Thirteen states have filed a lawsuit claiming that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional.

Will they win or are they just wasting taxpayers money in an attempt to look good to their political bases? If you guessed the later, you didn’t require anyone to read this to you.

Given that we have five Supremes who can’t differentiate between human beings and things that human beings create, anything is possible. By the way, since voting is the most important form of free speech, why have corporations never voted? Sorry, I didn’t mean to give them any ideas.

Even if the courts were to rule in the favor of these thirteen grandstanding attorneys general, they can’t win.

They claim that it is unconstitutional to require people to purchase private health insurance. If someone doesn’t have health insurance, others must pay for it out of their taxes. The requirement is a protection measure for the rest of us.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to see people forced to give these private monsters more money. This law, as presently configured, gives these corporations an additional 31 or so million customers. That is estimated to increase their bank accounts by some $70 billion annually. No. I definitely am not pleased with that.

Having the public option is less rational than Medicare-For-All but it would at least provide an alternative for many of this 31 million and others. Most of that $70 billion would not go to the leeches. We have been promised that the Congress will amend the law to include the public option.

So, there is a possibility that the courts could rule in their favor. What happens? This law, as with most others of any complexity, includes a separability clause. That means, if the courts rule against any part of it, the entire law is not scrapped. The remainder remains.

Interestingly, the suit cites no case law or precedent. Why? Because there is none. Federal law overrules state law.

Under the commerce clause of the Constitution the government has broad, unchallenged power to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce has historically been interpreted very broadly. Also, the right of the government to tax has been firmly established.

Even given the present makeup of the Court, there is almost no likelihood that the attorneys general can prevail with this suit. A few may prevail in their races for the governor’s seat in their state based on the publicity they will garner.

The solution, should the courts rule in their favor, is to offer the public option, or make a public program mandatory. All the former would do is offer a better deal at less cost by eliminating about 30% of the costs that unnecessary overhead represents. Making it mandatory simply means reducing the amount one pays for coverage and calling it a tax rather than a premium. The courts have already ruled that Social Security, Medicare, et al., are constitutional.

So, if they win, and their win brings a public option or Medicare-For-All, what have they won?

America’s Favorite Loon, Michelle Bachmann, or as she calls herself on her web site, Amaricas Congress Woman, has introduced a bill which calls the healthcare bill unconstitutional. If she can’t spell America’s correctly or punctuate it correctly or doesn’t know that Congresswoman is one word, her bill may need the services of an editor.

Were it anyone else, save Sarah, we would consider her to be doing this only for its symbolic effect. She, however, seems convinced that the bill will succeed. How she will attain majorities in either house no one can explain. Then, either the President must sign it or his veto must be overridden by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress. I would be hesitant to put too much money on any of those possibilities.

Then we have the Republican leadership saying that the passage of this bill is the death knell of the Democratic Party. Before passage they were exhibiting great concern for the welfare of the Democrats (pun intended). Their solicitude was impressive and heartwarming. Despite their concern for the wellbeing of their compatriots they intend to take advantage of this misstep by the Democrats by running on the position of repealing the healthcare bill.

I can see their logic. The people will swarm to their standard in order to reinstate the bar by the insurance companies of preexisting conditions. Their support will be overwhelming for reimposition of annual and total limitations of coverage.

Kids up to the age of 26 want to be independent. They will flock to the sides of the Republicans freeing them from sharing their parents coverage. Geezers like me will truly appreciate their efforts if we don’t have to worry about what to do with all of our money. We can just luxuriate in the do-nut hole and let the drug companies do all of that worrying.

I think those cagey Republicans have discovered the magic talisman of electoral politics.

Silly suit? Of course. But look to the source. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Silly is as silly does.”

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

If you stay to the end of this post, you will see an offer you can’t refuse – no strings attached.

My last post was about a health issue, not healthcare reform. Writing so frequently on healthcare reform and the economy has built up a tremendous reserve of frustration.

I wanted to take a psychic break by expounding on other subjects but it seems not to be possible to get away from these matters. Storming once more into the breech they come again to the subject of reform.

Just now I feel more inclined to address the method than the substance. Could it be that there is so little substance to speak to?

I can’t help but wonder if anyone in Washington actually knows the definition of the word reconciliation. The dictionary says it is the reestablishing of cordial relations. All I see is animosity and hostility. How could a spirit of reconciliation engender such enmity and division? So, with the understanding that the term itself is inappropriate, let’s get on to the real problem.

That problem is the disdain so many Senators have for democracy. They seem to think that their prerogatives are more important than representing the needs and opinions of the people.

While the people have been confused, frustrated and angered at the shenanigans taking place in Congress, the majority still support the need for reform and, specifically, the public option. Many of those opposed do so out of a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the problems and possible solutions.

Throwing around such accusations as this being an attempt to take over healthcare or mischaracterizing it as socialism come from ignorance or deliberate lies. The government has Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, medical care for the active military and veterans, coverage for civilian employees and other programs which it operates or for which it pays. It also subsidizes, through tax breaks, most private policies. The government already pays for 45% of healthcare costs, not including the subsidies.

The private insurance industry is permitted to skim off the cream. It is allowed to reject anyone they wish. They reserve the right to not pay the costs for whatever they wish to avoid. They skim the money to provide their executives multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses, private jets, lavish parties and such. Can you guess who bears the brunt of their exercise of these privileges?

