« MAKE A RACKET: March on Washington, Sept. 13 | Ripper McCord's Blog | IMPORTANT Update: March on Washington »

My op-ed in the Post-Dispatch today


People who failed to turn fear and loathing into winning campaign issues did not go gently into that good November night. They're back with new lies, new conspiracy theories and a desperate bid to gut the election results. Last year, in ads that whispered "Racist ... Elitist ... Socialist ... Terrorist," they suggested Democrats were dangerous. The new in-your-face version of their contempt for Democrats is that health care reform will kill people.

Conservative media and viral emails designed to look "home made" have cranked up the volume of incendiary propaganda. That noise has heightened fears among some conservatives and independents who are genuinely concerned about government steps to avert an economic depression. But it has become evident that efforts to shout down and shut down legislative town hall meetings are being coordinated behind the scenes, far above the grassroots level, for partisan political gain and cold, hard cash.

With $2.3 trillion up for grabs each year, the healthcare lobby has anted up with the Republican Party and conservative Democrats in a classic game of money and politics. Insurance companies are spending $1.4 million a day to lobby for control of health care reform or none at all.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint demonstrated that obstructing reform is all about politics when he told conservative activists on a conference call last month, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." GOP efforts to derail reform in the House are being overseen by Congressman Roy Blunt, a member of the discredited chorus that has questioned the president's birth certificate. Blunt has received over $556,000 in campaign donations from the insurance industry, $1.6 million from the health sector and is the fourth-highest GOP recipient of industry money.

As part of the broader propaganda campaign, conservatives are trying to scare the wits out of seniors, saying health care reform conceals a nefarious scheme to kill Grandma, Grandpa and Sarah Palin's baby. Yes, the same Democrats who fought to pass Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor and SCHIP for kids now are in cahoots to pull the plug on the elderly, the poor and kids. How stupid do the conspiracy theorists think we are? Colossally stupid.

The non-partisan Urban Institute published a study last year showing at least 137,000 people in the U.S. died from 2000 to 2006 because they lacked health insurance, including 22,000 in 2006 alone. Far from setting up "death panels," health care reform will save lives.

Of course, the cost of our broken system isn't measured in human life alone. For years, health care costs have risen at triple the rate of inflation, squeezing paychecks tighter and tighter to pay for premiums. The costs have crippled American industry's ability to compete while bankrupting our families. We spend twice as much per person as any country on earth, but our system ranks 37th in the world -- just below Costa Rica's and above Slovenia's. Without reform, it will get much worse and much more expensive.

So let's be clear. Not a single one of the reform bills in Congress would allow federal tax money to fund abortions. Reform will let you choose your own doctor and your own insurance plan. Illegal immigrants are not covered. And it won't cut Medicare or Medicaid benefits.

Those who already have private health insurance also stand to gain from reform. It will slow the rise in premiums by making insurance companies more competitive, streamlining paperwork for doctors, and ensuring better preventive and follow-up care to reduce the need for re-admission after being discharged from a hospital.

Reform will bar insurance companies from denying coverage of pre-existing conditions. And no American ever again will face rescission -- the insurance practice of dropping a person's coverage when they get sick and need care most.

The reform plan is uniquely American, not based on any other country's plan. A Public Option will be offered as just that: one option among many. It will not replace private insurance plans. In fact, the government will give employers incentives to keep their private plans.

Powerful interests are distorting the truth about health care reform through mouthpieces such as Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and activist groups such as Conservatives for Patient Rights, run by Rick Scott, the ex-CEO of a company that was fined a record $1.7 billion for defrauding Medicare. Another is FreedomWorks, headed by former GOP congressman Dick Armey, who just last week left a firm that made $2.3 million in the last two years lobbying for Medicines Co., a drug maker.

Health care reform is about keeping people well. Politics and profits have made a sickening racket trying to block it.

21 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Ripper,

Excellent.

Hope you keep us updated as to responses.

Appreciate all your time and efforts.

Rec'd.

user-pic

I'm impressed they gave you an editorial slot; you must have some great Cred with the paper. Good job.

user-pic

Nicely done, Elliot, errr, Ripper!

user-pic

I just went to the St. Louis Post Dispatch and wrote a recommendation there. (same nick so you'll know who gave it). I figure it can't hurt, and might give you some wider coverage. You might think about posting the link for the story here.

user-pic

I've been trying to find a link, but so far haven't heard back from the editor.

user-pic

This one worked for me. Sorry I don't how to make tiny urls. I hope this isn't too long to work.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/B674E6F4C6A396A986257616007F2F90?OpenDocument#tp_newCommentAnchor

It may only work if one registers first, dunno about that. Because I am registered I can't test it either. Boo!

They could use a bit of simplification in their web site design.

user-pic

Clicked on your link and it took me straight to Ripper's op-ed at stltoday.com. I'm not registered with them...so works just fine.

Terrific letter BTW.

user-pic

Thanks for the link, amike - I had trouble finding it from their menus yesterday, too.

user-pic

Ripper, that's terrific! Nothin' but the facts, but written so well.

