Will Health Care "Reform" Follow the Destructive Pattern of Bank Bailouts and Promoting the Death of US Manufacturing?
His rhetoric is wonderful; but the reality of his administration's economic and civil, constitutional, and human rights policies makes an antithetical mockery of his words and shouts hypocrisy.
Because of the appalling record, even though brief, of his administration's bailout of the the corrupt financial system that caused the economic crisis that brought this country to its knees and his administration's destructive policies regarding US manufacturing and trade, will health care reform follow the same path of damaging adherence to superficial "reform" instead of real substantive change?
Amazingly, union leadership is defying its rank and file, many of whom support single payer, universal health care.
Roger Bybee writes at In These Times about the skewed debate on health care reform that makes "strange bedfellows of those opposed to single payer, universal health care, and the for profit players bring to the table an array of political resources---campaign contributions, lobbyists, and the ability to finance "astroturf" campaigns that mimic grassroots efforts."
"President Obama committed to making a major legislative push for healthcare reform in his first year in office. But there is reason to worry that any potential reform may look more like the recent bank bailouts—that is, a massive giveaway to politically connected corporations—than a progressive restructuring of the U.S. healthcare system.
"By substantial majorities, both voters and doctors in the United States favor a Canadian-style, single-payer healthcare plan that would dethrone private insurance companies from their commanding role in the current system.
"But despite this fact, most healthcare reform lobbying and rhetoric has excluded the single-payer option from the debate, leaving for-profit insurance companies at the heart of the U.S. healthcare system.
"Rather than pursue a single-payer system, the Obama administration, the insurance industry, unions and citizen groups have settled upon the “guaranteed affordable choice” model, which would mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance or enroll in some version of a public plan. The mandate would be coupled with an agreement by insurers to stop rejecting applicants because of “pre-existing conditions.”
"But many health experts argue that insurers have shown enormous ingenuity in avoiding patients who are older or have conditions that will be expensive to treat. Companies manipulate sign-up procedures, avoid marketing in settings where older people are likely to be and delay authorization or payment for treatments, Harvard Medical School’s Dr. David Himmelstein told In These Times.
"If enacted, this “affordable choice” system would likely be an enormous windfall for the health insurance industry by adding tens of millions of new enrollees.
“ 'The one model [single-payer] that works is being set aside right from the start as ‘not politically feasible,' says Chris Townsend, political director of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers. 'But somehow a Rube Goldberg scheme, requiring mandatory purchase of insurance, gets certified as politically viable.'
"Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who generally favor a single-payer system, met with President Obama in late April to stress that the public option must be modeled upon Medicare. Caucus members are adamant that the public option serve as an attractive, nonprofit alternative to private insurance and that reform legislation must give states the option of enacting their own single-payer plans.
"Single-payer advocates view these statements as an admission that a single-payer plan would be much more streamlined and cost-efficient. 'It’s funny for them to admit the public plan is unfair because it’s more efficient,' says Dr. Don McCanne, of Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP)."
Comments