At this time, several companies are attempting to increase premiums in a range from 22% to 59%. This while they are reducing the actual total amount they are paying out for your health care. Last year our health costs amounted to 17.3% of our entire economy. My untutored guess is that the above-cited increases might make the economic burden even greater. You get another guess as to who will get screwed.

Takeover? No. This is an attempt to provide almost everyone with health care and save our economy. As a nation, we cannot afford to rank 37^th in the world in health care. Nor can we afford an ever greater percentage of our total resources being designated as profits for the industry that has put at such a lowly ranking.

We shouldn’t forget the millions they spend on bribes. Is it possible this is a consideration when these “public servants” refuse to permit democracy to exist in the chambers of the Senate?

This talk of reconciliation may actually result in a vote. Even more important than the outcome of that vote is the fact that it will provide us undeniable evidence of who hates democracy and has no concern for their constituents. Every one of those opposing reconciliation needs to be thrown out of office. If your Senator opposes it, you have an obligation to yourself, your family, your country and the Constitution to oppose them. Yes, it is that simple.

My apologies for the preachy tone but it comes from frustration with our elected officials.

Now for the free offer. As mentioned earlier, my last post was on a health issue. It was one that is mired in misinformation. My book, Why Are You Mad?, is on the subject of mental illness. While this subject is not of interest to everyone, it does contain some nutrition information that is of universal concern. It speaks to another area drowning in misinformation: fats, saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, the whole panoply.

So, to anyone interested, I am offering a free copy of my book. Just send me an email and I will attach a copy of the book to the return. It will be in the form of a PDF file. If anyone prefers an actual dead tree version, I will send you one for $10 – $8 off of the retail price.

Why am I doing this? I did not spend 14 years of research and almost 3 years writing it because I wanted it to make money. I wrote it to provide as many as possible with an understanding of the subject. For those not interested in the overall subject, I feel that the dietary information is likewise of importance, but to everyone.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

You have been sold down the river. So have we all.

We need to differentiate between healthcare reform and tinkering with health insurance. Yes, there is a difference. The entire burlesque these past few months has revolved around the tinkering.

A handful of congressmen offered HR 676, Medicare-For-All. That represents reform. All of the rest of our political entertainment has been farce and sleight of hand.

I will get to the parts that all of you younger folk are concerned about but first let me speak to one that is of more consequence to us geezers. That would be a part of the “secret deal” between al-PhRMA, the White House and Max Baucus – the do-nut hole.

I had the chance to do some more reading of the Senate version of healthcare. It really is quite interesting despite being written in a language no human has ever mastered.

For anyone unfamiliar with the do-nut hole, let me explain. Medicare Part D was a present from the Bush administration to the drug pushers and insurance companies. Not only was it unfunded, it costs the government more than any of the “reform” plans that came out of either house of Congress.

A senior has a choice of insurance plans covering most, not all, prescription drugs. In my case the choice was among 50-odd plans. You are required to pay premiums, deductibles and co-pays until you reach the hole. Once in the hole you pay 100%. Though you are still required to pay premiums, the insurer pays out nothing. It begins at $2,830 for 2010. As with everything connected to healthcare, there are substantial annual increases.

You can reach this amount fairly quickly because it includes all of the above items that you pay plus whatever the insurance company pays. However, getting out is just a bit different. The exit point is $4,550 but there is a catch. You arrive at that figure on your own. Payments made by the insurer are not included.

Now you must remember, this plan was not designed to benefit seniors. The government is forbidden to negotiate drug prices for Medicare. The VA is not so constrained and averages a discount of about 58%. This means that, having insurance, the drug dealers have more customers and they get the full retail price. That price is whatever they want it to be.

No, they didn’t forget the insurance companies. They are guaranteed against loss and receive subsidies from the taxpayer.

Now that you understand Part D, let’s see what the “secret deal” contains. It promises the drug dealers that Medicare will continue to be forbidden to negotiate. The drug dealers promise to help out with $80 billion, spread out over 10 years. Most of that will supposedly be going to reduce seniors’ costs in the do-nut hole.

To get that help, a 50% savings only while the senior is in the hole, you must buy brand names, no generics. Again, that is 50% of whatever the drug dealers want to charge.

Interestingly, al-PhRMA commissioned a study of what all of this will cost them. That study shows that, despite forking over $80 billion over a 10-year period, they will realize an increase of $137 billion in just the next 4 years. That, of course, is in addition to the windfall that Part D itself gave them.

They may have been too embarrassed to extend the study out any further, as a close reading of the plan shows that the do-nut hole will not be closed immediately. It will gradually be closed over a period of 13 years. Oh, lordy. They’re doing all of this for poor little me?

By the way, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tells us that there will be substantial increases in the premiums seniors will pay for their do-nut hole discount.

And, now we have just one more bit of information that might be of interest. While the drug dealers are generously offering a discount of $8 billion a year, they are raising prices. This year they have already raised the overall prices the greatest amount since 1992. That would work out to more than $10 billion already this year.

If that doesn’t sound bad enough, let’s look a little more closely. Since those $6,000 per dose drugs, and others up on the high end, are not being raised much, if at all, the bulk of the increases are on the most commonly used drugs. That makes the effect on most people even more pronounced.

The various plans that were developed had price tags from something over $800 billion to $1.1 trillion. That is tax money. That doesn’t count increased premiums, deductibles and co-pays. The government will pay the costs for those who can’t pay. They will subsidize small companies providing healthcare. They will also continue to subsidize the insurance companies. This is in addition to the subsidies represented by the present tax exemptions for health insurance benefits.

I have already covered many of the general problems of the various plans. While the elimination of bans for preexisting conditions is in the plans, there are ways for the insurance companies to circumvent that stricture.

Ms. Pelosi proclaimed the inclusion of the public option and spoke of the plan covering 35 million people. The impression was intentionally left that the public option would cover those 35 millions. Actually, that increase in coverage comes from requiring small businesses and some individuals to purchase coverage. The public option is estimated to be available to up to 6.5 million.

The public option will, therefore, not play the claimed role of competing with private plans so as to keep their prices down. The only potential positive that might come from the public option would be as a foot in the door. It might, only might, be a way of expanding its coverage at some point in the indeterminate future. Don’t hold your breath.

By mandating that more people buy insurance and not holding the companies’ price increases down, the industry will reap tremendously increased revenue and profits. Those will be born by the average Joe, by increases in premiums, deductibles and co-pays, as well as subsidies from the government, i.e., taxpayers.

Obama and the Congress took single-payer off of the table before the “negotiations” began. They gave the various parts of the medical industry places at the table while ignoring the public and the majority of physicians. Then they cowered and kow-towed before al-PhRMA, AHIP, the AHA and the AMA, which represents less than 20% of physicians and stands against the wishes of the majority of them.

I have difficulty comprehending how that can be described as change or leadership or reform. I am convinced that the better way is for the President to take charge, to declare the entire process and resulting mess a failure and to demand a new start based on Medicare-For-All. That would not just require leadership; it would actually be leadership.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Do you REALLY want a democracy? The healthcare reform farce we see in Congress is proof positive that we do not actually enjoy a democracy in the United States.

Who is to blame? You and me. Who can bring back democracy? Only you and me. How, you ask. Well, that’s what I’m here for. I have the answer. While I have the answer, that doesn’t mean that I can do it alone. I need your help.

I recall a BC comic strip from during the 1968 presidential campaign. One of the characters was Peter. He had a stone couch and gave psychiatric advice. One of the other characters came to him complaining of a recurring dream. He dreamt he was in the voting booth and that there was only one name on the ballot. Peter asked what was the name. The response was Humphrey-Nixon-Wallace.

There actually was no choice. Corporations donated to all three campaigns. Things have changed. They have worsened.

Kent Conrad is the most prominent Democratic Senator opposing the public option. Yes, I know about Max Baucus. He says he is for it (he isn’t) but will not support it because it can’t pass. Anyway, back to Conrad.

The North Dakota Democratic Party held a convention. They voted, without dissent, to include the single-payer system as their healthcare reform policy. They sent a letter to Conrad, the state’s other Senator and to their lone Representative. That letter stated their policy and added that, if single-payer was not to be, their fallback position was for a public option.

Senator Conrad has received $2,362,436 in bribes from the insurance companies, health industry and lobbyists. I’m guessing that he didn’t share any of that with his state’s Democratic Party. A poll in his state shows an overwhelming support for the public option. Still, he is recalcitrant. Who does he represent? The people of North Dakota are missing that little thing called democracy. Remember the immortal words of Deep Throat, “Follow the money.”

Conrad was in politics before but he came to the Senate in 1987. He promised he would not run for re-election if the budget deficit was not reduced. It wasn’t. He ignored that promise. By the way, his present position is Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He is in his 23^rd year in the Senate. That is the problem.

He needs all of those bribes to pay for his re-election campaigns. No re-election campaign, no need for campaign funds. Without those bribes, he could vote the way his constituents want – for single-payer. Wow. Just think about that for a moment.

Term limits would solve the problem. But, what are the chances of them voting themselves out of office? Nil. That leaves it up to us, the voters, and those who are eligible but don’t vote.

That should be easy. While the approval rating of Congress is 9%, 95% of them get re-elected. We, you and I, are to blame. We are stupid, gullible, lazy, don’t care enough or some combination of those virtues. They won’t do it, so we must.

The corporations have a Congress. We don’t. So, the answer is obvious. Don’t re-elect incumbents.

While the overall approval rating for Congress is 9%, the majority has a higher opinion of the member from their own bailiwick. Or, maybe we are just more forgiving. That may explain why a Congressman can consistently vote against his constituents’ interests or even get caught lying, stealing or making trips to The Argentine and still maintain the support of many, possibly most, of the voters in his district.

About a third of Congressmen run unopposed. Incumbency, and the money that comes with it, keeps a lot of good people from running. We could have a peoples’ congress. And, it wouldn’t cost us a dime. All we have to do is vote against all incumbents.

Would the very few good ones get ousted? Yes, but I’m willing to bet that there are other good people in their district. Perhaps they, as Sarah Palin, can work more effectively for our benefit outside of the system, without the onerous responsibilities of office.

After one or two election cycles they might feel it to be in their interest to enact some term limits. I would personally prefer an individual limit of ten to twelve years of total public office, i.e., combining the time of holding any combination of offices, with no more than two terms in any one office. Also, no elected or appointed official should receive retirement benefits or any other benefit after leaving office. While in office there should be no benefits not available to average citizens.

Judges are required to recuse themselves if they have any relationship with either party. They implement the laws. However, Congressmen, who make the laws, are permitted to take money from various parties and still vote on those laws. What is good for the courts is good for the legislatures.

Pay for each Congressman should be based on the income of the average family in their district. If they maintain a residence in their own district plus one in the Washington area, they would get the sum of that plus the average income for residents of D.C. Their pay would be tied to how their constituents fare.

Ridding ourselves of career politicians isn’t just something that would be nice. It is absolutely vital to reestablishing this country as a democracy.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

This is not a prediction. It is only what I see as an optimistic scenario.

What’s going to happen with healthcare reform in Congress? Your guess is as good as mine. Because there is no leadership, no one knows what the outcome will be.

We do know a few things, however. Since it was given away before the issue was put on the table, there will be no single-payer system. In other words, there will be no real reform. My optimistic scenario really devolves into a hope that we get a couple of the crumbs that remain.

What remains will be an expensive mess that will further enrich the healthcare industry. Why? Because Obama learned the wrong lesson from Clinton’s failure.

Obama saw Clinton’s failure as being partly due to the opposition of PhRMA, AHIP, AMA and AHA. He decided to lure them into being allies. PhRMA agreed, if they could get his promise to accept their phantom concessions in return for increased looting of the national treasury, i.e., more subsidies and getting the government to guarantee them more customers. They got that promise.

The American Health Insurance Programs industry group is in a death match fight against reform, even though they would benefit more than anyone else from it. The AMA is fighting it but they represent only 20% of physicians. Fifty-nine percent of physicians support single-payer. Seventy-five to seventy-nine percent support the public option.

The American Hospital Association isn’t fighting quite as hard because they want to maintain communication, in the hope of getting greater subsidies. They are crying crocodile tears while still spending tons of money against reform.

The other lesson Obama thinks he learned was that the Congress didn’t go along because Clinton gave them a plan in which they had no input. That is only partially true.

What lessons should Obama have learned? There are two. One is that people respond to leadership, even when they are not in full agreement. Bush understood that. He called himself the decider and the Republicans followed. Even some Democrats fell in line. Obama started off by saying he would let Congress lead. I cannot, for the moment, think of a funnier joke. I doubt there is one.

The other lesson should have been that people are averse to complexity. A thousand-page bill offers the opposition a million points of attack. But it offers potential supporters only the opportunity to run around like a chickens with their heads cut off trying to defend against those attacks. Supporters are enervated by the effort to defend, leaving little energy or time to organize effective support. They are in a permanent defensive mode.

That could have been overcome with a simple Medicare-For-All bill of perhaps 10-15 pages. Then his primary tactic would be a constant parade of seniors extolling Medicare. A high degree of visibility for seniors would also intimidate Congress to some extent as seniors are much more likely to go to the voting booth.

Okay. Let’s get to my little scenario. There are 5 bills; 2 in the Senate and 3 in the House. Each house will combine its bills. There will be one for each. All except the Senate Finance Committee have the public option. It may end up in the Senate’s final bill. It may not. It will be in the final House bill.

Each house votes on their own bill. Then they go to the conference committee. Even if the public option is not in the Senate bill, it is likely the House will insist on it being in the compromise. The House will pass it. Obama must have something to show for his efforts. He will have to exert all of the pressure he can on Senate Democrats.

It will require going the reconciliation route if there are not 60 votes. Reconciliation allows the funding aspects to pass with only 50 Senators plus the Vice President. The other parts still would require 60 but a few Senators could vote against it on the funding part but for the other part. This would give them some political cover by saying that they voted against funding it.

It is still doable but nowhere near a certainty. Any public option that survives will be watered down. It will not be available to everyone. Various versions see it covering from 5 to 20 million of the uninsured.

Any bill will contain bans on denying people for preexisting conditions but that won’t be a problem for the insurance companies to find a way around by charging outrageous premiums or more subtle tactics.

They can avoid the ban on annual and lifetime limits by the same tactic. They don’t have to pay for people they don’t insure.

As I have contended all along, without a single-payer system, reform is little more than a catch phrase.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I finally received a response from Bart Gordon, my Congressman. He totally ignored my request for a debate. Now I know why.

I had challenged him before the August recess. As September has arrived, that means it took him a month to respond. It is obvious from his email that he would have had to come unarmed to any battle of wits. I will present that email as proof. Remember, he sits on the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Dear Crawford,

Thank you for contacting me about national health care reform legislation. Like most hard-working Americans, I believe we need to make health care more affordable for everyone.  But, on an issue this important, it is much better to take the time and get it right than to get it done quickly.  That is why I helped ensure that no bill would be considered in the House this summer.

I am disappointed in his response to the concerns I expressed about healthcare reform. First, I offered to debate him in a public forum during the August recess. There is no mention of that in his email. Also, I find his email regrettable in its lack of consistency, facts and logic.

Notice also that he brags about delaying consideration of any reform bill. Let’s be honest. Delay is no more nor less than the favored tactic of the health industry. He is taking credit for following orders. Teddy Roosevelt  included a universal healthcare proposal as a part of his campaign platform in 1912. FDR proposed it. HST proposed it. JFK proposed it. Jimmy Carter proposed it. Bill Clinton proposed it. And, Bart Gordon thinks we need to take our time. How many have died and will die while Bart diddles?