Thanks, amike, for the link. It looks wonderful there, too.

user-pic

Say something nice there, too. He deserves a few raves.

user-pic

Thanks, amike.

user-pic

Awww you guys made up. I love happy endings. :P

user-pic


A concise, well-written, and highly persuasive commentary.

user-pic

I gotta run right now, but I'll head over and comment later...Thanks for all your work on this Rip.

user-pic

I like your piece... Well done.

There's one part I'm confused about:

The reform plan is uniquely American, not based on any other country's plan. A Public Option will be offered as just that: one option among many. It will not replace private insurance plans. In fact, the government will give employers incentives to keep their private plans.

...


I went to www.house.gov and searched for HR 3200
This is what I found:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

* (a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

*
o (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

*
o
+ (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

This seems to say that NO New health insurance policies can be sold after Y1 (after this would go into effect)...

Those with policies can choose to keep them in effect... But, should a person drop their policy, they wouldn't be able to buy a new one... They'd be obligated to take the "Public Option".

Correct me if I'm wrong... please.


user-pic

Thanks, Ickyma. Interesting, because I saw this section being cited for leading anti group Americans for Prosperity, in an e-mail I received from them yesterday. But, they were citing it to support their argument that the plan will force everyone (eventually) to the public option. I don't have time to check it out now, but I'll try to post it (here or on a separate post) later.

user-pic

It's my understanding, Ickyma, that you are indeed wrong. As I understand it, this clause refers to existing plans that do not meet the bill's new standards for accessibility and affordability -- in other words, the kinds of crummy and unfair plans that insurers offer all too frequently now, which free them to rip people off at will.

Those plans, which are called "GRANDFATHERED," can continue to exist for five years, but cannot keep enrolling new members. New private plans that follow the new rules can be created and marketed freely. I'm pretty sure the bill calls these "QUALIFIED" plans.

I know that lots of people have come to this misconception honestly. But I'm convinced that the "big guns" who have told them this are deliberately lying about it.

There is, of course, an underlying philosophical debate here. To generalize, conservatives tend to believe the way to get people covered is to let insurers write any kinds of policies they want, no matter how crappy they are. Liberals say this will result in lots of people buying cheap policies that don't cover them adequately, and lead them straight to bankruptcy if and when they do get sick -- causing all sorts of misery and offloading the costs on the rest of us, one way or the other.

Hence, liberals generally want to strengthen standards for insurance policies, and conservatives want to weaken them, and allow people to buy policies across state lines that were written in states with far weaker standards. You won't be shocked to hear that I think the liberals have the better argument, but that's for another post.

Separately, from one "MiddleClassBill" to another: There is significant evidence that if you give people real, scientific-based guidance on which treatments tend to work best, they will usually follow that guidance on their own, without being forced to do so by Big Brother. Do you prefer the current system, where the evidence is not compiled at all (or compiled and hidden by pharmaceutical companies) and billions of dollars are wasted every year on treatments that demonstrably offer no incremental value? If not, what public policy do you propose to encourage the use of treatments that actually work? Or is that not a matter of interest to you?

user-pic

I despise the current system. For 1,000 different reasons.

I honestly didn't understand this and that is why I asked for somebody to correct me if I was wrong.

Thank you very much for your explanation... it makes perfect sense.

user-pic

The contradictions are endless. People say that if I like what I have I can keep it. (That assumes that my insurance company and/or employer can meet all of the new regulations that will be imposed by the President, Congress and the Health Commissioner).

But those same people also say that the current system is broken and needs major overhaul.

Obama says he doesn't want government bureaucrats meddling in my health care, but he also is talking about providing guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations.

So we need top-to-bottom reform, except for the parts that "you" happen to like. Government won't interfere with patients and their physicians, considering that the new panel of experts who will make decisions intended to reduce tests and treatments doesn't count as government. But Medicare shows that government involvement isn't so bad, aside from the fact that spending is out of control.

Yikes.

user-pic

Wrong on all your "contradictions," MCB.

As I mentioned in my piece and bcmarda expands on directly ABOVE your trolling, your current plan is grandfathered and will remain unaffected, with your employer PAID to keep you stupid and happy.

As for government guidelines, they are just that. Guidelines like: If a patient says particularly ridiculous things, he may be a radical conservative troll, in which case, current cost/benefit analysis shows he may respond well to re-runs of "The O'Reilly Factor." But nothing would prevent you and your doctor from agreeing on a rectal craniotomy.

As for Medicare being out of control, it would be in far better shape if you didn't screech at United Healthcare to raise your dividends by letting your mother die.

user-pic

Why is it trolling when I am simply providing my point of view to your post?

Where does it say in the legislation that my current plan will be unaffected? The President has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works". The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing health spending by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments" by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt". (You can read it right here http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf). Those don't sound like "guidelines" to me. And what do you think are the consequences for doctors and insurers that don't follow these "guidelines"??


Obama says if you like your plan you can keep it, but I've never heard him say that the features and costs of your plan won't be affected by his legislation.

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address