|
|
 Posted March 22nd, 2010 at 3:32PM
So while things have been quiet around here, I’ve been following the healthcare debate closely. Kucinich’s change of heart mid last week coincided with mine, and so I was pleased with Representative Scott Murphy’s decision to vote in favor – and relieved when the final tallies were announced late last night.
My line of thinking is now along the lines that this legislation is (or at least, can be, optimistically assuming the best possible outcome – a great leap of faith) better than nothing. Nothing, coming after more than a year of effort on the part of the Democrats, always the consummate lesser of two evils. A failure here, pragmatically spelling the end of Hope with a capital H, and putting any future reform efforts on the back burner for another decade plus.
With two-thousand plus pages of legislation, I won’t make any claims to understanding anything beyond the easily digestible bullet points being paraded in the news. Earlier, I became hopeful that this legislation would actually affect me in the near term, with the clause allowing dependent children to stay on their parent’s plans till the age of 26. I am most definitely still dependent on my parents, and I am also under the age of 26 for another whopping three months. My eagerness to get back on the roles isn’t borne from my pre-existing condition (T2 diabetes – still very much under control), but for the recent ultimatum on my wisdom teeth – they’s gotsta go! (For years their place was secure, since apparently I have the jaw line and accompanying mouth space of one of homo sapien’s earlier ancestors. But while the top pair have come in fine, the bottoms still aren’t completely through, and the determination has been made that they need to come out. And the older I get, the less chance of my gums healing properly.)
But from what I can tell, this piece of the healthcare legislation won’t be applicable in my case. First off, although this is purportedly one of the pieces enacted immediately, I still found word that there is a six month grace period involved. Secondly, I can’t figure out whether this is applicable at all for all of the 21-26 year olds who’ve already been kicked off – can we just sign back on, or are we in a loophole? Thirdly, the wisdom teeth would most likely be deemed a “pre-existing condition” and not covered even if I was able to get insured for the next three months. (Pre-existing conditions will be a thing of the past for adults by 2014, children (real children) immediately.) Fourthly, and last, I just found out that New York has already had legislation that allows unmarried children to remain on their parent’s insurance – until the age of 30!
I don’t recall what age I was when I was kicked off of my parent’s insurance. It seemed an arbitrary age, and I remember it being before I even graduated from college. While attending, I had some very low cost plan associated with the college and assumed it would cover anything catastrophic. And I was uninsured when diagnosed with diabetes two years ago. I am not enthused at my chances of being re-enrolled, as the current for-profit healthcare system stands to gain nothing by having me insured getting proper medical treatment at an affordable cost. Therein lies the fundamental problem, an issue never at task over the past year of partisan squabbling.
Still, although I am yet another instance of an uninsured individual who will likely see nothing come from this legislation in the short term, I feel like I can only hope for the best in that the CBO estimates show some savings to be had, long term, nationally. If this effort was sunk, reform would not be attempted again, and this would undoubtedly result in a worsening of the crippled system – by the CBO’s own estimates. Further skyrocketing costs, millions more uninsured, more and more of the same.
It is hard to feel any satisfaction, or to even see this as a “victory.” Healthcare reform has been a significant issue for me for several election cycles. Watching the political process over the past year neuter the most substantial reforms has been disheartening. This legislative success looks to do nothing for the thousands still dying for lack of care. Perhaps the sense of victory will hold them over until 2014 or whenever the applicable parts of the bill come into effect. Premiums will surely increase astronomically while health insurance companies have free reign to do so.
Watching the whole debacle, I’m taken aback by the unscrupulousness of the Republicans, Waterloo-ing the issue the whole time; and by the emasculated nature of the Dems, incapable of passing substantial reform while in control of both Congress and the presidency. It’s hard to see how any progress can be made under this system.
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 1:17PM
He told the media from his Saratoga Springs office on Monday that he believes health care reform is critical, but it’s coming at too high a cost to cornerstone businesses in the North Country. That is why he voted “no” on the bill.
Murphy says the bill makes a number of important reforms which he supported, however, such as lifetime caps on insurance benefits as well as the pre-existing condition exclusion – meaning an insurance company can refuse you if you have a preexisting medical condition.
But during Saturday’s vote in Washington, Murphy sided with 39 other Democrats who also voted with Republicans, saying the plan would put affordable health care out of reach of many small businesses and that it unfairly targets some Capital Region industries, like Finch Paper in Glens Falls.
I was surprised to see Smurphy vote against the healthcare bill in the house after being a supporter of the stimulus plan – and really the overall Dem agenda coming from Washington – since being elected. A talking head on the news the other night suggested that certain house Dems from conservative districts (Murphy included) may have very well been given the OK to dissent, political self-preservation in mind.
Was the vote orchestrated as such? If so, I feel the danger is that political calculation playing out too well. Because the real question is whether anyone interested in substantial reform should have supported the bill in the first place. In his public statement, Murphy faults the measure for affordability and putting an additional burden on area businesses.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, co-author of H.R. 676 (the single-payer bill that should have been included in this debate) was another ‘no’ Democratic vote. In part:
“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.”
“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.”
“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care.
The final tally on H.R. 3962?
- A mandate to at least 21 million to buy into the broken system – resulting in an estimated $70 billion in new revenue to the health insurance industry
- A crippled public option, potentially enrolling only 6 million – available only to those people deemed unprofitable to insure privately
- Little to nothing in the way of cost containment or prevention
- A provision to allow states to implement their own single-payer (read: effective) systems was stripped from the final bill
- A four year period until the bill goes into effect, after the 2013 presidential elections. Seen the banking industry’s reaction to the grace period for new credit regulations? Enjoy watching healthcare costs balloon these next four years, and keep in mind the Journal of Public Health‘s recently published study estimating that 45,000 Americans die annually due to unaffordable, unobtainable treatment. What happened to the immediacy of reform?
It appears then that this is substantial reform in name only. Nader’s take:
Still Waiting for Health Care
…
During this overall debate on the bill, Republicans stood up one by one, as prevaricatory dittoheads, to often scream and howl (like coyotes) that this is “a government takeover of one sixth of the economy,” “would destroy the economy,” “put 5.5 million people out of work,” “destroy the doctor-patient relationship,” “be a steamroller of socialism,” “force millions of seniors to lose their current health coverage” (meaning, Medicare?) and, in a passionate appeal to the Almighty, Congressman John Fleming (R-LA) declared “God help us as the government takes over your day-to-day life.”
Never mind that this bill is just an expansion, however misdirected, of government health insurance designed to increase corporate profits and increase the corporate grip over the day-to-day decisions regarding who, when and how people get their health care or get their bills paid.
So whether Murphy’s vote was political calculation or not, I can hardly fault it.
UPDATE: More, from today’s Healthcare-NOW! newsletter:
So is the House bill better than nothing?
“I don’t think so,” writes Marcia Angell, M.D., former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. “It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we’ve tried health reform and it didn’t work. But the real problem will be that we didn’t really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right.”
Given that the bill does nothing to contain or reduce rising costs or end the private health insurance industry’s dominance, we hoped that the Progressive Caucus would stand strong. But they did not. All but two of H.R. 676′s cosponsors voted for H.R. 3962 — Rep. Eric Massa [D-NY] and Rep. Kucinich [D-OH].
Rep. Massa stated, “At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There’s really no other way to look at it.”
Posted August 24th, 2009 at 1:07PM
This Modern World for August 18th:
What if Democrats behaved more like Republicans?
Yup. Tom Tomorrow is a genius and, coincidentally, my hero. Guy creates a comic strip that is on the money, day after day after day.
Posted August 16th, 2007 at 9:41PM
In a CBS News / New York Times poll earlier this year, 90% of respondents agreed that the United States healthcare system needed either “fundamental changes†or a “complete overhaul.†Most were satisfied with their own care, but the majority (81%) said they were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the cost of care. And a full two-thirds agreed that the government has a “responsibility to provide healthcare for all.â€
And which party, according to the March 1st poll, is seen as most capable of fixing the system? In a four to one margin – the Democrats. With the population calling for a solution that offends small government sensibilities, the Democrats have the chance, for a change, to be on the winning side of a wedge issue. (Consider the latest war in Iraq a squandered opportunity.)
In most cases, wedge issues are political and not policy oriented. They’re about creating conflict and not bettering the state of things. Is it possible for the Democrats to use an issue that actually needs resolution? They’ll need to walk a fine line.
As per the primary season, to date, the issue has produced mostly infighting among the Democratic contenders. As a result of her time as head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform ,Hillary Clinton is viewed as most capable. The failed task force was the result of Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, which focused on reforming healthcare. John Edwards has been pushing a detailed plan, while Barack Obama has been faulted for “vagueness.†Still, regardless of the candidate, Democrats have always been seen as more capable in dealing with healthcare woes. And this view has only been reinforced in recent years by Bush’s complete impotence on the matter.
The fact that healthcare is shaping up to be the domestic hot-button issue for the 2008 election cycle comes as a welcomed relief after years of debate over manufactured crises like gay marriage or stem cell research. Healthcare is a daily concern for millions of Americans. The costs for both insurer and insured are skyrocketing, while the number of uninsured continues to climb (47 million in 2006). The crisis has reached a sort of critical mass, with no one particularly happy with the status quo. The Democrats have the ability to push the issue during the election, and then – more importantly – to act when they’re elected. The calls to decrease costs and increase coverage are resolvable. But just because this opportunity has fallen into the collective lap of the Democratic Party doesn’t mean it’ll be capitalized upon.
Any successful campaign for reform will need to point out the inefficiencies of our current healthcare system that make it the most costly per capita in the world. Clinton’s attempts at reform in the early ‘90s were portrayed as bureaucratic and restrictive – not to mention necessitating the politically suicidal “tax increase.†The eventual Democratic nominee in 2008 needs to avoid such banal characterizations.
Reform will likely necessitate increased government spending, but this will be offset by the fact that individual and business costs associated with healthcare will decrease. Premiums for a typical family have nearly doubled in the past five years, and the situation is similar for businesses. The current healthcare system impedes growth by increasing administrative costs and discouraging small businesses, entrepreneurs, and others who might choose to work at home or change jobs. Americans spend more than double per capita what other industrialized nations spend on healthcare, but we’re consistently worse in leading indicators like life expectancy or infant mortality rates. Illustrating these sorts of inefficiencies and inadequacies is crucial in currying wider support, both for reform and for the Democratic nominee.
But all reform is not equal, and the biggest challenge now might very well be political expediency trumping sound policy. At a town hall meeting in Iowa devoted to healthcare, Hillary Clinton excused her failure to provide specifics, saying that she was waiting to hear from voters on what sort of plan they would favor. A broad swath of support for healthcare reform is indeed necessary, but crafting a plan that’s palatable to everyone (including those currently profiteering) is a recipe for disaster. Stopgap measures and half-hearted attempts will only fail, vindicating naysayers who say reform is unnecessary or unfeasible. So it becomes not an issue of whether healthcare is on the table, but rather a genuine policy debate. Every Democratic candidate will need a plan that is not only practical, but effectual. And then, we need to hold them to their word once they assume the presidency.
Posted December 4th, 2004 at 2:15PM
As usual, the Democratic leadership is trying to pin the blame on someone else, rather than their own putrid efforts. Today it’s (surprise, surprise) Michael Moore. Here’s an interesting article on Commondreams.com. An excerpt:
No More Moore: The DLC Joins the Witch-Hunt
According to the last data I could find, Moore recently made a movie that was seen by tens of millions of people around the world and has grossed nearly $120 million in the U.S. alone. Furthermore, it was, according to exit polls, a much better demographic success than the actual Democratic party. A Harris poll conducted in July found that 89 percent of Democrats agreed with Fahrenheit 9/11, along with 70 percent of independents. That means Moore outperformed John Kerry among independents by about 19 points, if we are to go just by the data presented by bum-licking power-worshipper Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times at the DLC roundtable.
Moore’s revenues come from millions of ordinary people paying 10 bucks a pop to see his film. In contrast, only about 200 people a year visit the DLC at the box office—only they pay thousands of dollars per ticket, and they all have names you’d recognize: Eli Lilly, Coca-Cola, Union Carbide, Occidental Petroleum, BP and so on.
The article takes digs at a one “Will Marshall” who is the president of the”Progressive Policy Institute” – thinktank for the DLC.
In addition to his duties as the president of the PPI, Marshall kept himself busy in the last few years. Among other things, he served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization co-chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain whose aim was to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq.
Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the conservative Social Democrats/USA group on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SD/USA letter urged Bush to commit to “maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning.”
How much more conservative can the Democratic Party move, for chrissakes?
:sigh:
|
Tags: 