Currently, we spend one out of every six dollars in the United States on health care, and the cost of health care is rising twice as fast as inflation with no end in sight.  Tennessee’s small business owners and other hard working people are telling me they can’t keep up with the cost of their health insurance premiums.  Insurance costs for small businesses have risen 129% since 2000.  If we do nothing, these costs will further strain families and businesses, and will threaten to bankrupt the country as well.  It will be impossible to cut the national debt unless we deal with health care spending.

So, small businesses, families and the national debt will just have to wait while Bart diddles. Also, notice how he begins speaking of healthcare reform but quickly changes the subject to health insurance.

There are several principles that I believe must be addressed in any health care reform measure: the package must be deficit neutral;

Other than single-payer (HR676), none of the proposals can be deficit neutral without significant tax increases or massive cuts in other necessary programs. Such “savings” as al-PhARMA’s $80 billion concession are silly promises from proven liars. The bulk of that $80 billion goes to seniors in the do-nut hole to buy brand name drugs instead of generics. It will be a bonanza for the drug companies. And, that is only $8 billion per year. The immediate savings of single-payer are more than $400 billion annually from one category alone. Every other plan increases the number of customers, income and profits for AHIP and al-PhARMA. Much of that will cost the government in massive subsidies. The other plans are not deficit neutral. Delay is not deficit neutral. Bart can’t count.

it must make health coverage more affordable for individuals and small businesses;

Eliminating preexisting condition bans will require higher premiums. Requiring small businesses to cover more people doesn’t seem to be a way to make it more affordable. The first point of this paragraph would also apply to individual coverage.

it must ensure coverage is portable when you change or lose your job;

He wants to maintain our traditional method of employer-based plans. Can you imagine the complexities and inefficiencies of making these portable? Will your new employer provide the same plan, or any? Will the government or your former employer pay for your policy while you are unemployed? Some will lose a gold-plated plan along with their job. Others will lose a less attractive plan. Will both plans be maintained? Will there not be cries of that being inequitable?

it must end barriers to coverage for people who get sick or have a pre-existing medical condition; and it must ensure that insurance companies are not able to deny, limit, or specially price your insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

The insurance companies publicly and explicitly promised the Congress that they would accomplish universal coverage and eliminate preexisting condition prohibitions in 1993. Who will guarantee that if not the government?

I do not support a single-payer health care system.  Health care reform must preserve the employer-based health care system so Americans can choose their own doctors and hospitals. No one, including the government or your insurance company, should be able to make life-and-death decisions for you.

Here is where Bart proclaims his devotion to employer-based plans. Why? So that we can choose our own doctors and hospitals. In the past 6 years I have had more than 30 doctors and more than 15 surgical procedures. Nashville is known as a national center for healthcare. Medicare has never questioned any choice of doctor or hospital. I have friends whose private insurance has refused to pay for certain doctors or hospitals. I consider myself knowledgeable enough to find the best doctors in the area. Such nonsense as Bart is spouting are mere scare tactics straight from the lobbyist-supplied playbook of talking points. He is on a government-run healthcare plan. Does it deny him his choices? I think not.

As here, I frequently hear, explicitly or implicitly, that we must preserve our private health insurance system. However, no one has dared to say why. The reason for that lack of an answer is that there is no reason. No health insurance company has ever cured a single malady. They are, however, responsible for innumerable deaths through denial and other forms of rationing. I don’t give a fig for the insurance companies. They add absolutely no value to healthcare.

The best analogy I can come up with for the health insurance industry is the Mafia. If someone comes in and insists that you must pay them 30% of the value of your inventory for protection, you consider that a protection racket, a criminal enterprise. That analogy fails because the Mafia will actually protect you as long as you make payments.

The private insurance companies commonly make life and death decisions for their customers. I have yet to run into that with Medicare. It seems unlikely that people on Medicare would rate their plan more favorably than any other group if the government was trying to kill them. The intended inference is that only single-payer will take those decisions from you. Bart is full of bat feces.

There has been a great deal of misinformation out there.  AARP and other organizations are working to clarify this information. To read about myths and facts related to health care reform, you can visit AARP’s health page at http://www.aarp.org/health.

True. There is a great deal of misinformation out there, and in his email. He and his owners are the ones responsible for promulgating it. He suggests checking with AARP. Does that make sense? AARP receives the bulk of its income from selling insurance and publishing ads for the health industry.

There is no single bill before Congress right now, there are five different health care reform proposals in the House and Senate and several more steps in the legislative process before any legislation will be enacted.

Actually, there are only four bills. The Senate Finance Committee members, aside from the Gang of 6, have been complaining of being kept in the dark. Their bill has not surfaced. Again, Bart can’t count.

Passing no bill at all is better than passing something that makes things worse.

That is a truism. It’s difficult to imagine creating worse than what we presently have but politicians such as Bart are fully capable of pulling it off.

I hope that we can improve the health care system for everyone, and will continue to work with my Democratic and Republican colleagues to accomplish this.

Other than the select group of Blue Dogs, I see no evidence of his working with the Democrats. I hope he is not wasting his time working with the Republicans on this issue.

Thank you again for contacting me.

G

How cutesy.

