This Wretched, Reckless Approach to Health Care: It's Killing Us
We may be slow learners, but the rest of the industrial world has figured it out: Universal, single-payer or national health care systems. That's the reason why all those other countries cover everyone, have better patient outcomes, cause no one to declare bankruptcy or lose their homes because of medical bills, and spend less than half per capita on health care than we do.
We could do it too, by reducing the starting age for Medicare from 65 to 0. There's still time to act. - Michael Moore, Huffington Post, 9/29/09 _____________________________________________________________________
It doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter what Robert Reich says. It doesn't matter what Bill Moyers says. It doesn't matter what Wendell Potter says. It doesn't matter what Michael Moore says:
(See it here.)
It doesn't matter what Jay Rockefeller says. It doesn't matter what Anthony Wiener says. It especially doesn't matter what Barack Obama says.
What matters is this: We, the citizens and taxpayers, may win a skirmish or two, but in the end Big Business will win the battle. They owned us yesterday, they own us today, and unless we finally get wise and get tough, they'll own us tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
They own us because they've ceaselessly, endlessly, without thought of the consequences, bought and paid for the loyalties of the majority of our elected officials.
We haven't quite come to terms with it yet--mainly because we can't quite believe it. We expect that sort of maneuvering by the Republicans. Going against the Common Good in favor of the capitalists is in their DNA. They apparently can't help it.
But the Democrats? The Democrats. The Blue Dogs--those dirty dogs--have sold us out. But the Blue Dogs aren't the only ones. Not by a long shot. On the Senate side, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Bill Nelson and Tom Carper all voted against the public option. Not surprisingly, they've all had their fingers in the Health Care honey pot. According to Raw Story, those five senators have up to now received some 19 million dollars from the opposition to health care reform. That opposition being, of course, the Health Care industries. Those industries, I have to remind myself, that are devoted to caring for our health.
Sixty votes is the magic number. Sixty Senate "yea" votes means a filibuster-proof passage. It's the number that, if it isn't there, stops everything. Convenient, isn't it? It means even those who side with the insurance companies but don't want to admit it have an easy out. "Can't vote yet because we don't have the 60." Okay. So what?
Where are the Dems who, if they're too cowardly to go for Single Payer, will at least put the vote for Public Option out there? If it's voted down, after jawing about it for hours or days or weeks, then start all over again. Put it out there again. And then again. Wear those filiblustering bastards down.
Millions of sick people are without a safety net. People who could be saved are dying here. There is no reason, save greed, that we don't have a government-sponsored health care system. I know it. You know it. We all know it. If it's not in our budget, then shame on them. They built that bloated budget on taxpayer money coerced from us through fear and outright lies. Now that we need it for actual Common Good, they're going to pretend it's asking too much. No. They've asked too much of us for too long. Now it's payback time. They owe us.
So what are we going to do about it? How long does this conversation go on? There are people in our government who are intent on holding this up, and they're out there openly, blatantly, recklessly, holding this up. We know who they are. And they know we know who they are. And they don't care.
So what are we going to do about it?
Good God. . .are you as sick of this as I am? Enough, already. There are some enormous asses out there for the prodding, so. . .where the hell is my pitchfork?
Ramona
(cross-posted at Ramona's Voices here.)
I was speakin with my son this weekend. I told him that it is undeniable that fifty million Americans cannot cook a hamburger.
Most people in this country receive their meals from other places than their kitchens most days of the week.
Do we really wish to have the most under diagnosed people fixing OUR FOOD?
We must have universal coverage just to protect us from OUR OWN HAMBURGERS.
NO JOKE
October 4, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The type of insurance I receive from my past employers and my current personal policy require me to pay first, the fill out paper work with receipts and wait for a refund(or whatever it's called). Currently, I have a $2000 deductible(not by choice) and can't expect a refund for any medical expanses until the deductible is satisfied.
