Who would Jesus insure?

Who would Jesus Insure?

That was the slogan on a placard that stole the show at a tea party attended by Michael Krantz yesterday:

[T]he Medicare recipients who want nothing to do with government-run health care [were] one of the more amusing right-wing cliches of this long hot August. There were no doubt plenty of them yesterday among a crowd that was predominantly older, overwhelmingly white and, I'd wager, heavily evangelical, a combustive demographic that didn't exactly cotton to the gutsy girl who kept pacing around trying to yell "Health care for everyone!" loudly enough to drown out the repeated death threats and off-topic anti-abortion catcalls that greeted her homemade "Who Would Jesus Insure?" sign. Her question, in fact, was quite a bit more piquant than the ones I was asking.

Continue ReadingWho would Jesus insure?

Another ill-informed conservative argument on health care reform

Caroline Baum, a columnist for Bloomberg News, had this to say in an August 12 column about health care reform:

Take the issue of a public option. How can the private insurance industry survive with a not-for-profit government plan charging a pittance?
Ms. Baum has overlooked some basic facts that would undermine this claim. Namely, in America, there are public universities competing with private universities, public hospitals competing with private hospitals, public libraries competing with private bookstores, and a public post office competing with private package delivery companies. To cite an even more obvious example, there are already public, not-for-profit government plans like Medicare competing with private insurers. Even in Europe, where most countries already offer universal public health coverage, private insurers still operate. In none of these instances has the public alternative put private competitors out of business. Why on earth would this suddenly change if the U.S. Congress created a public health insurance option?

Continue ReadingAnother ill-informed conservative argument on health care reform

Did Obama fall for Big Pharma sales hype?

Did you hear that Obama has been cutting some secret deals with Big Pharma after his campaign filled with promises that health care reform would be a big open book? I don't quite know what to think of this. Maybe Obama is leading Pharma on, and he's gonna stab them in the back at the last minute. That ploy has the advantage of freezing the Pharma advertising money in place for now. This is important because Pharma has enough advertising money to destroy what's left of health care reform. So three cheers for the possibility that Obama is a shrewd guy who is keeping his enemies close to keep them at bay, at least for now. I'd give that about a 2% chance of being the case. What I'm assuming is that Obama knows that the system is so utterly corrupted by legalized bribery (campaign contributions) that Congress is incapable of giving us real health care reform. That's why Obama is unwilling to promote the single payer system that most Americans want. In this more likely scenario, Obama has already given up on any meaningful health care reform. Instead, he's working hard to spin the illusion of health care reform, and the final plan will actually be a few trinkets and whistles. Maybe the government will subsidize dentists to give out candy to their patients. Maybe it will be nothing at all, but all of the Congressional Leaders will nonetheless pose and smile with their 3,000 page health care reform bill that no one will have actually read and for good reason. As many progressives are arguing, with increasing volume these days, why not take the profit out of health care insurance? Why not essentially expand medicare to all Americans? The experts I trust say that single payor is the only legitimate reform. Everything else is throwing tax money at a corrupt and inefficient system. I wasn't a big fan of single payor until I started learning how many other countries are making it work. The benefits are many (In addition to the obvious improvement that sick people won't be thrown on the street, employed people won't be locked into terrible jobs just for the insurance). Really, why should we have for-profit health insurance any more than we might have for-profit fire departments and for-profit libraries? Except that we have a for-profit Congress and a for-profit military (e.g., Blackwater and all those private soldiers earning $100,000 to be in Afghanistan). It's getting downright un-American to be duped into doing something because it's RIGHT. But I'm still obsessing about the deal Obama cut with Pharma. We heard how Pharma would save Americans $80 Billion over the next 10 years. Did you see what the written deal is: It's "up to $80 Billion." pharma-memo Now what is Obama thinking? When I see that a store is offering "up to" 80% off, I know (because I'm not a total idiot) that this means the store might be offering 2 items at 10% off and everything else at 0% off. That's the meaning of "up to." Signing an agreement with "up to" is stupid, truly idiotic. My question (which I raised in the beginning of this post) is "Who is the one being stupid?" I'll be watching for some happy 11th hour excitement when Obama tells Pharma to fuck off, that we're enacting single payor and that for its loyalty and naivete, Pharma will be rewarded with tax breaks of "up to" 100%, which means negative 37%. Take that, assholes. That's what you get for trying to cut secret deals with my President. If only. Epilogue: For those of you who are pissed that Obama is a communist, note that Blue Cross just tried to raised its rates by 56% in Michigan.

Continue ReadingDid Obama fall for Big Pharma sales hype?

When language fails

"War is what happens when language fails." --Margaret Atwood Yesterday the New York Times ran a piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg about the recent disruptions to town hall meetings that were convened to discuss health care reform. Stolberg points out that this sort of "activism" subverts the democratic process. It is aimed not at furthering, but at overwhelming public discourse:

The traditional town hall meeting, a staple of Congressional constituent relations, had been hijacked, overrun by sophisticated social-networking campaigns — those on the right protesting so loudly as to shut down public discourse and those on the left springing into action to shut down the shutdowns.
(I once tried to discuss the first Gulf War with a dittohead, back in the day. He shouted at me for fifteen minutes; every now and then he yelled, "What do you say to that?" I couldn't say anything, it would've been like shouting into a full force gale.) Meanwhile, Snopes has an email making the rounds that claims that Obama's proposed health care reform bill mandates "euthanasia counseling" for seniors. Another pleads, "Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants." Health care reform is just one front on a larger American skirmish, of course; one that's been going on for most of my lifetime. I was a child of the 60's, when social upheaval was just as marked as it is now. But in the 60's, the country was in good economic shape. And the outrage then really did originate at the grassroots. Today, tough economic times and the specter of America's gradually waning superpowers have intensified the culture wars. So have the right-wing media, which love to whip up hysteria, religious fanaticism, and paranoia--anything to further their political agenda. The town hall shoutfests, like the teabag protests earlier this year, may be Astroturf, but they tap into real, and fairly widespread, fear and rage. Lies, misinformation, and attempts to obstruct civil discourse make good-faith dialogue difficult if not impossible. How far will they go, and how do we overcome them? And if we can't, could the U.S. descend into another civil war? (Surely not. That's my imagination working overtime, fueled by my own paranoia. Isn't it?)

Continue ReadingWhen language fails

More clarity Needed on Obama healthcare; Something, Anything Needed from Party of “NO!”

I’m concerned about some lack of clarity on health care issues from the Obama administration but, my concern is nothing compared to my disgust for the despicable declarations of “NO!” and nothing from the Republicans in Washington. Chief among the prevaricators is Republican Roy Blunt who reports there will be no GOP alternative to any Democratic plan for the reform of America’s broken healthcare system. All we’ll hear about is “socialism” and more lies about how you won’t be able to choose your doctors or will lose your current coverage. You can see more about the President’s plan here: First, “socialism” is government control of the means of production. Second, no one is proposing that the entire medical “industry” be taken over by the federal government. The current legislation will allow for options to the current system. The current system is one for which I found an apropos description below [the following well-written post was published under the headline of “Still scary…” in the Letters section at the website of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reprinted with permission]:

Dear Mr. President: I am writing you today because I am outraged at the notion of involving government in healthcare decisions like they do in other countries. I believe healthcare decisions should be between myself and my doctor. Well, that is not strictly true. I believe healthcare decisions should be between myself, my doctor, and my insurance company, which provides me a list of which doctors I can see, which specialists I can see, and has a strict policy outlining when I can and can’t see those specialists, for what symptoms, and what tests my doctors can or cannot perform for a given set of symptoms. That seems fair, because the insurance company needs to make a profit; they’re not in the business of just keeping people alive for free. Oh, and also my employer. My employer decides what health insurance company and plans will be available to me in the first place. If I quit that job and find another, my heath insurance will be different, and I may or may not be able to see the same doctor as I had been seeing before, or receive the same treatments, or obtain the same medicines. So I believe my healthcare decisions should be between myself, the company I work for, my insurance company, and my doctor. And the separate claims review team that will be looking over my treatment. My health insurer might have flagged me as someone who needs a lot of healthcare, and who is therefore costing the company money. Needing to use the insurance you paid for is naturally a suspicious activity: that means that a special review team will look over my paperwork, seeing if there is any vaguely plausible reason for the company to be rid of me. They will look for loopholes in my application, irregularities in the paperwork my doctor filled out or any other situations which, like magic, mean that all the money I have paid for health insurance premiums was in fact irrelevant, null and void, and they don’t have to pay a single cent of claims because I defrauded them by neglecting to remember that I had chicken pox in sixth grade, not fifth, or that what I presumed was a bad cold in 1997 was in fact maybe-possibly-bronchitis, and I can’t possibly expect to be covered for any lung-related complaints since then. I suppose I cannot complain too much; after all, this is a crack squadron of employees whose pay is determined by how much they can reduce the healthcare costs incurred by the company. It would be irresponsible for them to not look for such loopholes. So, Mr. President, I write to you with this demand: we are not a socialist country, one which believes the health of its citizens should come without the proper profit-loss determinations. I believe that my healthcare decisions should be between me, my insurance company plan, my insurance company’s list of approved doctors I am allowed to see and treatments I am allowed to get, my insurance company’s claims department, the insurance company doctors who have never met me, spoken to me or even personally looked at my files, my own preexisting conditions, my insurance company’s crack cost-review and retroactive cancellation and denial squads, my insurance company’s executives and board of directors, my insurance company’s profit requirements, the shareholders, my employer, and my doctor. Anything else would be insulting. — The Libtard 1:29 am July 26th, 2009
America needs to take better care of its citizens in critical times of need, like when we are ill. It is not any government scheme to take over the means of production to provide some basic health care for all of us. The status quo is unacceptable. If the Republicans can do no better than “NO,” it’s time for them to get out of the way. People are dying, and we can’t yet all rise from the dead.

Continue ReadingMore clarity Needed on Obama healthcare; Something, Anything Needed from Party of “NO!”