Sincerely,

BART GORDON

Member of Congress

It should now be obvious why he fails to respond to my challenge.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In 1865 Lewis Carroll wrote a classic for children. However, the logic contained therein seems to be the basis for present political discourse.

A firestorm was kicked up this past weekend by comments from Obama and Kathleen Sibelius. Has his “requirement” of a public option itself become an option, a dispensable element of a plan he is willing to accept as a victory for reform?

Senator Conrad of North Dakota, a less than staunch supporter of the President, appointed himself head head counter. He told everyone that there are not enough votes for a public option. He claimed there never was.

Not counting a few who once declared for a public option but are now going the other way, there seems to be a fairly firm potential 54 to 55 votes for it in the Senate. There are certainly enough to filibuster its absence. The Senator, as senators are wont to do, forgot that there is another chamber of Congress.

New York Congressman Anthony Weiner came forward to remind everyone that there is a letter, signed by 57 members, that they will not vote for any bill that does not contain a strong public option. Seven others have said they fully concur. Only 40 of them need to stick to their guns. One should realize that almost all of these Congressmen are from overwhelmingly Democratic districts. Their position reflects the feelings of their constituents. They are unlikely to cave,

It just came over the ticker that the expected next president of the AFL-CIO is warning Democrats that, without a public option, the unions could sit out the next election cycle. The loss of their money and manpower could hurt lots of incumbent Democrats.

I am not alone in thinking that Obama will take anything he can get that can pass for reform. He seems to understand a failure to get any bill this year will mean large congressional gains for the Republicans in 2010 and jeopardize his chances in 2012.

It’s time for the Blue Dogs and other Democrats in Congress wake up and smell the Budweiser. They will give him a public option or he gets nothing and they return to the minority, or such a slim majority as to stalemate Congress.

Just what is this co-op plan that Conrad is touting? Basically, it is a sham. It would be organized on a state-by-state basis. At the claimed viability level of 500,000 members each, most states would not be able to sign up enough members. Credible actuaries, not politicians, expect fiscal viability to come at a much higher number.

These co-ops would require very large subsidies from the government for start-up costs. Most or all would be too small and have too limited financial resources to really compete with the private corporations, much less cause them to reduce prices.

Some of you may have heard of Blue Cross. They began in the deep, dark past as nonprofit co-ops. They have morphed into standard insurance companies. Some have actually been reorganized as for profit corporations. They could not survive purely as co-ops. The proposed co-ops are to be free from government control. In other words, there is nothing to stop them from following the Blue Cross path.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study of 5 co-ops in the year 2000. Their assessment was that the idea was essentially very much less than a success. As I stated earlier, co-ops are a sham. Those promoting them are at the top of recipients of health insurance lobbyists’ generosity. The insurance companies know that they don’t represent a danger to them, or even a low hurtle.

If you haven’t considered this one aspect of co-ops, you might give it a moment’s thought. Co-ops have more than a passing similarity to communes. The basic concept is the same. Make one of these Regressive’s head explode by connecting their support of co-ops to their support of communism. Then, just stand back and be entertained.

Regular readers know that my opinion of the proposed public options are almost negligibly more positive than of co-ops. They will not be open to everyone. They fail to address the problem of those who have an employer-paid plan if they change jobs. They will have to charge unnecessarily high premiums to allow the private plans to compete. This is a subsidy by public plan participants of the insurance companies’ profits and administrative costs.

Back to Alice and the logic she confronted in Wonderland. The Regressives were adamant that the taxpayer should not save the automobile industry. They were incompetent. They brought it on themselves. They deserved to be consigned to the junk heap of the “Free Market.” Though failing to take into account all of the relevant factors and oversimplifying an industry that generates about 10 percent of our economy, it was consistent with their flawed economic religion.

That position would seem to require them to render the same judgment on the health insurance industry. They are the ones primarily responsible for a far greater screw-up of their industry than the automobile moguls could hope to attain. This fiasco was achieved despite the myriad of government subsidies they have suckled on for decades.

The Regressive support of the health insurance industry is inconsistent with their proclaimed faith. Perhaps the failure of the automobile industry would destroy union jobs, unlike failure of the health insurance industry. I know that those driving the automobile industry are far less generous to politicians than is the health industry. They never came close to the level of six lobbyists for every congressman.

Where were all of those fiscally conservative Republicans and Blue Dogs when Medicare Part D passed? That program is more expensive than any of the plans proposed by the Democrats this time. They also forgot to enact any spending cuts to compensate for the costs of Part D.

Of course, if the Regressive religion is really based on the size of received donations, they are being imminently consistent.

As an added little morsel to think about, I offer this. Some are touting al-PhARMA’s putative contribution of $80 billion. Just remember that is only $8 billion a year for 10 years. Single-payer would save considerably more than $400 billion. By the way, that is almost $500 billion each year. The savings to be realized from permitting Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies also dwarf that puny little $80 billion.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

A few of us are unfortunate enough to be able to remember the decade of the 1950s. I’ll refrain from naming names. But, I will if I have to.

There was a major scare back in that strange, misbegotten decade. The “Bomb,” of course. No. Even scarier. The Communists had an even more devious plot to destroy the US of A.

What was this nefarious plan? It’s almost too horrible to relate, even after more than half a century.

The plot involved the fluoridation of our water. Yes. Can you believe it? They actually wanted to put fluoride in our water supply. Not just our drinking water. They even wanted to put it in the water we used to wash our most precious possessions: our cars.

Those Communists were so sneaky they tried to trick us by putting fluoride into their own water. Our leaders in government let it happen. Look. See what has become of us. Cruelly, most of our children miss out on the experience of tooth decay, of dental caries.

Not all terrorists ride around on camels. We were terrorized by the regressives here in our own country. For their own purposes they scared us with the threat of good dental health.

In the next decade they threatened us with abortion. Then came prayer in the schools. And they even sneaked in sex education. Now it’s death panels. When will we ever learn?

The regressives told us Roe v. Wade meant that the government eventually would decide whether your own fetus would be permitted to survive. Your kids would be forced to fornicate in class.

They told us that Christian children would be put in prison, or worse, kicked out of school for praying instead of studying before a test. They warned us that kids would have to memorize passages from the Koran, or even worse, learn to read the Apocrypha in Latin (Southern Baptists only).

During the past 40 years that these have been used as wedge issues, those dastardly Democrats have held the White House only 12 years. The Republicans have had control of the Congress for a number of years. They have had both at the same time. Yet, abortions have not been terminated. Schools are at least as secular as ever. There are more teenage parents than ever (The rate is even higher in church-run schools).

If anything, the situation in all of these areas is worse from the standpoint of those who focus on these issues. Why? Because politicians cynically use those issues specifically to make people angry. It is easier to motivate people to action through anger than through logic and positive appeals to enlightened self-interest.

Dealing with those issues in a way that accomplished their goals would merely eliminate the threats that the politicians have for manipulating those people. They have neither desire nor intent to see those putative goals realized.

The politicians use social issues to mobilize the masses. They need numbers of people sufficiently motivated to actually vote. With these angry, motivated voters putting them in office and not paying attention to what they are actually up to, they are free to work on behalf of the corporations that fund them, that fete them, that tell them how to vote.

If people begin to actually look at these other issues, look out; here comes another scare campaign.

Most of the politicians in Washington and all of the corporate lobbyists there see the players as being divided into two teams: tools and fools.

Obama desperately wants something he can call healthcare reform. He also wants bipartisanship. It appears he thinks both are possible. What did he get for those three Senate votes on the stimulus package? He got 40% of that $787 billion as stimulus, and that not focused on the most effective ways. He got most of that 40% delayed until next year. Yea! bipartisan team.

Now he’s working with six centrists, 3 Republican Senators. 3 Blue Dog Democrats, or whatever they are. He has met secretly with them and the president and vp of PhARMA. To get $150 million of Harry and Louise supporting some vague reform he gave up single-payer. He gave up a public option. He gave up Medicare negotiating drug prices (worth far, far more than $80 billion). He gave up re-importation. He gave up rebates to Medicare. He gave up his promise to put all negotiations on C-SPAN.

Sure he got a promise, for whatever their word is worth, of some possible $12 billion tax increase on PhARMA members. Even if this were to see the light of day, it would probably be more than offset by increases in the subsidies the government already provides them.

What about the $80 billion they agreed to? Well, they actually agreed to no more than $80 billion over 10 years. This is about 2% of what the government is expected to spend on drugs over the next 10 years. Most of that is a 50% discount on brand name drugs only for seniors in the donut hole of Part D. Only the promised $12 billion tax cut would be applied to the trillion dollar plus cost they are talking about.

None of the agreement provides for any way to ensure that PhARMA actually contributes a penny. And, every plan being considered by the House and Senate, except HR 676, the Medicare For All Act, with 93 co-sponsors, provides greater income for members of PhARMA.

On Tuesday, Obama praised two Republican Senators. Charles Grassley, the Republican point man in these backroom negotiations stabbed Obama in the back the very next day by claiming his opposition to “death panels” in the reform plans.

Since only one of three House plans and none of the two Senate plans have been written, it’s hard to know where he found those panels. The fact that they don’t exist didn’t bother Charley.

Johnny Isakson (R-GA) was praised by Obama for co-sponsoring what is being mis-characterized as death panels. The next day little Johnny rejected Obama’s praise by saying that Obama lied. It turns out someone was lying, and it wasn’t the President.

Grassley, as one of the three Republicans involved in the negotiations, did all of the damage he could do in those talks. It was necessary for him to sabotage Obama publicly to ensure the continuance of those millions of dollars of bribes from the healthcare industry. Anyone who has even casually watched his career was not surprised that he had no intention of crossing the aisle. A dead giveaway was the lack of criticism Charley received from his fellow Republicans while supposedly cozying up to the dreaded Kenyan citizen.

If these are the friendly Republicans, can bipartisanship be far behind? Every amendment that we know has been offered as part of any of the reform plans has, at a minimum, increased the costs. Many have been designed simply to fatally damage any reform. Obama’s quest for this unholy grail has required him to bar those who support his campaign rhetoric from the table. He declared single-payer off the table before any reform talks commenced.

How about a perspective you don’t normally get? An internal poll of the Republican National Committee showed that 54% thought we have “the best health care system in the world.” That’s surprising only in how low the number is. In response to another question, this poll showed 70% felt that the system is “badly in need of reform.” Does it seem strange to anyone else that the best system in the world is badly in need of reform?

You constantly hear the claim that the majority are satisfied with their health insurance coverage. Just what does that mean? Let’s break it down. Fifty-nine percent of those with private plans get it through their employer. Most pay little or nothing out of pocket. Most have never used it for anything other than maternity and the occasional cold or flu. What’s not to like? Also, they don’t complain about the government subsidizing ALL of these plans.

The highest satisfaction rate is among those with Medicare. There are only two ways I can think of to lose your Medicare coverage. Either move out of the country permanently or die. Private plans can be lost when you lose your job. Private plans have annual and lifetime spending limits. Private plans constantly ration care. Averaging more than two operations a year since being on Medicare, the spectre of rationing has never appeared.

They also seem only to ask for the opinions of people who still have insurance. There are other problems with the methodologies employed by the quoted polls. That may be influenced by the fact that the polls you are most likely to see were paid for by the health insurance industry.

Are you scared yet?

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

America is the greatest country in the world. I grew up hearing that and I used to believe it. I still hear people saying it.

Is it true? What did people mean when they made that claim? What does it mean now? Are people now just saying it out of habit? What criteria are they using? Perhaps we need to look in the mirror.

We aren’t the richest country in the world. We don’t have the longest life expectancy. We rank way down the list on satisfaction with our lives. We have the highest crime rate in the world. One of every four prisoners in the world is one of us.

We spend half of all the military funding in the world. Is this what they mean when they call us the greatest? I think not.

Our politicians collect more bribes than those of any other country. Is this what they mean when they call us the greatest? I hope not.

America isn’t so much a place with amber grain waving between shining seas. It is essentially an idea, an experiment. Can the people govern themselves? Do we need a monarch or a dictator to make those decisions for us? That is the idea. That is the experiment.

Many people actually think us incapable of making decisions for ourselves. They may be right, or not. The funny thing is, those that believe it just happen to think that they are the only ones qualified and suited to impose those decisions on us.

Who are these exemplars of omniscience? Who are these people worthy to replace democracy? There are two groups of such exalted beings that bless us with their very presence. One group, ironically, acquired their lofty stations via the democratic process they hold in such low esteem. The others are the economic elite, known historically as plutocrats.

These two groups, composing government and corporations, work as a team. The problem is that we make up the other side. There are two political parties: the corporatists and the populists. One side holds the interest of corporations supreme. The other considers actual human beings of greater importance.

There are two quotes that I feel appropriate. The first I commend to you comes from Benito Mussolini, “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Those corrupting our country should take note of the other, by Charles de Gaulle, “The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.”

We came to expect W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Wolfowitz, and the others of that ilk to repair to their authoritarian bent, whether they felt challenged or not. They were essentially sociopaths. We hoped those eight years were an aberration. We sat back and waited.

We found someone who promised change. Were those sincere promises that became sullied in the rough and tumble of political combat? Or, were those promises no more than a marketing ploy to attract those who were desperate for a government that valued the people.

Obama is being assaulted by the “birthers,” people who make their own reality. He is being compared to Hitler, by people who have no understanding or appreciation of what Hitler represented. He is called a socialist, by people who couldn’t find the word in a dictionary. From Newt Gingrich to the droolers who think he cares about them we hear claims of government plans for euthanasia.

UnAmerican crowds are denying others the right to express themselves, as democracy requires. They threaten bodily harm to anyone with the temerity to hold a different position. Those are the tactics employed by the Brown Shirts back in the 1930s. Rational discourse is disappearing from the American body politic.

The President is doing his fair share of damage to this American idea. He campaigned on the accurate claim that the government and people are being ripped off by al-PhARMA. He proclaimed that banning Medicare from negotiating drug prices had to change. He promised that all negotiations with the health industry would be covered by C-SPAN. Boy, that sounded great. It was just what was needed to restore some confidence in our government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCRO0g9CfAw

C-SPAN is ready. The people are waiting. Stand down. There has been no coverage by C-SPAN. The ban on negotiation has been ratified by fiat from the Oval Office. So much for change. Hope felt nice, while it lasted.

If, as Obama and most everyone else agrees, healthcare reform is the most important issue, what are we to do now that it is official there will be no real reform? The White House staff is putting together a marketing campaign to support their empty claim that they have achieved reform. Marketing is hardly an adequate substitute for democracy.

We will be told again that we have the greatest healthcare system in the world. The 47 million uninsured has grown to 52 million. The last study from the World Health Organization listed us as 37^th. Before you gloat too much at that wonderful ranking, you should know that report came out in the year 2000. Before that, the U.S. was falling. It is only natural to assume that the decline wasn’t reversed. Why has there been no updated report? The WHO says that correlating those eight factors is just too complex. My personal opinion is that the U.S. exerted some influence to avoid further embarrassment.

While the cheerleaders shout about our healthcare system being the best in the world, the cost rises. The number without healthcare rises. And The Changer promises the the greediest group in the system a bigger piece of pie. Meanwhile, polls in every country with national healthcare systems shows overwhelming support for their systems. Not a single one of those countries has any interest in adopting our “Greatest Healthcare System in the World.”

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Apparently lots of people are as gullible as Charlie Brown. How many of you remember the New York Times‘ poll last month?

The exact question was, “Would you favor or oppose the government’s offering everyone a government-administered health-insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?” Seventy-two percent favored such a plan. Twenty percent were ignorant enough to oppose it.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites