What sick socialist bastard would want to provide free healthcare to the poor! January 30, 2012
Posted by rogerhollander in Health, Religion, Right Wing.Tags: evangelicals.christians, health care, health reform, jesus, jesus of nazareth, poverty, republicans, right wing, roger hollander, ron paul, single payer, socialism, the poor
2 comments
Roger’s note: I am no fan of the Obama health care legislation, which gave away the store to the health insurance industry and by no means provides free healthcare to the poor; but this image is a perfect antidote to the mean spirited and hypocritical “Christian” Republicans, to Ron Paul and the other Ayn Rand worshipers.
Canada May Have the Cure For US’s Medicare Ailment June 21, 2011
Posted by rogerhollander in Canada, Economic Crisis, Health.Tags: Canada, canada health, health care, health care spending, health costs, health reform, healthcare, medicare, paul krugman, roger hollander, single payer, sustainable health, tommy douglas
1 comment so far
Roger’s note: A few FACTS about the Canadian Health Care System to counter the lies put forward by the shameless Tea Party and other right-wing Republican Evangelical types. (1) users have absolute right to choose their physicians; (2) to make the system more efficient, one needs to be referred to a specialist by her family physician; (3) some provinces have community clinics where one can join — at no cost, of course — and receive care from salaried health care professionals (doctors on salary, can you imagine such a radical notion?!?); the founder of the Canadian Health Care System, Tommy Douglas, was voted the greatest Canadian of all times in a poll conducted by the Canadian Broadcasting Company; (4) the rumours about long waits for service have a grain of truth to them, but this is not because of a flaw in the system; rather it is due to right-wing provincial governments reducing funding; but in emergency situations care is not delayed. I am a Canadian, and I have lived under both the US and Canadian health care systems, and there is absolutely no question which is more efficient and humane. The Canadian system of early intervention at no cost to the patient or her family saved the life of my two-year old daughter when she had spinal meningitis. When my father visited us in Canada from the States and took ill, I brought him to the office of my family physician, who treated him. The office, however, was stumped as to what to do about payment. They never had to collect money before and didn’t know what to do with it. In Canada, you go to the doctor or laboratory and present you health card. No money changes hands. No co-payments. Imagine!
Tuesday 21 June 2011
Crystal Bentley is examined by Dr. Tom Novak at a clinic in Oshawa, Canada. (Photo: Donald Weber for The New York Times)
I keep hearing people say that Medicare in its current form is not sustainable in the United States, as if that were an established fact. It’s anything but.
What is Medicare? It’s single-payer coverage for the elderly.
Other countries have single-payer systems that are much cheaper than ours — and also much cheaper than private insurance in America. So there’s nothing about the form that makes Medicare unsustainable, unless you think that health care itself is unsustainable.
What is true is that American Medicare is expensive compared to, say, Canadian Medicare (yes, that’s what they call their system) or the French health care system (which is complicated, but largely single-payer in its essentials); that’s because American-style Medicare is very open-ended, reluctant to say no to paying for medically dubious procedures, and also fails to make use of its pricing power over drugs and other items. So Medicare will have to start saying no; it will have to provide incentives to move away from fee-for-service, and so on and so forth. But such changes would not mean a fundamental change in the way Medicare works.
Of course, what the people who say things like “Medicare is unsustainable” usually mean is that it must be privatized, converted into a voucher system, or whatever. The thing is, none of those changes would make the system more efficient — on the contrary.
So this business about Medicare in its present form being unsustainable sounds wise but is actually a stupid slogan. The solution to the future of Medicare is Medicare — smarter, less open-ended, but recognizably the same program.
Medicare Sustainability
Just a further data note. Canada’s Medicare is actually a lot like Medicare in the United States, but less open-ended and more serious about cost control. Here’s a chart showing Canadian spending on health versus American spending, both as percentages of gross domestic product.
Hmm. Canadian Medicare looks pretty sustainable, especially as compared to the American system, which has much more private insurance.
Now, Canadian health care isn’t perfect — but it’s not bad, and Canadians are happier with their system than we are with ours in the United States. So anyone who tells you that Medicare as we know it — a single-payer system that covers everyone over a certain age — is unsustainable is ignoring the clear evidence that other countries somehow manage to make similar systems quite sustainable.
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2008.
Mr Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes, including “The Return of Depression Economics” (2008) and “The Conscience of a Liberal” (2007). Copyright 2011 The New York Times.
Single-Payer in Vermont, A State of Healthy Firsts May 26, 2011
Posted by rogerhollander in Health, Vermont.Tags: amy goodman, denis moynihan, health, health care, health reform, healthcare, medicare-for-all, peter shumlin, roger hollander, single payer, vermont
add a comment
Vermont is a land of proud firsts. This small, New England state was the first to join the 13 Colonies. Its constitution was the first to ban slavery. It was the first to establish the right to free education for all — public education.
Today, Vermont will boast another first: the first state in the nation to offer single-payer health care, which eliminates the costly insurance companies that many believe are the root cause of our spiraling health care costs. In a single-payer system, both private and public health care providers are allowed to operate, as they always have. But instead of the patient or the patient’s private health insurance company paying the bill, the state does.
It’s basically Medicare for all — just lower the age of eligibility to the day you’re born. The state, buying these health care services for the entire population, can negotiate favorable rates, and can eliminate the massive overhead that the for-profit insurers impose.
Vermont hired Harvard economist William Hsiao to come up with three alternatives to the current system. The single-payer system, Hsiao wrote, “will produce savings of 24.3 percent of total health expenditure between 2015 and 2024.”
An analysis by Don McCanne, M.D., of Physicians for a National Health Program, pointed out that “these plans would cover everyone without any increase in spending since the single-payer efficiencies would be enough to pay for those currently uninsured or under-insured. So this is the really good news — single payer works.”
Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin explained to me his intention to sign the bill into law: “Here’s our challenge. Our premiums go up 10, 15, 20 percent a year. This is true in the rest of the country as well. They are killing small business. They’re killing middle-class Americans, who have been kicked in the teeth over the last several years. What our plan will do is create a single pool, get the insurance company profits, the pharmaceutical company profits, the other folks that are mining the system to make a lot of money on the backs of our illnesses, and ensure that we’re using those dollars to make Vermonters healthy.”
Speaking of healthy firsts, Vermont may become the first state to shutter a nuclear power plant. The Vermont Legislature is the first to empower itself with the right to determine its nuclear future, to put environmental policy in the hands of the people.
Another Vermont first was the legalization of same-sex civil unions. Then the state trumped itself and became the first legislature in the nation to legalize gay marriage. After being passed by the Vermont House and Senate, former Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed the bill. The next day, April 7, 2009, the House and the Senate overrode the governor’s veto, making the Vermont Freedom to Marry Act the law of the land.
Vermont has become an incubator for innovative public policy.
Canada’s single-payer health care system started as an experiment in one province, Saskatchewan. It was pushed through in the early 1960s by Saskatchewan’s premier, Tommy Douglas, considered by many to be the greatest Canadian. It was so successful, it was rapidly adopted by all of Canada. (Douglas is the grandfather of actor Kiefer Sutherland.)
Perhaps Vermont’s health care law will start a similar, national transformation. The anthropologist Margaret Mead famously said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Just replace “group” with “state,” and you’ve got Vermont.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
<!–
–>
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 900 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.
Vt. Senate gives final nod to universal health care bill in 21-9 vote April 30, 2011
Posted by rogerhollander in Health.Tags: affordable care, anne galloway, health, health care, health care reform, health reform, healthcare, healthcare reform, obamacare, peter shumlin, roger hollander, single payer, universal health care, universal healthcare, vermont, vermont health, vermont senate
add a comment
Roger’s note: I confess that I don’t understand the ins and outs of Obama’s Byzantine insurance industry dominated health care legislation, or how a Vermont single payer universal coverage plan can occur in that context. As a Canadian, however, I cannot but think of Tommy Douglas. Tommy Douglas was a clergyman and an unrepentant socialist who happened to be the Premier of the Canadian Province of Saskatchewan in the 1950s. Against massive resistance and fears of economic collapse, he introduced universal health care into the province, which became the catalyst for its adoption by the entire country. The domino theory at work. Do Canadians value their system of single payer universal health insurance? Would they support going back to private health care? In 2004 the CBC polled Canadians on who what the greatest Canadian of all time. Tommy Douglas won hands down. We can only hope that what the governor and senate have now accomplished in Vermont will be more than symbolic, that it will introduce genuine universal coverage where no one is left unprotected and health care costs come under control through the limitation of windfall profits by private insurers. Americans will then see what they are missing and demand single payer universal health care on a national basis. I love what Dr. Richter said: You go for what you want, not for what you think you might get – that’s what the bill does. Would that that great advocate of change you can believe in, Barack Obama, had had the courage to do just that instead of compromising the principled position of universal care from the very beginning of the congressional process.
by Anne Galloway | April 27, 2011
Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, campaigned on a promise to create a single-payer system in Vermont that would contain health care costs and give all of the state’s residents universal access to medical care. On Tuesday, Shumlin made good on the first step toward fulfilling that promise, and just five hours after the Senate vote, he marked the legislative victory in an appearance on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”
Shumlin said in a statement to the Vermont press: “Today the Legislature took a huge step toward making Vermont the first state in the first in the nation to control skyrocketing health care costs and remove the burden of providing health care coverage from small business owners. This bill is good for Vermonters and Vermont businesses.
Many Vermont businesses, however, believe otherwise. Though small employers have said they will benefit, some larger employers actively lobbied against the bill. Opponents of H.202 argued that the legislation would leave businesses in the lurch during the transition period between 2013 and 2014 when the state is required under federal law to participate in insurance exchanges. The opposition was led by insurance brokers (the Fleischer Jacobs Group, Business Resource Specialists), business associations (Vermont Chamber of Commerce, Vermont Grocers’ Association and Vermont Retailers Association), large employers (Dealer.com, Biotek, Rhino Foods and IBM). The Senate debate on Monday and Tuesday centered on changes to the legislation that would have made it more palatable to these groups.
Sen. Vince Illuzzi, R/D-Essex Orleans, who proposed two amendments that would have made the bill more business friendly, said companies are afraid “we will end up with a plan most won’t be able to afford.”
The legislation sets the state’s health care system on a new trajectory. Instead of continuing to use an insurance model for covering the cost of care, the bill moves the state toward an integrated payment system that would be controlled by a quasi judicial board and administered by a third party entity. The system would be funded through a broad-based tax.
The universal health care system would be implemented in 2014, if it clears 10 very high hurdles, including the receipt of a federal waiver. Otherwise it wouldn’t kick in until 2017.
Longtime single-payer advocate Dr. Deb Richter was ecstatic about the Senate passage of the bill.
“I’m absolutely thrilled,” Richter said. “It’s one of the best days of my life. I’ve given 400 speeches over the last 10 years and it feels like the work was worth it. We have a ways to go, but this is a step in the right direction.”
A universal health care system is the only way to cover everyone and contain costs, Richter said.
The passage of H.202 marks the first time any state in the country has attempted to provide universal care and a cost containment system that addresses administrative costs, hospital budgeting and uniform payments to doctors, Richter said.
Whether the federal government will give Vermont a waiver to adopt a universal health care system in 2014 is an open question. Richter said the state has a 50-50 chance of getting the exemption from the Affordable Care Act. Even so, she believes Vermont’s attempt to create a single-payer system is worthwhile.
“You go for what you want, not for what you think you might get – that’s what the bill does,” Richter said.
The Senate debate focused on the state’s implementation of the insurance exchanges that are required under federal law. The Affordable Care Act has mandated that states provide an actuarial value for insurance products (the insurance equivalent of a per unit price mechanism that allows consumers to compare the cost of on the shelf grocery items). The federal government has set up very general guidelines for the actuarial levels for insurance products insurers must provide under the exchange. The idea is to create an easy system for comparison between health insurance benefit plans that offer a dizzying array of deductibles, co-insurance, co-pays and premiums. The products, under the federal requirements, range from bronze (60 percent actuarial value) to silver (70 percent), gold (80 percent) and platinum (90 percent). It also puts minimum requirements on the “qualifying plans.” Many of these mandates are already in Vermont law. Insurers, for example, are not allowed to “cherry pick” consumers who are healthy and create pools without a cross-section of the sick and healthy populations.
Read this summary of the ACA requirements from Kaiser Foundation.
The Affordable Care Act requires individuals without insurance to buy into the exchange or face a $695 fine. Families of four with incomes of less than $88,700 qualify for tax credits. Businesses with more than 50 employees that do not buy insurance face a penalty of $2,000 per worker.
The fight between employers and proponents of H.202 was about the potential for mandatory inclusion of businesses that have between 50 and 100 workers in the exchange. Sens. Hinda Miller, D-Chittenden, and Illuzzi argued that requiring companies of that size to participate in the exchange could jeopardize their economic viability. Employers in that range tend not to self-insure and so are not protected under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The federal law allows states some flexibility. States can decide what benefit plan levels can be offered, for example. They can also determine the size of the businesses that must be included in the exchange. The Shumlin administration pushed for intent language in the bill that could have led to the inclusion of businesses with 50 to 100 employees into the exchange. Proponents of H.202 have said it’s important to include these 28,000 workers in the state’s insurance exchange in order to build toward a single-payer system.
An amendment proposed by Sen. Diane Snelling, R-Chittenden, and approved by the Senate struck the intent language. The Green Mountain Care board, which will oversee the health care reform effort including the exchanges, is charged with producing a report that would outline the impact of excluding the 50-100 employee group on the exchange, which the Shumlin administration wants to use as a stepping stone toward the single-payer system.
Illuzzi proposed two amendments that would have forced the state to include a broader array of insurance carriers in the exchange, would have specifically allowed health savings accounts and high deductible plans under the exchange and would have allowed “nonqualified” plans outside the exchange. H.202 allows for two carriers.
“Let’s not kid ourselves it will be more than one carrier,” Illuzzi said on the Senate floor. “It will likely be Blue Cross Blue Shield. It will be two carriers in name only. Both will be required to offer same (plans). It will be a change without a difference.”
Anya Rader Wallack, Shumlin’s special assistant on health care, said she was impressed by the Legislature.
“A lot of people worked very hard educating themselves in a short period of time,” Wallack said. “This isn’t simple stuff. I was impressed with the amount of effort both bodies have put into this.”
The Shumlin administration was heavily involved in drafting the bill, H.202. By the time the legislation reached final passage it had changed somewhat from its original incarnation, which was based in part on recommendations from Professor William Hsiao, the renowned Harvard economist who created a single payer system for Taiwan.
Sen. Claire Ayer talks with Anya Rader Wallack and Robin Lunge before Monday’s session. VTD/Josh Larkin
Over the next year, the Shumlin administration will hire a director of health care reform and the chair of a quasi-judicial board. The board would be in place by January 2012 and would begin the arduous task of sorting through the maze of federal laws, waivers, benefits, provider reimbursements, system financing and cost containment options.
H.202 will be read in the House Health Care Committee on Wednesday morning. Rep. Mark Larson, D-Burlington, said he expects the bill will go to conference committee in several days. He expects to have no major beefs with the Senate version.
“The core composition of the bill remains identical to what passed in the House,” Larson said. “There are differences between the two bills but they are things we can work out.”
Larson said those details include a change in the dynamic of the board. “We want to make sure it’s an independent board.”
He also referred to the so-called “Mullin” amendment, which set conditions for implementation of Green Mountain Care, the single-payer style system that would be created under H.202. Larson said he thinks the new criteria for the implementation standards need to be more clearly defined.
“It has to be clear what hurdle has to be overcome,” Larson said.
Vermont House Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill March 27, 2011
Posted by rogerhollander in Canada, Health.Tags: chris garofolo, health, health care, health care reform, health reform, healthcare, healthcare reform, single payer, sintle-payer, vermont, vermont health, vermont law, vermont legislature
add a comment
(Roger’s note: Vermont’s state legislature taking this bold step brings to mind Canada’s revered Tommy Douglas, when his leadership led to the passing of a single payer plan in the Province of Saskatchewan in 1962. This turned out to be the domino that that began the overwhelming popular drive for Canadian national health care, and which led to the passing of Canada’s single payer universal coverage national health plan. But that was then and this is now. Today in the United States the giant blood-sucking private health insurance and pharmaceutical industries virtually own a gutless president and the majority of legislators in both pathetic political parties. This was evidenced in the debate that led to the passing of the Obama health legislation last year, a debate in which a public plan or single payer plan was off the table from the beginning; and where the Democratic members of the House who were considered the most progressive and principled caved in the end and supported legislation that enshrines the power of the health insurance industry. Nevertheless, the Vermont action can very well be a first step towards setting an example for a health care plan that is single payer, universal and economic; which in turn can generate public opinion to put on the pressure in other jurisdictions. That is, if the gigantic insurance and pharmaceutical industries don’t find a way to snuff the breath out of the Vermont initiative before it has a chance to come to life.)
Published on Friday, March 25, 2011 by the Brattleboro Reformer (Vt.)
MONTPELIER — The Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill calling for a single-payer system Thursday afternoon, putting the state on a path to become the first in the nation to adopt universal access to health care.
Lawmakers voted 92 to 49 after nearly two days of debate, including discussion on the floor until the early morning hours on Thursday.
Advocates hail the measure as the solution to control costs by reducing administrative overhead. However, critics said it leaves too much financial uncertainty and could hurt the economic growth in Vermont.
The legislation proposes to develop a unified health system where all Vermonters are eligible for benefits under a universal coverage program called Green Mountain Care. Democratic leaders are optimistic the single-payer plan will contain the skyrocketing costs of health care and put the state on a more sustainable fiscal path.
“I think that we all know, and there was universal agreement on the House floor, that the current system will bankrupt us. Costs of health care in Vermont are going up $1 million a day. They are $2 billion more than they were 10 years ago. We have a problem, we need to solve it,” said House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morrisville. “This is just the first step in the process. This will be a long road ahead, and we have much work left to do. But we have taken a bold step forward today.”
The measure also designs a four-year timeframe to establish a publicly funded system, beginning with the creation of the Green Mountain Care Board on July 1 with a budget of $1.2 million. The five-member board will design a more sensible payment plan for health care providers, control the overall cost to align it closer to Vermonters’ ability to pay and recommend a benefit package for every resident.
However, the bill does not require the governor to propose a payment plan for the single-payer system until 2013, which sparked outcry from House Republicans. Paying for the reform is the most controversial portion of the bill and it will not be addressed until Gov. Peter Shumlin campaigns for his second term next year.
Shumlin, the first-term Democrat who made health care reform a cornerstone of his gubernatorial campaign last year, said the House has moved Vermont in a historic direction toward fixing a broken system.
“This is a really important step for Vermont. If we want to create jobs, if we want to be the state that makes the difference in controlling health care costs so that we can grow jobs and economic opportunities … this is an extraordinary moment,” he said.
Thursday’s otherwise civil debate turned into a political war of words after Rep. Thomas Burditt, R-West Rutland, said promoting universal coverage is the “keystone in the arch of socialism,” drawing criticism from Democrats and independents supporting the measure.
“I take offense at the remarks … that we’re socialists, that we’re communists,” said Rep. Paul Poirier, I-Barre. “I ask all members to respect other people’s points of view.”
Cooler heads prevailed as lawmakers wrapped up the roll call vote shortly after 3 p.m. The legislation heads to the Senate, where it is expected to pass with some possible changes.
Republican critics called on Senate members to “correct the errors” on the bill, particularly the cost burdens on state government.
Opponents said it is not feasible to implement a single-payer system as a stand-alone, suggesting instead an amendment to protect self-insured employers in the state. GOP lawmakers pressured their Democratic counterparts to listen to the hundreds of small businessowners voicing concerns over self-insurance.
“Risk and uncertainty are two barriers to economic growth and this promise would help alleviate these concerns,” said Rep. Oliver Olsen, R-Jamaica. “Self-insured businesses represent nearly 20 percent of all employers in Vermont, which is a large portion of our economy, and they are worried about how this bill will affect their ability to do business in Vermont.”
The amendment, proposed by Stowe Republican Heidi Scheuerman, was soundly defeated.
Rep. Michael Hebert, R-Vernon, spoke from the floor about his issues with the uncertain cost of such a health care network.
“I have a tremendous number of questions. And I’m not in opposition to health care finance reform, I’m just in opposition of us going down a road where we don’t know what it costs,” he said. “There are just so many unanswered questions and I’m really concerned with this five-member board. They’re going to have the authority to rule on every aspect of our health care in the state of Vermont.”
Meanwhile, Democrats hailed the swift-moving bill as a vote for hope and not fear. Supporters hugged outside the House chamber following the passage, a sense of pride on their faces as they praised the landmark health care measure.
“Today, Vermont’s House of Representatives showed America our small state has both the courage and conviction to lead the way nationwide on the creation of a unified single-payer health care system,” said Rep. Valerie Stuart, D-Brattleboro. “I thank the members of the [House Health Care] committee that created this piece of legislation with all my heart.”
The benefits under Green Mountain Care would not take effect until after Vermont receives a federal waiver under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. By 2014, the bill established a health care exchange as required by federal law.
The Health Insurance Industry’s Vendetta Against Michael Moore November 25, 2010
Posted by rogerhollander in Health.Tags: ahip, amy goodman, apco, denis moynihan, health care, health care america, health insurance, health insurance industry, health reform, healthcare, healthcare reform, insurance industry, michael moore, roger hollander, sicko, wendell potter
1 comment so far
Michael Moore, the Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker, makes great movies but they are not generally considered “cliff-hangers.” All that might change since a whistle-blower on the “Democracy Now!” news hour revealed that health insurance executives thought they may have to implement a plan “to push Moore off a cliff.” The whistle-blower: Wendell Potter, the former chief spokesman for health insurance giant Cigna. He was quoting from an industry strategy session on how to respond to Moore’s 2007 documentary “Sicko,” a film critical of the U.S. health insurance industry. Potter told me that he is not sure how serious the threat was but he added, ominously, “These companies play to win.”
Moore won an Oscar in 2002 for his film about gun violence, “Bowling for Columbine.” He followed that with “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a documentary on the presidency of George W. Bush that became the top-grossing documentary film in U.S. history. So when Moore told a reporter that his next film would be about the U.S. health care system, the insurance industry took notice.
AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), the major lobbying group of the for-profit health insurance corporations, secretly sent someone to the world premiere of “Sicko” at the Cannes Film Festival in France. Its agent rushed from the screening to a conference call with industry executives, including Potter. “We were very scared,” Potter said, “and we knew that we would have to develop a very sophisticated and expensive campaign to turn people away from the idea of universal care. … We were told by our pollsters [that] a majority of people were in favor of much greater government involvement in our health care system.”
AHIP hired a public-relations firm, APCO Worldwide, founded by the powerful law firm Arnold & Porter, to coordinate the response. APCO formed the fake grass-roots consumer group “Health Care America” to counter the expected popularity of Moore’s “Sicko” and to promote fear of “government run health care.”
Potter writes in his new book, “Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans,” that he “found the film very moving and very effective in its condemnation of the practices of private health insurance companies. There were many times when I had to fight to hold back tears. Moore had gotten it right.”
The insurance industry declared its campaign against “Sicko” a resounding success. Potter wrote, “AHIP and APCO Worldwide had succeeded in getting their talking points into most of the stories about the movie, and not a single reporter had done enough investigative work to find out that insurers had provided the lion’s share of funding to set up Health Care America.” Indeed, everyone from CNN to USA Today cited Health Care America as if it were a legitimate group.
Moore concedes, “Their smear campaign was effective and did create the dent they were hoping for-single payer and the public option never even made it into the real discussion on the floor of Congress.”
Moore has called Potter the “Daniel Ellsberg of corporate America,” invoking the famous Pentagon whistle-blower whose revelations helped end the Vietnam War. Potter’s courageous stand made an impact on the debate, but the insurance industry, the hospitals and the American Medical Association prevailed in blunting the elements of the plan that threatened their profits.
A recent Harvard Medical School study found that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year-one every 12 minutes-largely because they lack health insurance. But for the insurance lobby, the only tragedy is the prospect of true health care reform. In 2009, the nation’s largest health insurance corporations funneled more than $86 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to oppose health care reform. This year, the nation’s five largest insurers contributed three times as much money to Republican candidates as to Democrats, in an effort to further roll back insurance industry reform. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., an advocate of single payer health care, declared in Congress that “the Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry.” Potter agrees, saying the Republican Party has “been almost bought and paid for.”
The health insurance industry is getting its money’s worth. Moore said that the industry was willing to attack his film because it was afraid it “could trigger a populist uprising against a sick system that will allow companies to profit off of us when we fall ill.” Now that is truly sick.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
© 2010 Amy Goodman
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 800 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.
Attorneys General in 14 States Sue to Block Health Care Reform Law March 24, 2010
Posted by rogerhollander in Health.Tags: 10th amendment, commerce clause, constitution, direct tax, health, health bill, health care, health insurance, health reform, healthcare, healthcare reform, interstate commerce, Medicaid, private insurance, roger hollander, t, warren richey
add a comment
(Roger’s note: it gets curiouser and curiouser. Republican state Attorneys General, who couldn’t give a damn about the Constitution and just want to make mischief for the Democrats, have inadvertently hit the nail on the head. They are questioning the government’s authority to force its citizens and residents to purchase a product, which in this instance is private health insurance, and which is universally considered to be a defective product. Talk about doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. It brings into relief this absurd strategy to reform health care in the US by creating a private monopoly instead of doing the logical thing, which is a public monopoly, which is what you find in Canada and most of Europe. And it all has to do with the private health insurance and pharmaceutical industries virtually owning the presidency and the Congress. US democracy in action. What should Obama have done? He should have from the beginning put forward a single-payer, medicare-for-all proposal, fought for it with all his eloquence and popularity, and then if it failed it would be on the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who would have killed it.)
Tuesday 23 March 2010
Miami – A lawsuit filed Tuesday in Florida includes 13 states and charges that the new healthcare reform law in unconstitutional. Virginia’s attorney general filed a separate lawsuit.
State attorneys general wasted no time filing legal challenges to President Obama’s healthcare reform law, swinging into action with legal filings in Florida and Virginia within minutes of the White House signing ceremony on Tuesday.
In Tallahassee, Fla., 12 attorneys general joined Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in a 22-page complaint filed in federal court, charging that the new healthcare reform package exceeds Congress’s powers to regulate commerce, violates 10th Amendment protections of state sovereignty, and imposes an unconstitutional direct tax.
“This lawsuit should put the federal government on notice that Florida will not permit the constitutional rights of our citizens and the sovereignty of our state to be ignored or disregarded,” Attorney General McCollum said.
A Second Suit in Virginia
Virginia filed a similar lawsuit simultaneously in federal court in Richmond. That suit is slightly different in that it focuses in part on the clash between a recently enacted state law protecting the right of Virginia residents to refuse unwanted health insurance and the new federal law that imposes penalties on anyone who seeks to defy the national government’s command to purchase health insurance.
“Congress lacks the political will to fund comprehensive health care … because taxes above those already provided [in federal healthcare programs] would produce too much opposition,” the Virginia lawsuit says.
“The alternative, which was also a centerpiece of the failed Clinton administration health care proposal, is to fund universal health care in part by making healthy young adults and other rationally uninsured individuals cross-subsidize older and less healthy citizens,” the suit says.
The seven-page lawsuit presents a straightforward challenge to Congress’s decision to rely on its power to regulate interstate commerce to justify the federal mandate that every individual must have health insurance or pay a penalty.
“It has never been held that the Commerce Clause [of the Constitution] … can be used to require citizens to buy goods and services,” the suit says. “To depart from that history to permit the national government to require the purchase of goods and services would deprive the Commerce Clause of any effective limits.”
Aiming for the US Supreme Court
At a press conference in Florida, McCollum said his lawsuit is intended to move through the courts to the US Supreme Court. “I am confident the court is going to declare the new healthcare law unconstitutional,” he said.
Democratic leaders have downplayed any potential legal problems with the healthcare reform package. Many legal analysts agree with them. Others suggest the issue is open and could produce a landmark decision if the high court decides to take it up.
In addition to Florida, participating plaintiffs in the lawsuit include attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington State, Idaho, and South Dakota. The suing attorneys general are Republicans except James “Buddy” Caldwell of Louisiana, who is a Democrat.
The Florida-filed lawsuit identifies two victims. It says the new law infringes the liberty of individual state residents to choose for themselves whether to have health insurance. It also says the states themselves are victims of a federal power grab by leaders in Washington.
Worries About Bigger Medicaid Rolls
The new structure of the Medicaid portion of the healthcare bill – which deals with low-income Americans – leaves Florida with an offer it can’t refuse. The state can either opt out of Medicaid and leave millions of its most vulnerable residents uninsured, or opt in and surrender its authority to set priorities and run programs to an increasingly powerful national government.
Currently, Medicaid costs account for 26 percent of Florida’s annual budget. That is $18 billion for 2.7 million Medicaid recipients.
The suit says that, under the new law, Medicaid rolls in Florida are expected to increase dramatically. The corresponding soaring costs will fall increasingly on the Florida treasury, but state officials will have less authority to set priorities.
“[Florida] employees will be conscripted and forced to administer what now is essentially a federal Medicaid program for which Florida must bear a substantial cost,” the suit says.
Estimates are that the new law will impose additional costs on Florida ranging from $149 million in 2014 to more than a $1 billion by 2019.
The lawsuit says this amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of federal power that violates principles of federalism protected in the 10th Amendment. It says the healthcare reform bill commandeers the states and their employees as agents of the federal government’s regulatory scheme, and that it does so at the state’s own cost.
Another Beef: An Unconstitutional Direct Tax
The suit also says the tax penalty for noncompliance with the individual mandate to buy health insurance “constitutes a capitation and a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states according to census data, thereby injuring the sovereign interests of [the states].”
The tax penalty is unrelated to any taxable event or activity, the suit says. “It is to be levied upon persons for their failure or refusal to do anything other than to exist and reside in the United States,” the suit says.
This doesn’t just injure individuals who have a right to make healthcare decisions without government inference, the suit says. It also injures state governments who are forced to pay for the higher number of individuals coerced into enrolling in Medicaid.
Like the Virginia lawsuit, the Florida-filed suit also argues that Congress does not have the authority under the US Constitution to compel citizens to buy health insurance or punish them if they do not. An individual’s choice not to have health insurance is not “commerce” and thus does not fall within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, the suit says.
A Third Lawsuit, in Michigan
In addition to the two state lawsuits, the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., filed a lawsuit in Michigan. It is filed on behalf of four individuals in southeastern Michigan who object to being forced to purchase healthcare coverage and who object to being forced to pay for abortions, contrary to their religious beliefs.
“Our Founding Fathers envisioned a limited form of government. The purpose of our Constitution and this lawsuit is to insure that it stays that way,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the law center, in a statement.
“Let’s face it, if Congress has the power to force individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or pay a federal penalty merely because they live in America, then it has the unconstrained power to mandate that every American family buy a General Motors vehicle to help the economy or pay a federal penalty.”
roger hollander 
All U.S. Constituencies Oppose Obama’s “Individual Mandate” for Health Care April 3, 2012
Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, Health, Race.Tags: glen ford, health, health care, health reform, healthcare, heritage foundation, individual mandate, insurance industry, medicare, obamacare, princeton research, private insurance, roger hollander, single payer
add a comment
Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
President Obama’s mandate to buy private insurance was born in the rightwing Heritage Foundation, and has not found a home among any actual constituency of the public – white, non-white, Republican, Democrat, college-educated or not. A new poll confirms that “Obama has based his plan on a scheme that nobody likes – even his most loyal supporters.”
All U.S. Groups Oppose Obama’s “Individual Mandate” for Health Care
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford
“The new poll shows that no significant constituency supports Obama’s individual mandate.”
When one takes a cursory look at where various groups in the nation stand on President Obama’s health care legislation – now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court – it appears the country is split along party and race lines. A new poll conducted by Princeton Research Associates shows 75 percent of Democrats support the Obama position, and 86 percent of Republicans oppose it, with so-called independents evenly split. The racial divide is similar. Sixty-eight percent of non-whites “strongly favor” or “somewhat favor” the overall health care law, with only 18 percent opposed. Whites are far more divided, with 33 percent favoring Obama’s law, and 47 percent opposed.
These numbers are, however, heavily influenced by what people think is in the law, and what side they think they should be on, based on their larger loyalties. It is doubtful that majorities on either side of the issue actually understand most of the law’s many provisions, some of which do not go into effect for several years. Therefore, many of the respondents are using the poll to register their broader preference for or against the incumbent president and his party. It is no surprise that majorities of whites and super-majorities of Republicans oppose ObamaCare, as Republicans call it, and more than two thirds of non-whites and three-quarters of Democrats support Health Care Reform, as Obama calls it.
However, most people do understand the central element of the law, the “individual mandate” that forces nearly everyone to buy health insurance from private companies, or face a fine. The new poll shows that no significant constituency supports Obama’s individual mandate, with only 28 percent of the overall public favorable to the scheme. Even non-whites, two-thirds of whom claim to support Obama on health care in general, balk at mandatory purchase of insurance from private companies. Fifty-three percent of non-whites give thumbs down to the individual health insurance mandate, as do 71 percent of whites. More Democrats are opposed to Obama’s individual mandate than favor it: 48 to 44 percent. And Republicans are off the scale in opposition, at 15 to 1.
“Fifty-three percent of non-whites give thumbs down to the individual health insurance mandate.”
So, if the core of the Obama health care plan is the individual mandate, as both the administration and the Republicans contend in their arguments before the Supreme Court, then Obama has based his plan on a scheme that nobody likes – even his most loyal supporters.
There’s another interesting aspect to the new poll. It shows that only a hard core of one in four people want to tamper with Medicare as the Republicans do, with around two-thirds of all racial groups opting to keep the program the way it is, with the government paying doctors and hospitals directly for the service they provide to seniors.” Taken together, the poll indicates strong support for the core elements of the U.S. healthcare safety net, and rejection of private schemes, including Obama’s mandatory purchase of insurance from private companies. It appears that most Americans would rather have the option of dependable, direct health care paid for by the government – which was the case at the beginning of 2009, before Obama unveiled his health care scheme, when 60 percent and more of the American people favored single-payer health care. But Obama maneuvered them into a something they hadn’t asked for, and which, three years later, nobody wants. For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.