I would be better off not having the insurance, just paying in cash and budgeting the cost of medial care - it would save me $4500 a year in premium payments which could be used to offset medical expense.
So the only real insurance I need would be catastrophic - car, bicycle, recreational sports, tourist or personal medical breakdowns, like cancer, diabetes, heart disease and so forth. One would hope it would be cheaper than $4500 a year.
October 5, 2009 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
ooops! That was suppose to be a general comment.
October 5, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh, DD. I've never thought of it like that. Hmmmm. . . .
Will we need to barricade ourselves in our own homes? Or, at the very least, stay away from those hamburger windows? It could get to that.
October 4, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF YOU WORK YOU MUST SEE YOUR DOCTOR ON A REGULAR BASIS.
Period. And it is paid for from your health care provider.
PERIOD.
the end
You betchya!!!!!!!!!!!
October 4, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can use my pitchfork, Ramona.
Yes indeed, maybe it's time we starting talking restitution
Hold those responsible for out and out thievery in the only way they will care about. Not another dime until they pass single-payer. No contributions whatsoever, and boycott the health insurance companies. Pay cash.
Pull your money out of banks, out of the Stock Market, use a credit union.
Start tomorrow.
October 4, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm very sick of it, Ramona. My pitchfork is not very sharp anymore. It's a little bit rusty and one of the tines is broken. It's probably gonna hurt some when I start poking at enormous asses. Not prod. POKE.
October 4, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rusty pitchforks are even better! And yes, POKE is much better than prod.
But I really think it'll take a whole lot more. I just don't know what that "more" is yet.
Any ideas?
October 4, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great ideas, Bwak. We haven't used a bank for more than 30 years. Credit Unions are the ONLY way to go. It's a whole different world.
Organizing a boycott against insurance companies is a really intriguing idea. I don't think we'd get many takers, but just think of the chaos! I wish there was a way to get back at them without stacking bodies in the emergency rooms. I want to know why their actions aren't illegal. What about fraud? Misrepresentation? Criminal intent?
Where are the lawyers when we need them? Hey, DD. . .what charges can be used against them?
October 4, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the childish tone here proves why -- no one takes seriously the child who stomps her feet and threatens to hold her breath until she turns blue.
There are several things that many on TPM don't get:
a) the people here tend to be on the extreme dogmatically left end of the spectrum; and therefore most people don't agree with either them or their motivating arguments
b) some here are politically naive about how the system works (reading the papers doesn't make one educated)
c) many here are of the same demographic (50 or older/retired) and therefore no longer are involved with recent trends in the country (conversations concerning "new" technology are usually a dead give-away, but some of the old arguments from the 70s (old school feminism) or 60s (how inspiring RFK was) also indicate a lack of keeping up with the culture)
This amounts to the grandest of running in circles yet. Hand wringing with no action.
I have yet to see arguments that are better than "we are our brothers' keepers".
This will not fly. It doesn't matter how righteous you think you are.
If you want to see how this looks to others, just imaging the holy rollers screaming about the need for prohibition.
That's how you look.
If you want to see the future, look at California. The state is already cutting back on programs that provide the safety nets to the poor. Why? There is no money for it.
How quaint to talk of pitchforks. I'm sure it makes you feel good. But the fact remains that most here would never actually take one up -- especially those who espouse this technique the most.
Take money out of the banks? No one cares about your savings. They amount to nothing. Don't use credit cards? How stupid! The charges for the cards are already built into the prices you pay since the assumption is you are using the cards.
Your fantasy act of rebellion has no teeth, pitchforks, money, or otherwise.
October 5, 2009 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
A column like this wouldn't be complete without a lengthy ad hominem filled with nonsense by someone who calls himself something like "clearthinker". I guess thinking can be a lot clearer if you don't clutter up your head with facts and so on. I'll have to give that a try sometime - it must be marvelous to be able to have unimpeded thoughts about things.
October 5, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are several things you don't get too, clearthinker.
For simplicity, I'll stick to one general concept. Rolling back the GW Bush tax cuts will pay for any health care reform we need.
Returning to tax rates anywhere near the pre-Reagan days would do far more than that.
October 5, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's plenty of money. It's just not being taxed.
October 5, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona I have posted on this already but I feel that congress and the administration has highly overestimated our willingness to accept a mandate without a real, robust public option available to all.
Will the majority that wanted single payer health care and got sold a bill of goods about how we needed a public option, now accept a mandate to purchase insurance if we are not given the choice of a public option?
The public option was touted as a way to preserve choice for those who wanted to keep private insurance. It is only fair then that there is a public option to preserve 'choice' for those who do not want to purchase insurance from the very providers that have brought us the current system... and would not have changed it without government intervention.
I recommend letting your reps know if you are not willing to accept the mandate without a public option.
October 5, 2009 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the more appropraite declaration is they own the U.S. Congress. That desperately needs to be changed.
The notion of corporate citizenship is a seriously flawed legal opinion that in some way needs to be stricken from the lawbooks. I think the only way this will happen is through a grass roots effort to introduce legislation focused at that goal. Nothing will ever change until that changes.
However, I don't know how to overcome the Roberts court on this. The SC as it stands right now will never rule in favor of citizens where there is contention between citizens and corporations. While the pecking order remains corporations #1 and citizens #2 things will stay screwed up. This corrupt legal contrivance is the root cause of so much of what has gone wrong and that is where the change has to occur.
October 5, 2009 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
tpc, it took a long time for them to gain a total corporate takeover and I'm afraid it's going to take a long time to get this country back. But we can't sit back and do nothing anymore.
Right now we have no power. None. When I look back at the Bush years (which is as little as possible) what I remember most is how easily ethics and morality took a back seat to greed.
Obama rode in on a platform of change, but if the gears are moving at all, they're moving at a snail's pace. The capitalists are doing more than thumbing their noses at our efforts to clean up the system. They're waging an epic battle against any kind of reform, and their army is growing, thanks to the Right Wing's efforts to maintain the status-quo.
Really, all we can do at the moment is to keep our voices strong and our message on target. We need fair and honest representation and we're not getting it. America is indeed corporate-owned.
Pitchforks is a metaphor for building righteous mobs who see strength in numbers. Our voices have to be louder and stronger than theirs. We've done it before and we can do it again. I believe that.
October 5, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona,
I truly hope you are correct. Honestly though I don't see it. Various pieces of legislation inching through congress are tilted the other way and they'll remain in effect for a very long time.
This is an incremental battle equivalent to facing death by a million cuts. The battlefront is huge with regular citizens running a defense with disorganized militia groups against a very professional and highly organized opposing force.
In many ways regular citizens don't even have an entry pass onto the battlefield. The fact is anyone who wants facetime with their congressperson or senator is expected to pony up a few thousand dollars as a political campaign donation. It isn't supposed to be that way but in fact that is how it is.
October 5, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
tpc, I hear you loud and clear. I'm sickened by the ignorance, hubris and greed in both the house and the senate. It isn't supposed to be that way. You're right. But that doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
Something has to be done to change this before it's too late, and all I can think to do is to shout and shout some more.
Right now I'm listening to Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC. He has changed his tune radically over the past year, and now he's sounding like a flaming liberal. He's all for holding feet to the fire, and he's good at not letting his guests get away with throw-away lines to make their arguments.
There are voices on our side demanding to be heard and, glory be, they're in front of cameras with microphones. They're ratings are growing and they're being quoted. People are listening.
That's my hope. Millions of voices demanding to be heard, with leaders who will channel those voices and ultimately get something done.
October 5, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've noticed that about Dylan, too. There was one time a few weeks back when he and Joe really went out it over government involvement in busiess regulation, HCR or otherwise. And you could tell from Dylan's point of view that when we talk about HCR or wall street regulation that we are talking about not only the more practical way for business, government and ciitzens to interrelate, but about a the underlying fundamental decency of the system.
There is definitely a shift going on. But other forces are trying just as hard to shift things in another direction (or to just stall any movement).
October 5, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two things that are happening (need to happen) at the same time.
1) The here-and-now legislation that has to be hammered out within the context of current power status-quo (with the results one would expect).
and
2) The shift in this country's collective paradigm regarding the role of government, the nature of capitalism, collective responsibility, etc.
The trick is to keep the eyes on the second one, that it isn't about being totally victorious on HCR (although it would be nice), but to help begin a shift in the way people approach government, big business, etc.
Obama, regardless of how conservative he is in his approach to policy shifts (in part I believe because he is looking two and three years down the road with a focus on fundamental change and not just a legislative win here and there), he is still too "liberal" in many people's eyes. Too many people still are able to be persuaded to protest in favor of the corporate interests over the people's. Greed is still a positive word for too many.
But this downturn in the economy can be a turning point. The wall street bailouts can be jumping point where we can eventually arrive where the majority expect their politicians to demand the rights of people are above the rights of the corporation, and that the health of a corporation does not have to come at the price of unhealthy citizens.
The trick is to keep the intensity.
October 5, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Acamus, I can't find fault with a president who is too "liberal". History tells us that it's the liberals who have always worked toward the Common Good and raised up the lives of the people who are powerless. We've not always approached these challenges wisely, but that is our agenda and most times our actions have changed this country for the better.
I think it's time we stopped allowing people to denigrate that word "liberal". I don't know what a progressive is but I suspect it's a liberal who is ashamed to be liberal. That's not just sad, it's stupid.
I always appreciate what you have to say, and the way you say it, but I have to disagree about HCR, too. If we back down from single-payer--which we have--and then back down from Public Option, it's just a matter of time before they wear us down to nothing. We've been there before. We can't go back to that.
Sometimes we have to pick our battles and go full force into it. Getting health care out of the clutches of the insurance companies is a battle worth fighting, and to say we'll lose before we even begin is guaranteeing failure.
I'm not ready to give up yet. Even as simple an act as exposing the insurance companies, detailing the abuses and the outright fraud, is a move forward. The information coming out of those stories is horrific.
More and more doctors are coming out for Single Payer or Public Option. Nurses want it, too. This is not the time to give up. The forces against us are too strong. They'll leap on any sign of weakness, and we simply can't afford to waver.
October 5, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. I guess I am a little to pessimesstic about the here and now. Personally I think Obama went into the battle giving up too much from the start. He should have started with a single-payer. Whatever his reasons (too much concern about being labelled too liberal, thought there was more consensus on health care reform than there was, wanted Congress to lead so there was more buyin etc), he let the debate get to where it is today. And that is what we have to work with, unfortunately.
I don't think we should give up. We should continue to clamor for a single-payer, and at least a public option at this time regardless of the outcome. Still the Dems who have abandoned the cause (or never were for it) are a reality. It is still possible. Senators like mine Bayh might in the end jump to some form of public option.
I guess my point is that in spite of the power structure which right now seems to be favoring the health care industry, we still need to keep the focus up the fight because regardless of the outcome (and we might get something good yet) the battle will continue not only with HCR, but the whole liberal agenda.
October 5, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if I misunderstood, Acamus. There are many articulate voices out there and yours is one of them. Thank you for adding your voice here.
There is a new movement out there pushing for Medicare for All. It is single-payer and it makes sense to me. If it leaves the poor insurance companies out in the cold, so be it.
Insurance is supposed to be about both sides taking risks. The providers gamble that most of their clients will stay well, providing them with adequate profits. The clients gamble that their illnesses, no matter how expensive, will be covered.
That's the way it should be. Unfortunately, the insurance company got out of the gambling business without telling their clients. They hiked the premiums, raised co-pays, dropped certain services, found ridiculous reasons for stopping payments. I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for them. If we go to single-payer they have only themselves to blame.
October 5, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until Democratic votes knock off a couple of old line corporate friendly Democrats like Dodd, Baucus, Reid, Feinstein, Carper, etc. and replace them with liberals, nothing will change.
October 5, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, Ramona.
It took most of us a long time to see it -- way too long -- but our country apparently did suffer an initially bloodless coup years ago; and the result of our naive blindness to it is that now "blood, sweat and tears" will be spilled everywhere.
How do we revive from the stunning realization that we are owned? And therefore, that we are governed, not by our duly elected president and members of Congress, but rather by a cabal of corporations the Roberts' Supreme Court seeks to further legitimize with additionally empowering "personhood."
When that is accomplished -- and it seems inevitable, given the current court bias -- we will have become, effectively, a Third World country, a dictatorship rather than a democracy -- one in which the coffers of the suit and tie-camouflaged junta will continue to overflow while an increasing number of the hoi polloi will be fitted for not coffers, but coffins.
Should we be shocked? In hindsight, probably not. But we are shocked, nonetheless.
It is almost as if the eight years of the arrogant lawlessness of the Bush/Cheney administration -- the war in Iraq, sanctioned torture, etc. -- was intentional smokescreen, designed to draw our attention away -- as decoys are intended to do -- from their real agenda of imposing unregulated corporate dominance. If so, their ploy was successful. For, which is currently the real threat to our assumed rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Muslim terrorists, or Wall Street terrorists who cow any resistance?
Perhaps, then, Bush and Cheney actually told us a veiled truth in one ironic instance when they said their plan was to "fight the terrorists over there, to avoid fighting them here."
Exactly so, when that statement is analyzed more closely. The terrorists we should have fought, the ones fully supported by Bush/Cheney, were within, in plain view had we not been looking elsewhere.
The real question now, as you suggest, is to determine when and in what numbers we will actually mobilize to make it clear that this coup is not acceptable and that we are willing to fight real terrorism, here, at home, now that we have identified it.
A first step might well be orchestrated demonstrations in Washington and across the country....but how to get the captive MSM to cover it? Must we rely on foreign press and YouTube video coverage?
October 5, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A rhetorical question, specifically pertaining to healthcare reform:
Why is it, exactly, that all those Democratic lawyers, of whom Obama is one, failed to follow negotiation 101 strategy: to ask, in the initial stages of negotiation, for the moon, knowing that you will be bargained down from there to a final settlement that, if you were clever, is close to what you wanted in the first place.
In other words, what possible excuse can all the savvy lawyers in the Obama administration have for allowing the negotiations to begin without the moon of single payer being on the table? By starting with only a public option, we will end up with far less than that.
October 5, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because that isn't really what they want???
October 5, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the question that’s been bothering me for a long time. Not just about health care reform, but also the fight over economic stimulus and financial reform. I’ve never heard of successful negotiators starting from the position of asking for the very least they want. They always start with the maximum demand, and negotiate until they settle for at least their minimum requirement. When I bought a house, my real estate agent made sure I understood this before making my offer.
So, maybe thepeoplechoose is on the right track. They really didn’t want what was good for human people. Only what was good for corporate people.
October 5, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's looking that way, Lavender. I wish it weren't so, but it really is looking that way.
October 5, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, what brilliant insight here. They were in plain view, they operated openly, and they operated without any real interference. There were many of us who spoke out against them, but we were, as usual, preaching to the choir. It was as if we who opposed the corporate takeover were locked in a windowless room (the Tower of Babel?), our voices never getting beyond the inside walls.
Now we're out there and we're making our voices heard. We can't stop now. We've been fighting this for too long.
As to your second question, why WEREN'T the lawyers using their talents to work some government sponsored programs into their talks? Just as they gave the banks everything they wanted, it seemed they did everything they could to work against universal health care and fall right into the clutches of the insurance providers again.
I think TPC has it right. It was never what they wanted, no matter how often we heard otherwise.
October 5, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink