentence those people to misery and often death. And that has nothing to do with proposed health care reform. This travesty exists now. When acutely and chronically ill people are unable to purchase medicine because of exorbitant prices, pharmaceutical death panels have spoken. And again, this has nothing to do with universal health care proposals. When an infant is stillborn because of inadequate or nonexistent prenatal care, a cancer patient forgoes or is denied treatment because of costs, a family is forced to decide whose medical needs will be met -- whose postponed, don't tell me somewhere a death panel isn't at work. Sarah Palin is supposedly worried that people are going to die if health care reform occurs. They're dying now! Right under our noses! Instead of what could be, let's talk about what is. Instead of fiction, let's discuss reality. And instead of President Obama responding to wild attacks from fabricators as if deserving of reasoned responses, let's hear him describe the death panels we have now and how much worse it is going to get if only the lucky and the wealthy have health care."
I love this video commentary by Keith Olbermann slamming Palin for her "death panel" comments! You can watch it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 56207.html

Finally, some "angry town hall" & "death panel" comedy ... Healther Skelter & Baracknophobia:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... er-skelter

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... nel-debate

Laughed so hard I broke my funny bone ... which, btw, my insurance company just told me is not covered!

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 11th, 2009, 5:16 pm

Order the DVD & watch this excellent documentary from the History Channel on The Seven Deadly Sins: http://www.history.com/genericContent.do?id=61484


or watch clips from the program on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... type=&aq=f

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 11th, 2009, 6:26 pm

Since I quoted Trudy Lieberman in her discussion with Bill Moyers' in the main piece, here's a link to a series of really interesting and thought provoking current articles she has written on the subject of health care reform: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/trudy_ ... n_desk.php

Great new article in Business Week with an in-depth analysis of insurance company efforts to influence the outcome of health reform: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 820260.htm

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 11th, 2009, 8:48 pm

Send this link to your conservative friends opposing health care reform ... if nothing else, let's keep the right wing lunatic fringe from spreading more outlandish rumors about what reform means with a much needed reality check:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 11th, 2009, 10:00 pm

Great interview with Dr. David Himmelstein and Dr. Sidney Wolfe on what a single-payor public system would mean and how it would save money & reduce costs compared to the current insurance driven system. Just by eliminating most of the bureaucratic and administrative costs we could pay for coverage for all of the uninsured and underinsured: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html
BILL MOYERS: This time the health care industry acted more like Tony Soprano than Mother Teresa. It came after the Clinton reforms with one of the most expensive and deceitful public relations and advertising campaigns ever conceived.

MAN: Find what you like in the President's plan?

BILL MOYERS: Who could forget America's sweethearts, Harry and Louise?

WOMAN: It doesn't have the choice we want, look at this. The government picks health plans, then we have to pick a plan from their list.

BILL MOYERS: Paid for, of course, from the industry's swollen profits.

As the health care business dumped the mangled carcass of reform into the Potomac, they said once again, "Don't worry, we'll cut costs voluntarily." Sure. Now health care costs are rising 6 percent a year. Anyone with a memory could be excused for raising their eyebrows at these latest promises.

But leaving nothing for granted, the industry is pouring big money into lobbying, more than half a billion dollars last year alone, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. They're also shelling out megabucks for a publicity blitz and ads attacking Obama's public plan or any health care reform that threatens to reduce the profits from sickness and disease.

TV ADVERTISEMENT: With Congress starting on health care, let's remind the politicians, Americans know what works.

BILL MOYERS: This is from a group calling themselves Conservatives for Patients' Rights. They've been spending more than a million dollars on ads like this in the month of May alone. They've hired a conservative public relations firm called CRC. You remember CRC - the same high-minded folks who brought you the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the gang who savaged John Kerry's service record in Vietnam. Just who runs Conservatives for Patients' Rights?

RICHARD L. SCOTT: Let's have real reform that puts patients first.

BILL MOYERS: The guy in the ads. His name is Richard L. Scott, an entrepreneur who took over two hospitals in Texas and built the largest health care chain in the world, Columbia/HCA.

In 1997, Scott was fired by the board of directors after the company was caught ripping off the feds and state governments for hundreds of millions of dollars in bogus Medicare and Medicaid payments, it was the largest such fraud in history. The company had to cough up $1.7 billion dollars to get out of the mess. Scott got off - you should pardon the expression - scot-free. According to published reports he waltzed away with a $10 million dollar severance deal and $300 million worth of stock. So much for lower overhead.

Rick Scott and other like-minded industry representatives have made their views known. Meanwhile only a handful of expert witnesses in favor of the single-payer option have been allowed to testify in the many congressional hearings on health care reform held this year...

One of them was Dr. David Himmelstein, who is with me now. Dr. Himmelstein is on the faculty at Harvard Medical School and serves as head of the Division of Social and Community Medicine at Cambridge Hospital, where he practices as an internist.

He and his partner Dr. Steffi Woolhandler founded the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program.

Also with us is Dr. Sidney Wolfe, the acting president of the non-partisan group Public Citizen. He's been director of that organization's health research group since its creation in 1971. Dr. Wolfe also teaches internal medicine at Case Western Reserve and is a senior associate in the Department of Health Policy and Management at Johns Hopkins University. He edits the website worstpills.org.

Welcome to you both.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Nice to be here.

BILL MOYERS: Dr. Wolfe, I am puzzled as a journalist as to why this subject of single-payer, whether one is for it or against it, seems totally out of the debate in Washington. It's just not on the table. And it's not in the- on the radar screen of the press. Why do you think that is?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: I think the reason is, unfortunately, simple and frightening. Which is the power of the health insurance industry. Whereas, only about one out of 14 people trust the insurance industry as being honest and trustworthy.

BILL MOYERS: That's a poll?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: It's a Harris poll last fall. One out of 14 people think that the health insurance industry is honest and trustworthy. On the other hand, in Washington, they're in bed with the health insurance industry. Just as Wall Street and the banks have bought the Congress to get what they want in terms of the bailout, the health insurance industry has bought and influenced members of Congress and the President so much that they don't even consider the possibility of a plan that doesn't have a health insurance industry.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: That's the big problem here is people want to find a solution that they can get through without a big fight with the insurance industry. Unfortunately it's economically and medically nonsensical - you can't actually have a health care program that works, if you keep the insurance industry alive.

BILL MOYERS: Well, then how do you account for the fact that so many people in other polls say, "We're satisfied with what we have for health care, and we don't want it taken away from us"?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, people are satisfied many times with their doctor and with the hospitals they go to. And most Americans aren't sick and don't actually have experience of their health insurance. But when you get sick, and actually have to use your insurance, that's when people find out the dark side of the policies they have. Huge co-payments, huge deductibles.

We did a survey of people filing for bankruptcy in courts around the country. Half of the bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies in this country. And of those medical bankruptcies, three quarters of those people had insurance, at least when they first got sick. But people have insurance that goes away after they actually need it.

BILL MOYERS: But why in the dozen or so hearings that I've tracked in Washington recently on health care reform have there been so few advocates of the single-payer?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: The seats at the table, or the witnesses at the hearing are, in a sense, controlled by the health insurance industry. They don't want someone essentially saying, "We don't need a health insurance industry. We can do what most other countries in the world have done. Have the government collect the money and pay the bills and get rid of all these people who are wasting $400 billion a year on excessive administrative costs."

So, we have got a fragmented health insurance industry. And it thrives on being fragmented. The drug countries make much more money with the fragmentation, because there's no price control. The insurance companies make much more money, 'cause they can push away people who aren't going to be profitable. The only people that suffer are the patients.

It's- 1968, I was one of a group of physicians that disrupted the American Medical Association's convention, because they were saying then, and in, for all practical purposes it's still true, "Health care is not a right. It's a privilege." And we said, quietly, as we took over the microphone, "That's wrong." We're now 41 years later, and it's still a privilege. And too many people in this country don't have that privilege. It's resulting in huge numbers of people being ill, sick, and almost 20 thousand people dying a year because they don't have health insurance.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: And there's big money being made. I mean, that's the basic problem here. There are billions being made from the private health insurance industry, from the drug industry, and that gets spread around Washington. The biggest recipients of insurance money, of drug money, are the powerful people who chair the committees, who decide what witnesses testify. President Obama himself received huge amounts of insurance money.

BILL MOYERS: But then let's establish what single-payer is. Can you do that succinctly?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: It's what we used to call national health insurance. So government collects the money for health care from taxes, you don't pay premiums, instead you pay taxes, and pays all the bills. Hospitals remain privately owned and operated. Doctors remain mostly in private practice. But their bills go to the government insurance program, just as they do today with Medicare, but we'd be able to streamline the payment system if we had only one payer instead of Medicare being one among many.

So a hospital would get paid like a fire department does today. You have one check a month that pays for the entire operation. And that means you can eliminate the huge billing apparatus of the hospitals and the doctors offices where we're employing many people to do our billing. And fighting with insurance companies. You save $400 billion a year that way.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Here's an example of what David's talking about. Over the last 30 plus years there have been maybe two and a half, three times more doctors and nurses. Pretty much in proportion with the growth in population. There are 30 times, 3-0 times more health administrators. These people are not doctors. They're not nurses. They're not pharmacists. They're not providing care. Many of them are being paid to deny care. So, they are fighting with the doctors, with the hospitals to see how few bills can be paid. That's how the insurance industry thrives by denying care, paying as little out as it can, getting the healthiest patients, and yet getting reimbursed as though these patients were sicker than they really are.

So, it's a system that is guaranteed to waste a lot of money. And what we've said is that the amount of money that's just being wasted in one year is enough to pay for more than enough of the premiums for those that are uninsured and the people that are underinsured. So, it's not a matter of bringing more money. I mean, the industry is now saying, "We could save $2 trillion over the next ten years. Let us. Trust us. We will lower our costs and everything." The amount that can be saved over the next ten years by just eliminating the health insurance industry is $4 trillion, in one fell swoop.

BILL MOYERS: I've heard you say that several times. I've read you're saying it. We can do away with the health industry. I mean, them's fightin' words, a very powerful part of the economy, and they're a powerful part of the political statute, as David said.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: It absolutely is. And in Canada, back in 1970 or so, they were spending the same percentage of their gross national product as we were on health. They had huge numbers of uninsured people. They had the same insurance companies. Blue Cross Blue Shield. They decided to just get rid of the health insurance industry. That it was the only way to go. They had experimented with it in Saskatchewan ten years earlier. It worked so well, they couldn't wait to do it nationally. So, where there's a will, there's a way. There is no way we are ever going to get to having good health insurance for everyone, as long as there's a health insurance industry, in the way, obstructing care.

BILL MOYERS: What do you say to the argument, though, of people who've gone to Canada, and looked at that system. "Well, there are long waiting lines. You can't choose your doctor." In fact, conservative critics say that this will lead to what they dread which is socialized medicine. Would single-payer in fact mean I could not choose my doctor?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, in Canada, actually, you can go to any doctor, any hospital in the country.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Much more choice than here.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Yeah, Canadians have better choice than we do. They spend half as much per person on health care as we do. And if you're going to cut our budget by 50 percent, we'd have to have some waiting lines. But if we're willing to keep spending at our current levels, we could cover everybody with first dollar coverage with terrific access to care.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean first dollar coverage?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: No co-payment, no deductible. You go to the doctor. The whole bill is paid. Any doctor, any hospital in the country. That's the model. And that's not just me who says that. The Congressional Budget Office has said that in the past. The Government Accountability Office says we're spending enough to do that. And we're really talking about social insurance, like Medicare is social insurance. But doctors and hospitals remaining privately owned.

BILL MOYERS: That's a good point. Because we're struggling to manage Medicare's costs. Great alarm bells going off about the rising cost of Medicare. And are you here proposing more of the same?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, Medicare actually takes care of the sickest, most expensive parts of the system. And in a way, they subsidize the private insurers. They take the unprofitable patients off the private insurer's hands. But also Medicare has adopted the private insurance method of paying for care. So, instead of paying hospitals in a lump sum, without the bureaucracy, they subcontract with Blue Cross, basically, to pay the bills, band aid by band aid, aspirin by aspirin. And that's an inefficient way of doing it, that we ought to do away with. We could save Medicare huge amounts of money, as well as the rest of the system.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: I mean it's interesting, aside from the obvious health benefits keeping 18 thousand or 20 thousand people from dying every year, because they don't have insurance, they also- it's good for business. Because they are essentially taking some- it's not like a bailout for business, but its money that is going to relieve business of worrying about escalating costs, having to drop workers.

I mean, in this country, the response to these escalating costs is a number of employers say, "We just aren't going to have health insurance anymore." So, Canada has been a very good model. It's been going on for 38 years. Canadians would revolt, literally, if someone said, "We're going to take away your health insurance system."

BILL MOYERS: Am I correct in thinking on the basis of what I've read that with single-payer, the benefits would be publicly financed, as you just said, but that the health care providers would, for the most part, remain private?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: They certainly would. As would the hospitals.

BILL MOYERS: They wouldn't work for the state.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: No, no.

BILL MOYERS: They wouldn't get their salaries some...

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: In fact, private practice is more common in Canada than it is here in the U.S. And in the U.S., we're seeing more practices being taken over by big corporations. And people, basically, doctors becoming employees of large bureaucracies. In Canada, private practices remain the norm. And that's what we're saying ought to continue in the U.S.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: I mean, essentially it's socializing the financing. So, I mean, when people use this scare word "socialized medicine" I don't know what they mean. We have socialized libraries. We collect taxes, and we have libraries, we have socialized police. The financing is socialized. In those cases, they are working for a city. In this case, the doctors are in private practice. The hospitals are operating privately. And any patient- it's interesting the system is called Medicare, and so, everyone in the country has a Medicare card and that allows them to go wherever they want. They don't have this limited number of providers, which is getting more and more limited, as everyone who has health insurance in this country knows.

BILL MOYERS: Let me show you a video of what President Obama said in New Mexico the other day.

BARACK OBAMA: If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer based health care and although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is that the vast majority of people currently get their health care from their employers, and you've got this system that's already in place. We don't want a huge disruption as we go into health care reform where suddenly we are trying to completely reinvent 1/6th of the economy.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: When I hear something like that, you sort of have to say, "What about all the people whose health care is so disrupted that they can't even get in the door at all? What about the people that are underinsured?"

It's interesting, because before Medicare passed, which is in 1965, we had older people, either uninsured or going to private insurance. And within a year of the time Medicare passed, the disruption, meaning that they were actually able to disrupt not having health insurance or having under insurance, 90 percent of them were already in Medicare. So, we already have a model in this country of how non disruptive it is.

When you hear the word "disruptive" what you're really hearing is code for "it would disrupt the health insurance industry." And that's exactly what needs to be done. So, disruptive is the wrong word.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: And for doctors, patients, nurses, it's not disruptive. It actually frees us to do our work. But for the insurance industry, for people making $225 thousand a day as CEOs of insurance companies, yes, it's disruptive for them.

BILL MOYERS: You are both doctors, but are there many doctors like you in support of single-payer? Is there any evidence of their numbers?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, we actually started our group, Physicians for a National Health Program with just a few of us. But we now have 16 thousand members. So, there are a lot of doctors who are activists on this issue. But more than that, surveys are showing that most doctors support national health insurance-

BILL MOYERS: Why?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: ...at this point. Because our lives every day taking care of patients drive us to it. The paperwork, the bureaucracy, the game of mother may I we play with the insurance companies. All of those are not what we went into medicine for. We went into medicine, most of us, 'cause we wanted to take care of people. This system doesn't let us do that. And even my conservative colleagues, our organization has Republicans in it. There, at this point, single-payer supporters, 'cause they say "Let me practice medicine."

BILL MOYERS: I want to get your thoughts on President Obama's plan. As I read it, it's very difficult, at this moment, to know the details of it.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: 'Cause there aren't any details.

BILL MOYERS: There aren't any details. But he seems to be advocating a public option that would compete with the private insurance-driven sector, as a way of lowering the cost. What do you think about it? Is that- am I reading his plan correctly?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, most of the cost savings he's talking about are really illusory, I think. And my research group has done most of the research work on administrative costs in health care. And the administrative costs he's talking about saving are a tiny fraction of the potential savings under single-payer. 'Cause hospitals have to keep their bureaucracy, if you're dealing with hundreds of different plans. And doctors have to keep the bureaucracy in our office. You don't actually get the streamlining that you get from having one payer that has one set of rules and can pay lump sum budgets to hospitals. But more than that, we're worried that the public plan actually becomes a dumping ground for the unprofitable patients. As it's happening in Medicare.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean? How would that happen?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, the private insurers have all kinds of tricks to avoid sick patients, who are the expensive patients. So, you put your signup office on the second floor of a walkup building. And people who can't navigate stairs are the expensive people.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Get rid of the heart failure patients.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Or you have your signup dinners in a rural area at night, where only relatively healthy people are able to drive and stay up that late. So, there's a whole science to how you sign up selectively healthier patients. And the insurance industry spends millions and millions of dollars on that. And would continue to as they've done under Medicare. Selectively recruiting healthier patients, who are the profitable ones, leaving the losses to the public plan.

And there's really, despite regulations in Medicare that says you can't do that, that's continued to happen. And it means that every time a patient signs up with a private plan under Medicare, we pay 15 percent more than we would pay if that same patient were in the Medicare program.

BILL MOYERS: We the public?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: We the public. But it's not been efficient. It's been effectively a subsidy. And that's what we fear will happen with this public.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Well, we also have some experience. Because in seven states, ranging from Washington to Minnesota, to other states, Maine, they have tried what amounts to a mixture of a private and a public plan. And it's way too expensive as David mentioned. As long as you have private plans in there, everybody still has to do all the bookkeeping.

So, it has failed. I mean, as Einstein has said, the definition of insanity is doing something over and over and over again, and expecting to have a different result. We've seen the same unsatisfactory, unacceptable result, in state after state after state after state after state, why mess up the whole country with it?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: And I'm suffering through it as a doctor in Massachusetts, where we've done really the closest model to what Obama is proposing. And our plan is already starting to fall apart. They're already draining money out of the community clinics and public hospitals that have been the safety net.

BILL MOYERS: Let me read you a quote from this current issue of "National Review," which is quite critical of a public plan. "That failing Massachusetts experiment, like the failed Clinton health plan of 1994, relies on coercion, mandates, price controls, and government rationing. If comprehensive health care reform happens in 2009, it will follow suite and perhaps go even farther..." Here's the concluding punch line. And it seems to me to go to the concern of many people. "Universal coverage is impossible without coercion..."

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Well, if coercion means, just as for libraries, the policies you have to pay, hopefully progressive taxes. That is a minor amount of coercion. In return for which you get: everybody covered. I mean, it isn't as though the United States is right and all the countries that have provided health insurance as a right are wrong. We are wrong.

So the right wing can be all kinds of scare tactics everything, sounds exactly like what the same groups were saying in 1964. If we provide health care for older people in Medicare it's going to lead to socialized medicine and pretty soon we're going to have coercion and all that kind of stuff. They've lost that argument but so far they've won for the last 44 years in keeping it form going farther and farther means everyone needs to be covered. As Tony Mazzocchi, a former friend, who died a few years ago, said, everybody in, nobody out. And that's what we're talking about. And right now...

BILL MOYERS: Everybody in and nobody out.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Nobody out. Right now we have millions, tens of millions of nobodies, our friends, people who need health care, who are out. That's unacceptable.

BILL MOYERS: I don't want the two of you to get out of here without wrestling with this very fundamental question. We're going to have to set limits, are we not? I mean, President Obama said recently that a decision was made to go forward with a hip replacement for his grandmother, even though she was in the last stages of life. But he knew that whether a hip replacement, when people are terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. He was saying we have to make some tough choices about limiting care, don't we?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Somewhere down the line, we do. But at this point, we do so much useless and even harmful medical care. And we waste so much on bureaucracy. That we could actually do everything that we know is useful for every American for what we're now spending. Ten years from now, with my colleague's inventiveness in figuring out expensive new things to do. We're going to have to come to grips with that. But right now, we could reform this health care system. Do everything that's helpful for every American for what we're now spending.

BILL MOYERS: So, what would you like to see in Obama's plan?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Well, we'd like to see Obama remember where he came from. And not only say, "If we were starting now from scratch, we would have a single-payer, but it's too disruptive." Instead of saying, "We are starting out from scratch, because we need to start out from scratch. There are too many people dying, being sick, ill, because they don't have insurance." And so, we would like Obama to espouse a single-payer program. The majority of people in the Congress would vote for it, if there were some leadership. Instead of saying, "It's politically impossible." It's politically impossible if everyone agrees that it's not possible, it won't happen.

If instead they say, "It's not only politically possible, politically feasible, and it's the only practical way it would happen." Anything short of that is essentially throwing billions of dollars at the insurance industry. And if you're afraid of the insurance industry, than you're afraid of doing the right thing.

BILL MOYERS: What makes you say, Sid, that the Congress would vote for this? Because there is a bill in Congress, under 100 members of the House have signed it and not very many Senators. And just this week, you mentioned Maine, Olympia Snowe, Senator from Maine, says, I think we ought to take any public option off the table for several years. I mean, what gives you the confidence that Congress would go along?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: If we had leadership. If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama said, "Let's be realistic. The only realistic way of taking care of this problem is to have a single-payer." We would get it. There is absolutely no barrier other than the insurance industry.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: I guess the question is: do politicians actually want a legacy that's more than we got elected and made a lot of money for our later lives. So, you know, Tommy Douglas, who started the Canadian national health insurance program, his grandson is Kiefer Sutherland, the well known actor, was recently, in a Canadian survey, voted the greatest leader in Canada's history.

BILL MOYERS: The founder of the national insurance program?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Yep.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: And that's the kind of legacy that Barack Obama and the leaders of this Congress have an opportunity to create.

BILL MOYERS: So, what are you up against? Where is the balance of power in this fight in Washington right now?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: What we're up against, essentially, is the health insurance industry. They pick who sits at the table. They pick who votes. And so forth. I mean, we have a real absence of leadership. John Conyers, to his credit, has introduced HR676, which is a single-payer bill. Bernie Sanders has introduced a single-payer bill in the Senate. But the people who are on top, who could have an enormous amount of influence are too afraid of the insurance industry, the health insurance industry. And in some serious ways, they are as in bed with them as Wall Street and the banks were in bed with the Congress and have gotten their way, with their kind of bailout.

BILL MOYERS: What do the politicians have to fear from the industry? Does it come down just to the power of to the power of money? To the fact that campaign contributions really determine how elections go in this country?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, I think there are going to be campaign contributions. There are going to be massive TV advertising campaigns. There is going to be an avalanche of resources put into the field to try and protect the billions of dollars of profits they make each year. So, I think the politicians really are afraid that they're going to lose their elections. And lose the pot of gold at the end of their political careers.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Money buys Washington, as you know. So I think we need a whole new culture there, we need a culture of courage, as opposed to a culture of cowardice. We need people who feel the pain of families who lose 20 thousand, 18 thousand people a year. And those are probably conservative estimates, which are probably much higher right now. This is a serious thing. It is a war on the American public being conducted, orchestrated, and thus far won by the health insurance industry.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: I've been working on this for 30 years, and the encouragement is that the American people are much more mobilized than they were the last time we debated this issue. I'm old enough to remember that it looked like civil rights legislation was a lost cause, until we had Presidential leadership on it.

BILL MOYERS: Given that hope and these realities, what do you think will happen between now and August when Congress said it's going to act on health care reform? What should happen between now and then?

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, I think the American people need to be very vociferous in standing up for what they need and what they want. And that means calling their Congressmen. It means demonstrations. It may mean civil disobedience. It means doctors in white coats coming down to Washington and letting them know that, in large numbers how we feel. And frankly, we need the President and we need the Speaker of the House and the Leader of the Senate to find their voice for the American people.

BILL MOYERS: Sid, you've been watching this and involved in this since 1971. What happens if they pass comprehensive health reform that is really just more of the same in disguise? What happens to health care after that?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Well, the country, whether it's the employers who have to pay for it, or the patients who are paying for it, is going to go bankrupt much more quickly. It is not economically feasible to pass anything other than a single-payer, government collecting the money and paying the bills, and provide health care. It's never been done in any country. Taiwan, of all places, said, we don't like the fact that 40 percent of our people are uninsured. They passed, essentially, single-payer plan and within a few years 90-95 percent of the people were covered.

So, we have lots of models to draw on. Learn something from Canada, learn something from Taiwan, from a number of other places. It's inexcusable that we do anything but that. Anything that passes is not going to work. I guarantee that, 100 percent. And David will agree with me.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Well, and what happens is that the health care system gets worse and worse, fewer and fewer people can actually afford the care they need. And we will be having this debate again, unfortunately, relatively soon. And I guess I fall back to Winston Churchill's quote that you can always rely on Americans to do the right thing after they've exhausted every other possibility. So, that's what we're working on.

BILL MOYERS: David Himmelstein and Sid Wolfe, thank you again for being with us.

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Wonderful talking with you.

DR. DAVID HIMMELSTEIN: Thank you.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 12th, 2009, 5:26 pm

If you question whether the health care industry is behind efforts to de-rail true reform and give us a plan in the end which benefits them more than you, check out this site allows you to track expenditures by Health Care industry corporations on lobbying with information from opensecrets.org, maplight.org, and statistics from Fortune 500 list of top 500 companies:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102 ... file2.html

This is an interesting site which allows you to compare "side-by-side" the detailed provisions in all of the various health care bills and proposals currently on the table is a helpful place to start: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

And now, to the news ...

How about including the public option in the discussion? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abra ... 55247.html

Some nice videos & articles on how the health industry and right wing lobbyists are intentionally spreading and encouraging misinformation to try to de-rail health care reform:

Interesting video news report from Rachel Maddow at MSNBC on how large corporate PR firms led by Republican insiders and some of the wealthiest people in the world are directing and orchestrating health care protest rallies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct--N3hJfxs

Health lobbyists & right wing campaign to angrily disrupt town hall meetings being interpreted more and more by some as a call for violence and to bring hand guns to protests and town hall meetings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horw ... 55839.html

Great article in the Washington Post on how the health insurance industry is behind stirring up many of these angry protests:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health ... ncour.html

More from the Washington post on staging of protests:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... newsletter

Washington Post full report on health care reform with a lot of related articles on the current debate and protests:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health ... 9081101447

Anger at town hall meetings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygu ... 55273.html

Health scare mobs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostr ... 55404.html

Bullies at town hall meetings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-sma ... 57207.html

Right wing protesters at Sen. McCaskill's town hall meeting even went so far as to tear up a poster of civil rights icon Rosa Parks .... you've probably seen the footaghe of the black woman thrown out of her meeting with people cheering - here's what really happened she unrolled a poster of Rosa Parks to show a reporter and a right wing loonie comes over and tears it up -- that would make me angry too! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 57578.html (with video footage) Note: Sen. McCaskill did clarify in an interview on AC360 that all attendees were instructed not to bring posters into the hall, so that the motivation for the person who ripped up the poster may not have been race, but violation of the rule, even though the lady did not have the poster out & only showed it when asked by a reporter what it was ... guess we'll never really know for sure.

Pelosi: Angry level of protests in Un-American: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 55359.html
And conservative reaction to Pelosi's remarks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-sche ... 55694.html

All of which spurred President Obama to try to set the record straight and to call for more civility in these town hall meetings (with video of President's remarks): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... newsletter
And for the White House to create a new Reality Check website to help rebut all the disinformation:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

For a neutral unbiased look at the misinformation on both sides of the health care debate, you can continue to check this site at FactCheck.org, which criticizes Obama's cost claims as well as criticizing the disinformation being spread by right wing lobbyists & protesters:
http://factcheck.org/

More misinformation campaign: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jim-m ... 57472.html

Right wing claims of "Death Panels" are just a blatant lie: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-de ... 55878.html
Yet, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and other Republicans continue to endorse and spread these lies to scare the elderly into opposing health care reform: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 57677.html
The audio recording catches Grassley at a town hall meeting telling his constituents that the Democrats proposal will have the government involved in determining when to "pull the plug on Grandma" ... here's the quote of Sen. Grassley's comment:
"There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life," Grassley said. "And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before you're going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don't have any problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."
Sen. Grassley is a member of the "gang of six" that is heavily involved in the drafting of the critical health care legislation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-ka ... 57570.html

And Grassley is not the only top Republican to spread these lies, check out this interesting article about how Newt Gingrich is also doing so, even changing his position to contradict comments he made a few month ago, in his zeal to join in the new disinformation campaign: http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08 ... life-care/
The Gingrich strategy is familiar: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-gree ... 55681.html

Sen. Specter, who btw favors a single payor system, on the angry town hall meetings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 57235.html

Fox has taken itself out of being a reliable news source and turned into a propaganda machine for the lunatic fringe: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sir ... 56378.html

Some good news - Advertisers are pulling their ads from ultra conservative talk show host Glenn Beck's show - you can sign a petition asking more advertisers to do so: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-ruc ... 56724.html

I think Arianna Huffington is right, by looking for bi-partisan support and compromises in an effort to make everyone happy, President Obama may very well be jeopardizing any meaningful reform:
The White House has now shown itself willing to cave on the two essential elements of real health care reform -- drug price negotiations and having a public option. Both are crucial to containing costs. The right to negotiate drug prices is how free markets operate -- taking advantage of economies of scale and the bargaining power that comes with bulk purchasing. To give this up should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in a functioning capitalist system, as opposed to what we are increasingly becoming: an oligarchy of powerful interests. In the same way, having a public option is the only meaningful way to provide competition leading to lower insurance costs. The third fundamental element of real cost containment is getting serious about prevention -- shifting the focus of our health care system from treating sickness to preventing illness. Giving us health care reform without those key ingredients is like serving a PBJ sandwich without the peanut butter or the jelly.
Source/full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h ... 56127.html
Finally, some advice from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich on how & why we should fight against the health care industry and right wing disinformation campaign and supporting a viable public option:
The President needs to be very specific about two things in particular: (1) Who will pay? and (2) Why the public option is so important -- and why it's not a Trojan Horse to a government takeover.
(1) Admit that taxes will have to be raised and that cost-savings won't be sufficient to achieve nearly universal care. But be absolutely clear that taxes will be raised only be raised on the very top. He needs to decide whether he favors a surcharge on the top 2 percent, or a cap on tax-free employee benefits (which would affect only the very top), or some combination, and then announce which he prefers and why.
(2) Say unequivocally that the public option is essential for controlling costs and getting private insurers to offer people better deals, not at all a step toward a government takeover of health care.
- Being the one public plan, it will have large economies of scale that will enable it to negotiate more favorable terms with pharmaceutical companies and other providers. (Here, he must clear up any confusion about any deal made with Big Pharma.) But this won't lead to a government takeover of health care. The whole point of cost containment is to provide the public with health care on more favorable terms. If the public plan negotiates better terms -- thereby demonstrating that drug companies and other providers can meet them -- private plans can seek similar deals.
- It will have low administrative costs -- Medicare's administrative costs per enrollee are a small fraction of typical private insurance costs -- but that's no problem, it's a strength. One goal of health-care reform is to lower administrative costs. Competition with a public option is the only way to push private plans to trim their bureaucracies and become more efficient.
- While it's true that the public won't have to show profits, plenty of private plans are already not-for-profit. And if nonprofit plans can offer high-quality health care more cheaply than for-profit plans, why should for-profit plans be coddled? The public plan would merely force profit-making private plans to take whatever steps were necessary to become more competitive. Once again, a plus.
- The public plan won't be subsidized by government. Subsidies go to families who need them in order to afford health care. They're free to choose the public plan, but that's only one option. They could take their subsidy and buy a private plan just as easily. The public plan may not dip into general revenues to cover its costs. It must pay for itself. And any government entity that oversees the health-insurance pool or acts as referee in setting ground rules for all plans will not favor the public plan.
Source/full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-re ... 57825.html
Last edited by roxybeast on August 15th, 2009, 6:14 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 12th, 2009, 7:21 pm

A friend of mine who takes care of his elderly dying mother full time just told me that his stomach is now 5 times bigger than normal, looks like he's many months pregnant, but despite the pain & discomfort he can't afford to see a doctor or go to the hospital ... so instead he is choosing to suffer through it hoping it will either go away on it's own or land him in the emergency room ... that's the sad state of the current health care system!

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 12th, 2009, 8:11 pm

Here's another neutral unbiased site, like factcheck.org, that will help you analyze which claims by both political parties on health care (or any other major issue) are true or not true:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 12th, 2009, 10:21 pm

Just to be fair, the health care CEO's are not the only bad guys here, so this article focuses on the wall street executives that used government/taxpayer bailout money to pay themselves bonuses for their poor performance, and a judge willing to stand up and question their attempts to brush it under the rug: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-sc ... 57175.html

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20607
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » August 13th, 2009, 12:25 am

By Steven Pearlstein
Wednesday, August 12, 2009


Behold, a National and Rational Conversation on Health Care


Republican strategists and their media rabble-rousers cleverly thought they could dispatch their shock troops this month and kill health reform once and for all.

Instead, they're on the verge of generating what they've been desperate to avoid -- an urgent, national, rational conversation on how to make the health-care system fairer and more affordable.

To be sure, many details of health reform are still to be ironed out. But in the end, what is likely to emerge from this conversation is a health system that looks more like what President Obama has in mind than what Republicans have been peddling these past 15 years without any visible signs of success.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 13th, 2009, 6:37 pm

The best of today's national news coverage on health care reform!

The President of the American Medical Association (Dr. James Rohack, M.D.) in an interview on Larry King Live last night: "Simply put, if you don't have health insurance in America, you live sicker and you die younger!" (AMA supports H.R. 3200). AMA supports affordable quality health insurance for everyone - "the status quo is unacceptable for millions of Americans." AMA strongly supports elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions. (To see the full interview, download the Larry King 8/12/09 podcast from iTunes). It's interesting that all five of these expert doctors interviewed on Larry King noted that many doctors are discouraged by the fact and leaving the practice of medicine because their practice is governed by what is reimbursed and not what is scientifically or medically appropriate or indicated. All five of these imminent American physicians agreed that we have to find a cost-effective way to cover all Americans, drastically lower administrative costs and red-tape, and to pay for and encourage treatment focused on prevention and wellness, provide incentives to encourage healthy lifestyle changes, and rebuilding primary care!
How the White House’s Deal With Big Pharma Undermines Democracy
By Robert Reich, Aug 9, 2009,


I’m a strong supporter of universal health insurance, and a fan of the Obama administration. But I’m appalled by the deal the White House has made with the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbying arm to buy their support.

Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That’s basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it’s proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don’t know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven’t been made public.)

Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs. To be sure, as part of its deal with the White House, Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?
In return, Big Pharma isn’t just supporting universal health care. It’s also spending a lots of money on TV and radio advertising in support. Sunday’s New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that’s more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year’s presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.

I want universal health insurance. And having had a front-row seat in 1994 when Big Pharma and the rest of the health-industry complex went to battle against it, I can tell you first hand how big and effective the onslaught can be. So I appreciate Big Pharma’s support this time around, and I like it that the industry is doing the reverse of what it did last time, and airing ads to persuade the public of the rightness of the White House’s effort.

But I also care about democracy, and the deal between Big Pharma and the White House frankly worries me. It’s bad enough when industry lobbyists extract concessions from members of Congress, which happens all the time. But when an industry gets secret concessions out of the White House in return for a promise to lend the industry’s support to a key piece of legislation, we’re in big trouble. That’s called extortion: An industry is using its capacity to threaten or prevent legislation as a means of altering that legislation for its own benefit. And it’s doing so at the highest reaches of our government, in the office of the President.

When the industry support comes with an industry-sponsored ad campaign in favor of that legislation, the threat to democracy is even greater. Citizens end up paying for advertisements designed to persuade them that the legislation is in their interest. In this case, those payments come in the form of drug prices that will be higher than otherwise, stretching years into the future.

I don’t want to be puritanical about all this. Politics is a rough game in which means and ends often get mixed and melded. Perhaps the White House deal with Big Pharma is a necessary step to get anything resembling universal health insurance. But if that’s the case, our democracy is in terrible shape. How soon until big industries and their Washington lobbyists have become so politically powerful that secret WhiteHouse-industry deals like this are prerequisites to any important legislation? When will it become standard practice that such deals come with hundreds of millions of dollars of industry-sponsored TV advertising designed to persuade the public that the legislation is in the public’s interest? (Any Democrats and progressives who might be reading this should ask themselves how they’ll feel when a Republican White House cuts such deals to advance its own legislative priorities.)
We’re on a precarious road — and wherever it leads, it’s not toward democracy.

Source: http://wallstreetpit.com/9303-the-deal- ... hite-house
More criticism of promises to the drug industry: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-bake ... 54251.html

More Huffington Post Coverage:

Rebutting the 10 "Facts" About Health Care Posted by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) with ... The Truth! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-geym ... 53126.html

10 Reasons Why People of Faith Should Support Health Care Reform:
Hey, people of faith! Here are ten concrete, no baloney reasons for supporting healthcare insurance reform now!

U.S. healthcare insurance reform is a moral matter. Hindu or Jew, Christian or Jain, Buddhist or Animist, virtually all share the belief that we are here to make a difference. To build up the family of all humanity, to be our brother's and sister's keepers, to fight for the defenseless, the infirm, the poor, the marginalized -- the people without adequate health insurance. And, at the same time, we'll also be doing the future of the economy a good turn. Perhaps more than in the case of any other issue being debated, healthcare insurance reform is a matter of conscience, a matter of faith.

1. The "Free-market" ("free" for whom??) is not a dogma in any faith tradition. Health insurance, without a government-based public plan, will always cost more and deliver less. It's simple arithmetic and economics not politics or ideology. Just look at healthcare cost and delivery in America over the last fifteen years. Case closed! But there's much, much more...

2. Free market insurance makes its profit in two ways: increasing the price, minimizing payout; it's not magic -- it's just basic math. Do the rich have an obligation to the poor? Am I my brother's keeper? If I save one life do I save all humankind?

3. 14,000 people per day are loosing their healthcare insurance -- for numerous reasons. With the proposed reforms, that figure will virtually immediately go to zero. Will our "Higher Power" be pleased if we turn this down and leave these folks "by the side of the road?"

4. "Pre-existing conditions" will one day eliminate everyone from "free-market" insurance eligibility. That's simple logic. What will be "the choice" then? You can't have national healthcare policy that allows the elimination of people with pre-existing conditions. You can't have a world of "brothers and sisters" if we do that -- can we?

5. Incidents of government "incompetence and corruption," while certainly not unheard of, are much fewer than the incidents of "incompetence and corruption" in the free market. Here are two words to think about -- Bernie Madoff. Here's one more -- Enron. (Incidentally, American users of Medicare trust this government program much more than do the customers of any private, for-profit carrier.)

6. America is among the "free world's" leaders in healthcare technology development. Yet, we are among the worst in the "free world" when it comes to two things: universal delivery and our ability to contain costs. Who would want to pay more and get less? What about that "stewardship" thing?

7. With genuine healthcare insurance reform, the rate of increase of the nation's total annual medical bill will decrease; eventually, with careful oversight and management, the actual cost (measured as a percentage of annual GDP) will begin to decline. Again that pesky "stewardship thing" .

8. If you do a simple little research exercise you may be even more convinced that reform is necessary. Google "U.S.Healthcare Statistics." Roam around on several of the top 10-15 sites. You will be bobbing in a sea of information that will amaze and confound you. Is the U.S. really this bad? We are. You will leave convinced of this one fact: no other nation in the free world does this badly in providing healthcare to its citizens. There must be change. Now.

9. The largest uninsured group in the nation is the young. Of these people, perhaps the most alarming figure is the number of uninsured between the ages of 18 and 30. If one of these young, uninsured adults has a bad motor cycle accident (insert your own example if you like -- one that is likely to run up medical costs over many years, even decades) it is probable that this young person's family (very likely insured themselves, ironically enough) will slide toward financial ruin in an effort to provide provide for care over countless years. Does a society seeking to be just and compassionate stand for this situation?

10. What if we just stop listening to the voices of the insurance companies, their PR folks and lobbyists who have a lot to loose in this fight, and do the common sense thing -- help the President and Congress do what we sent them to Washington to do: reform healthcare insurance coverage in the U.S. now. Even faith demands it. Doesn't it?

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j- ... 57829.html
Town Halls Bring Out the Crazies & their Signs (with Slideshow):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 58693.html

Town Halls & Tea Party Madness: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mcqu ... 57502.html

Hate Groups Are Busy Recruiting the Obama Haters: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofar ... 58846.html

Examining the Right Wing Comparisons Between Obama & Hitler: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-h ... 53245.html

Despite No Truth to the Death Panel Claims - Sen Grassley & Sarah Palin Double-Down on Their False Claims & Ratchet Up the Rhetoric! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 58432.html ... and Sen. Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) Joins Them in Endorsing Death Panel Claims: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 58946.html

Polls Are Starting to Show That Republican Strategy May Actually Be Backfiring: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-kle ... 53137.html

Four Creative Ways You Can Fight Back Against Right Wing Rent-A-Mobs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann ... 52974.html

Fight Back Against Health Insurance Lies with ... The Truth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-gr ... 53321.html

Health Care Is a National Security Issue? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b ... 40147.html

Democrats Are Using Wrong Language to Sell Health Reform: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blaise-ze ... 58859.html

Dr. Mark Lyman - What Matters Most in to Really Reform Health Care Is Missing from the Current Proposals: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-h ... 15008.html



Washington Post Coverage:

The Take: What They're Really Arguing About:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03164.html

The Great Health Care Debate (with links to all related Post stories): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02450.html

Washington Post Town Meeting on Health Care with views from both sides: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01986.html

NPR Coverage of the Health Scare Protests:

GOP Welcomes Return of the Angry White Male: http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/2 ... e_ang.html

Kill Grandma? Debunking of a Health Scare Tactic: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =111729363

Racist Messages, Attacks Infect Health Care Debate: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =111801762

Lies Being Spread About Health Care Reform:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =111801758

The Nation: Race, Lies & Health Scare:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =111489380

Finally, some foor for thought ... under the Bush administration, the wealthiest 1% had some of the largest gains in wealth in history, while the middle class and poor fell farther behind: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-ber ... 56898.html[/i]
Last edited by roxybeast on August 14th, 2009, 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 13th, 2009, 6:40 pm

Leading Conservative Economist Bruce Bartlett (who was one of the original supply-side Economists) Says that The GOP and the Obama-Hating-Town-Hall Mobs Are Focusing Their Anger on the Wrong President -- The Person The Should be Angry With Left the White House Seven Months Ago!
The GOP's Misplaced Rage
by Bruce Bartlett


Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama’s inauguration.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.

I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily.

Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007—long before Obama was even nominated. And the previous recession ended in November 2001, so the current recession cannot be blamed on cyclical forces that Bush inherited.

Indeed, Bush’s responsibility for the recession is implicit in every conservative analysis of its origins. The most thorough has been done by John Taylor, a respected economist from Stanford University who served during most of the Bush administration as the No. 3 official at the Treasury Department. In his book, Getting Off Track, he puts most of the blame on the Federal Reserve for holding interest rates down too low for too long.

While the Fed does bear much responsibility for sowing the seeds of recession, it’s commonly treated as an institution independent of politics and even the government itself. But the Federal Reserve Board consists of governors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Because the president appoints the board, he has primary influence over its policies. This is especially the case for chairmen of the Fed appointed by Republicans because they often have ties to Republican administrations. Chairman Ben Bernanke was originally appointed as a member of the Fed in 2002, serving until 2005, when he became chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the White House, a position that made him Bush’s chief economic adviser.

As early as 2002, a majority of the seven-member Federal Reserve Board was Bush appointees, and by 2006 every member was a Bush appointee. While many critical decisions about monetary policy are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, the board’s position always prevails.

The Treasury secretary also has had breakfast with the Fed chairman on a weekly basis for decades. Consequently, most economists generally believe that every administration ultimately gets the Fed policy it wants. Therefore, one must conclude that if there were errors in Fed policy that caused the current downturn, it must be because the Fed was doing what the Bush administration wanted it to do.
To the extent that there were mistakes in housing policy that contributed to the recession, those were necessarily committed by Bush political appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other agencies. To the extent that banks and other financial institutions made mistakes or engaged in fraudulent activity, it was either overlooked or sanctioned by Bush appointees at the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and elsewhere.

But in a larger sense, the extremely poor economic performance of the Bush years really set the stage for the current recession. This is apparent when we compare Bush’s two terms to Bill Clinton’s eight years. Since both took office close to a business cycle trough and left office close to a cyclical peak, this is a reasonable comparison.
Throughout the Bush years, many conservative economists, including CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, extravagantly extolled Bush’s economic policies. As late as December 21, 2007, after the recession already began, he wrote in National Review: “the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.” In a column on May 2, 2008, almost six months into the recession, Kudlow praised Bush for having prevented a recession.
But the truth was always that the economy performed very, very badly under Bush, and the best efforts of his cheerleaders cannot change that fact because the data don’t lie. Consider these comparisons between Bush and Clinton:

• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.
• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.
• Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.
• During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.
• Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.

Conservatives delude themselves that the Bush tax cuts worked and that the best medicine for America’s economic woes is more tax cuts; at a minimum, any tax increase would be economic poison. They forget that Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year. Indeed, one could easily argue that the enactment of that legislation was a critical prerequisite to recovery because it led to a decline in interest rates. The same could be said of Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which many conservatives predicted would cause a recession but led to one of the biggest economic booms in history.

According to the CBO, federal taxes will amount to just 15.5 percent of GDP this year. That’s 2.2 percent of GDP less than last year, 3.3 percent less than in 2007, and 1.8 percent less than the lowest percentage recorded during the Reagan years. If conservatives really believe their own rhetoric, they should be congratulating Obama for being one of the greatest tax cutters in history.

Conservatives will respond that some tax cuts are good while others are not. Determining which is which is based on something called supply-side economics. Because I was among those who developed it, I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject. According to the supply-side view, temporary tax cuts and tax credits are economically valueless. Only permanent cuts in marginal tax rates will significantly raise growth.

On this basis, we see that Bush’s tax cuts were pretty much the opposite of what supply-side economics would recommend. The vast bulk of his tax cuts involved tax rebates—which failed in 2001 and again in 2008, because the vast bulk of the money was saved—or tax credits that had no incentive effects. While marginal rates were cut slightly—the top rate fell from 39.6 percent to 35 percent—it was phased in slowly and never made permanent. Neither were Bush’s cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes.

I could go on to discuss other Bush mistakes that had negative economic consequences, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed a massive regulatory burden on corporations without doing anything to prevent corporate misconduct, and starting unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will burden the economy for decades to come in the form of veterans’ benefits.

But there is yet another dimension to Bush’s failures—the things he didn’t do. In this category I would put a health-care overhaul. Budget experts have known for years that Medicare was on an unsustainable financial path. It is impossible to pay all the benefits that have been promised because spending has been rising faster than GDP.
In 2003, the Bush administration repeatedly lied about the cost of the drug benefit to get it passed, and Bush himself heavily pressured reluctant conservatives to vote for the program.

Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama's initiative while proposing nothing themselves.

In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting.

----------------------------------------

Bruce Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders, helping draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was a leading Republican economist. He now considers himself to be a political independent. He is the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy . His latest book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in October.

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... rage/full/

User avatar
Arcadia
Posts: 7933
Joined: August 22nd, 2004, 6:20 pm
Location: Rosario

Post by Arcadia » August 13th, 2009, 8:24 pm

Obama as Hitler?? :shock: well, at least is first sight funny!!!!

it seems there are people really afraid of what a public health system can cause in the USA ... it´s quite probably they are somehow sincere... I guess that doesn´t make things easier!!! :lol:

see:
http://www.lacapital.com.ar/contenidos/ ... _0033.html

:roll: mmm...here the inversion that the government make is not enough and now the debate is basically around fútbol

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 13th, 2009, 11:13 pm

New Southern Poverty Law Center Report - "Terror from the Right" ... documenting the growth, spread and activities of far right hate groups:
http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=383

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » August 14th, 2009, 1:28 am

I ran across this amazing article by a minister no less claiming that based upon biblical doctrine, God and Jesus would be opposed to health care reform. Truly unbelievable! Here's the link: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/bresciani/090813

Here is the rebuttal I sent to Rev. Bresciani - let's see if he and his publishers will actually acknowledge the truth and publish it!
Rev. Bresciani:

How can you turn biblical teaching into claiming that God or Jesus would not support providing health care to all Americans, wealthy or poor? Jesus was one of the biggest proponents of taking care of the poor and needy in society, which is evident in his actions and all his teachings. If you read his every word in the new Testament, as I have, you know that he saw greed as a perhaps the most invidious of human evils. Yet, the health care industry CEOs make 7-8 figure salaries and their corporations have increased their profits 400% and make hundreds of billions in revenue based on policies purposefully designed to deny coverage, even for those with insurance, in order to maximize profits. Meanwhile while 46 million Americans are denied health insurance and 22,000 Americans die every year due to lack of insurance. The head of the AMA said just last night on Larry King that "Simply put, if you don't have health insurance in America, you live sicker and you die younger!" The conduct of these health insurance corporations and their wealthy executives directly violate most of the seven deadly sins, which as you know has been adopted by the Catholic Church as part of church doctrine. Almost all imminent American physicians agree that we have to find a cost-effective way to cover all Americans, drastically lower administrative costs and red-tape, and to pay for and encourage treatment focused on prevention and wellness, provide incentives to encourage healthy lifestyle changes, and rebuilding primary care! Your article distorts provisions, proposed by Republicans, in one of the current legislative proposals to pay to cover the cost of a doctor counseling families with questions about end of life concerns regarding a loved one in a coma or other tragic circumstances into death panels for the elderly, a claim which has been denounced as untrue and pure nonsense by neutral unbiased fact checking organizations such as factcheck.org and politifact.com. The bottom line is that there is no way that Jesus would support denying health care to anyone while at the same time rewarding pure greed of these companies and their rich CEOs. For you to distort biblical teachings in this way is just purely shameful. To the extent you have a license to teach religious doctrine of any sort, it should be revoked!

Your Christian readers can find many great resources devoted to the true need and facts regarding health care reform at this blog: "Health Care Reform & the Seven Deadly Sins" which is updated regularly with the most accurate articles and resources on the real issues surrounding health care reform and presents the issues from the true Christian perspective consistent with Jesus' teachings. http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=16924

Beth Isbell
Oklahoma City, OK
roxybeast@hotmail.com

Rev. Bresciani was kind enough to respond and here is what he has to say:
Dear Beth,

Thanks for your comments.

I am not against healthcare, only against government run health care that provides assisted suicide for the elderly and a government rather than a doctor deciding who will and who will not get care.

I'm glad you have read my article but perhaps you should rather read the bill itself, your opinions may change.

This kind of govt healthcare has pretty much failed in all the other
nations that have tried it. I give Americans more credit for being
innovative and believe they can find a better way if greed doesn't get in the way.

Respectfully,
Rev Michael Bresciani
ampro@americanprophet.org
www.americanprophet.org
And this was my response to Rev. Bresciani's recent e-mail:
Dear Rev. Bresciani:

I've read the various proposals and NONE provide for "assisted suicide for the elderly" - that's pure spin. Nor do any of them provide for bureaucrats to make medical decisions for doctors - more spin. The reality is that doctors overwhelmingly favor reform. More and more of them are leaving the practice because of all the nightmarish red-tape that these corporate bureaucracies have created. A lot of them would prefer the ease and simplicity of a single-payor system.

You're article pushes people to oppose any reform and to support the current system where corporate bureaucrats do actually interfere with the choices doctors can make every day for nearly every choice.
You "claim" other countries systems have "failed," but that's not true either. To be certain, no system is perfect, but the reality is that England and Canada spend half as much of their GDP on health care as
the US, cover all their citizens, and still rank significantly ahead of the US in their level of care. France, which has a hybrid system of nationalized health care, ranks #1 in the level of care provided to patients. We certainly can and should strive to learn from and incorporate the best of their experiences.

What I really object to is you're twisting of the bible to oppose health care, and frankly, to scare the elderly. I pointed out that Jesus frequently rails against greed when he is quoted in the New Testament, and that the corporations and their CEOs running the current system you support frequently engage in greed and purposefully set in place policies to deny coverage, deny preventative care, and deny valid claims to enhance profits and their luxurious lifestyles, and you just choose not to respond, rather than acknowledging this truth. Jesus would not be in favor of denying health care to anyone, nor would he favor 22,000 Americans dying annually due to lack of insurance. Do you disagree? And if so, based on what portion of his teachings?

I challenge you and Ampro to actually have the courage to publish my earlier remarks and these remarks, and simply let your readers decide. I doubt that you will have the courage in your convictions to do so.
On the other had, if you look at my blog, I actually published your article and my response to let folks make their own decision. See for yourself: http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=16924

If you personally want to oppose reform, fine, but for you to twist the Bible to push folks to oppose health reform is sacrilege.

Beth Isbell
roxybeast@hotmail.com
------------------------------------

After originally posting this article today, I received this response from Rev. Bresciani:
> Dear Beth,
>
> I never twist the Bible for any reason. I declare what it says and the
> rest is up to the hearer. I'm not sure what bill your reading but the one
> actually proposed requires doctors to examine elderly every five years
> with an eye toward offering them a chance to take part in a termination.
>
> This is only one aspect of the bill that is ridicoulas not to mention the
> cost.
>
> Lets not debate about this forever. You think the bill is OK, I think it
> is seriously flawed and ultimately headed for failure. If it should pass I believe it will result in our failure.
>
> Rev MB
To which I provided this reply:
Rev. Bresciani:

Send me the link to that particular provision in the bill ... if it exists.
I'm familiar with all the pending legislation, and it's not in there.
Here's a link to the neutral, unbiased, organization factcheck.org,
which specifically looked into the issue and determined that claims
that the "House Bill requires suicide counseling" and that "Government
will determine what care I get" are just patently false! Here's the link:
http://factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-fals ... alth-care/

While I support reform, I don't support any of the current proposals,
which have been gutted by health care industry & pharmaceutical lobbyists. I support a single payor system which promotes prevention & wellness.

You claim that you are not twisting the Bible to oppose health care reform or frighten the elderly, but in your column you specifically state that Jesus "unequivocally" "address(ed) this seemingly modern or contemporary issue," and then after citing some neutral verses about how Jesus favors life, is life, and will carry the elderly in their time of need, spin that into drumming up support to oppose Obama's efforts to reform health care based signals "worse the death of yet more disposable Americans" and "now will we add the emotional strain of knowing that those around them see them as expendable, disposable?" and "without being offered a means to end their lives by government." And to make your elderly readers even more afraid, you end with "No, President Obama, we will not trade the dignity of our elderly Americans for the chance to sit in a room full of hand picked people who are only enamored with your dignity be it feigned or real." None of which is supported by the Biblical verses you cite, anything actually in the bill, and is just purely false as per factcheck.org

Yet you have the nerve to claim "I never twist the Bible for any reason. I declare what it says and the rest is up to the hearer." I beg to differ. Your actions show otherwise. By the way, as a pastor, you know that deceit is a sin, and your obligation now is to correct your misstatements since you now know that no bill promotes elderly suicide. Let's see if you actually do the Christian and moral thing and actually correct your remarks.

Publish my remarks to your readers and let's just let them decide ...

Beth Isbell
roxybeast@hotmail.com
----

Update 8/20/09 ...

Well, as you might expect, Rev. Brescani continues to spread lies to scare old people and rile the anti-abortion folks into opposing health care reform. Here's a quote of his latest "fear-mongering":
We have already begun a trek into the slaughter of the innocent unborn and are presently considering the idea of assisted suicide as being offered in the Obama health care proposals. These ideas, inclinations and life threatening ideas are coming from a Godless socialistic ideology not from adherence to Christian principles.

Here's a link to his full article: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/bresciani/090820
As I mention in a later post, perhaps the founding fathers who he quotes so liberally as favoring involvement of Christian principles in Government actually saw it as their duty to provide health care to all members of their society as part of their compact with their maker. Here's a link to my post on the Founder's views on health care: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=121962492350
Last edited by roxybeast on August 20th, 2009, 9:12 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Post Reply

Return to “The Pregnant Pope”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests