Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

Where Should Health Care Rank on Obama's List of Priorities?

By Maggie Mahar, Health Beat. Posted November 10, 2008.


If health care reform is done in a way that contains costs and lifts quality, it will take time and serious seed money.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This article originally appeared on Health Beat.

On HealthBeat I have talked about social solidarity as the key to meaningful healthcare reform.

Last week, President-elect Obama sounded that theme repeatedly throughout his victory speech, reminding his audience that he had been elected "by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled -- Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals ... "

In the recent past, some progressives have warned that liberals made a mistake when they reached out to minorities, new immigrants, and gays, "ignoring" the mainstream middle class.  But in fact, "mainstream" America is no longer one recognizable culture. It is fast becoming a "magnificent mosaic," the phrase Mario Cuomo used when he ran to become mayor of New York City in 1977. 

Barack Obama won, not because he managed to win over the white middle-class, or the white working class, but because he managed to put together a coalition from so many groups -- including white voters.  Many thanks to Ezra Klein for breaking down the vote: 31.82 percent of voters who chose Obama were white, just as 31.57 percent of the voters who stood for John Kerry in 2004 were white.  But Obama won. What was the difference?

"Obama increased the share of the black vote from 11 percent to 13 percent," Klein explains, "increased the share of the 'other' vote from 2 percent to 3 percent, grew his share of the black vote by seven percentage points, grew his share of the Hispanic vote by 13 (!) percentage points, grew his share of the Asian vote by five percentage points, and grew his share of the 'other' vote by 11 percentage points. Consequently, while just 16.12 percent of 2004 voters" who chose Kerry "were non-white, fully 20.15 percent of 2008 voters" who plumped for Obama were non-white. "That 4.03 percentage point increase was the difference maker."

Drawing from such a diverse population, President-elect Obama is now asking us to come together, and to think about our country, not as individuals, but collectively: "Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other ... "

He is asking that we focus, not on ourselves, our families, or even our favorite causes, but rather on the challenges that we must face as a nation: "two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair."

But where, on that list, is healthcare? 

It's not there.  Here, I will say, as I have said before, that collectively, we have other priorities that may have to come first. Some months ago, a solider told me about a friend, also in the army, who volunteered to learn how to help Iraqi soldiers detect buried land-mines. His first day of training, he saw his instructor vaporize, before his eyes. This solider then had to stay in Iraq for another six months, disabling land-mines, despite the fact that his hands shook.

He is a priority. The poor, who are more likely to die prematurely, whether or not they have access to healthcare -- they are a priority. The soon-to-be-unemployed, they are a priority. Reforming healthcare will not create jobs. Building schools and exploring new forms of energy will. (While we need more primary care doctors and nurses, very, very few people are interested in filling these jobs. Rational health care reform would lead us to close some hospitals, eliminating redundancies in the system, while opening community health centers. Net, net we would lose jobs.) 

It is worth remembering that, even before the economic melt-down, Obama talked about trying to provide health care coverage for all Americans only "by the end of my first term." He never planned to rush ahead, understanding that if health care reform was to be done in a way that contains costs and lifts quality, it would take time and serious seed money. Keep in mind: one reason we elected Obama is because he projects a sense of calm and maturity. He moves thoughtfully and deliberately.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health, obama, health care, health care reform

Maggie Mahar is a fellow at the Century Foundation and the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Is it just me?
Posted by: hilly7 on Nov 10, 2008 8:16 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody notice the follow blindly thing again with Obama, just like Bush, only more letters. Already I've given up on Obama from the sleeze he is picking for his cabinet. The biggest difference I've seen so far is with Bush we were unpatrotic and with Obama, raciests if we disagree.

Beware one hand clapping.

To pump money into a medical agenda is like signing a petition online or writing such as this, useless and maybe harmful. Harmful because we think we've done our part.

The materials for instance for a wheelchair haven't went up much, nor have any significant changes been made to justify the price jump these last years. Big Pharma has killed far more people legally with their snake oil than illegial drugs. Doctors and hospitals are America's #1 killer, followed by cancer, and we should pump more in their pockets???

As a person with cancer working on 4 years now, I would have been dead like many of my friends if I had left the "medical profession" attend my disease.

I will however agree that a country or company is only as successful as their poorest members. Knowing that, hey, we're #1 for a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it just me? Posted by: sallyride
» RE: Is it just me? Posted by: maggiemahar
you said
Posted by: WizardofOhm on Nov 10, 2008 9:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Obama didn't mention healthcare in that paragraph of his exceptance speech. Was it just me, or did anyone else see the comment about families not being able to afford doctors' bills as a two sided reference, partially a reference to the state of the economy as a whole, and partially about the failing healthcare system that puts medical bills at the forfront of American debt? That was what I got out of it initially when I watched it on T.V. No, this isn't following "blindly," my inference is based on contextual suggestions (the other financial burden he mentioned was mortages, another ailment on the American pocketbook that needs individual attention and won't be resolved by a broad economic solution) and my understanding of his plans of healthcare reform since back during the primaries.
I strongly agree that the American healthcare system needs to be completely restructured, a simple band-aid won't do anything. However, I regretfully admit that complete socialization of our healthcare system would be a dangerous shock to the nation. Drug companies' staff would be immediately and significantly cut back. like we need more unemployed right now. More importantly, without a somewhat gradual transition, I don't think the proper infrastructure would be available, and that could easily become more disasterous than the "system" currently in place. Distrubution alone would have to be entirely altered. While some may argue that we could use models in place in other countries, the massive scale of this country's population makes it a whole other ballgame. That is what happened to China. Socialism on the scale needed for this country is completely different than when applied to a contained island nation like the UK, or a country of similiarly manageble size. Just like national socialization in England is completely different than the guidelines under which a commune opperates. I am completely for socialization of healthcare, I just think a plan like the one Obama has presented is a necessary segue.

I also find it interesting that the arguement behind this article is that he wasn't specific enough about his healthcare plan during his acceptance speech. Almost as if every other word out of his mouth before that moment was entirely null and void. He didn't mention the specifics of his economic plan or his plan for withdrawing troops from iraq... does that mean everything he outlined previously on those topics is non-existent as well? I thought his acceptance speech was a poignant and appropriate acceptance speech. But it was an acceptance speech, nothing else.

The only relevance I saw in this article was questioning how soon any healthcare reform policies will be enacted. I could have done without the silliness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 11, 2008 12:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Reforming healthcare will not create jobs.

But "Medicare for All" will SAVE jobs, hundreds of thousands if not over a million jobs. It is far, far easier to save jobs than to create new jobs.

Medicare for All would pump hundreds of billions into the economy. Medicare for All would help re-capitalize business (especially manufacturing), school districts, state and local government, individual payers and the under and uninsured. The states could use any excess of savings for unemployment and pension funds. Overall this could save hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs while putting money quickly and directly into the system in the most efficient, fairest way ... taking care of people's medical bills.

Maggie Mahar wants everything to be perfect before embarking on a real single payer health plan for America. This is an absurd position. There are soon to be more millions without healthcare added to the tens of millions without coverage and tens of millions with inadequate coverage.

We need a change in our health care coverage NOW, not some years down the road. And NOW it could be a major part of the answer to our collapsing economy, both in pushing money into the economy and giving people more confidence about their future prospects.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong ... Posted by: maggiemahar
» RE: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong ... Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong ... Posted by: sallyride
Seems Like Howard Dean Is Freed Up
Posted by: ranchero42 on Nov 11, 2008 1:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And a GP might have the best ideas for universal healthcare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

would the author like to deliver this news to my 48 year old son who has found blood
Posted by: Suzon on Nov 11, 2008 2:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in his stools and has no health insurance?

He is one of the working poor. He owns a house that was worth $60,000. Luckily for my daughter-in-law, I guess he won't have to chose between his house and his life because $60,000 isn't enough to save his life.

Law has been used for criminal purposes--lying, cheating, stealing and killing. It's class war with the rich hogging the resources and our elected reps being the enablers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Health Care- More So Than Ever -Needs Radical Transformation
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 11, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The economic crisis we are in actually should drive an even more radical transformation of health care in the US

You are correct,Maggi, when you say we should not pour money into a conceptually broken health care system. US citizens have been duped by organized medicine and those industries who profiteer from a high-tech-high cost treatment driven US "disease care" system that many/most of us do not need! In many cases this system harms us.Prevention-both individual (health behaviors) and even more so institutional(public health) will free up $ for those who do need high tech!

Ultimately we need the kind of dramatic and bold change in health care as we envision and propose to address for our global environmental crisis. Nothing less will carry the day

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What can be done now to make doctors' bills more affordable
Posted by: maggiemahar on Nov 11, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Universal coverage will not make doctors'
bills affordable.

As long as we continue to ovepay for every device, every drug that you receive in a doctot's office, every procedure--many of which are ineffective and unproven--doctors' bills will continue to be unaffordable.

Covering everyone doesn't suddenly, magically make healthcare cheaper. The only way it becomes affordable is if we make the structural reforms that wil contain costs-and at the same time, lift the quality of care.

That means that Congress lets Medicare negotiate with drugmakers for discounts on drugs and devices-the way every other developed nation does.

Private insurers will soon demand the same lower prices.

That means taking a very close look at tests and treatments, demanding unbiased reserach that compares them to see which is most effective. In many, many cases, the newest product or serivce is not more effective. Sometimes it is unproven (becase the FDA requires only that a new product or service be tested against a placebo, proving it is "better than nothng.") But the new product or service is almost always more expensive.

There is now legislation in Congress to crate a "Comparative Effectiveness Institute" that pulls together unbiased research which shows what works and what doesn't. That information would be made public, and very likely both Medicare and insurers would use it to hike co-pays for the least effective overpriced treatments while lowering co-pays for the most effective. Some ineffective treatments e been hyped would no longer be covered.

We have about two decades of research showing that 1/3 of our healthcare dollars are squandered on unncessary hospitalizations and ineffective, sometimes unproven often over-priced treatments.

Health care dollars are wasted when insurers use them to "chery-pick patients"-- looking for prior conditions and either denying coverage or charging exorbitant premiums for ocverage.

We need to regulate insurers, insisting that they provide guaranteed issue (everyone can get insurace, regardless of prior conditions) and "community rating" (everyone in a given community pays the same price for insurance, regardless of how young or old, sick or healthy they are.)

These reforms will take time. Obama knows this. This is why he originally said he hoped to achieve universal coverage by teh end of his first term--in four years. (And that was before the economic meltdown. Now he has much less money to work with, so universal coverge may take until this second term. )

But until we squeeze some of the waste out of the system, we simply cannot afford to try to cover everyone. And even if we tried to do it through more deficit spending, we would wind up with simply a bigger version of the mess we have today--a broken system that doesn't deliver high quality care. (Outcomes for most major diseases are better in other developed countries, where they don't spend as much per person on care, but do it right. They test treatments before they agree to cover them, and they don't overpays manufacturers, hospital administrators or specialists.)

With reforms like these, we can afford to cover everyone, and while healthcare will be costly, it will be equitable and we will be getting value for our dollars. Higher quality at a lower cost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sorry Maggie but ... Posted by: wolfgangmo
A perfect bailout
Posted by: jlohman on Nov 13, 2008 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A single-payer healthcare system would bail out ALL US corporations and save them all $6000 per employee per year, and at the same time provide ALL US citizens with first-class health care.

See Medicare-for-all

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bailout for all, not just a few
Posted by: jlohman on Nov 13, 2008 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also see Bailout for all, not just a few


The country needs a bailout, not just a few manufacturers. And the best way to accomplish both is to implement a single-payer health care system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IS US HEALTH CARE ON HOLD???- NOT NECESSARILY
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 13, 2008 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A fundamental question many are now asking is -IS US HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW ON HOLD?

I certainly agree that other pressing priorities like the economy, preventing further home foreclosures, securing jobs, infrastructure improvements and reallocating our military resources MUST come first because of the crisis mode of most of these.

However three fundamental thoughts from me on health care reform-how?and when?

1)All of the above priorities actually affect health and health care expenditures profoundly! "It's all related" says Sen. Chris Dodd and others.

2)Rebuilding our public health infrastructure and even more so our public health credibility must start immediately- Our Government health agencies like CDC,FDA,EPA, etc need to regain the trust of the American Public who correctly perceives that the Government is not adequately protecting their health! This fix relates to good and new Presidential appointments!

3)A fundamental reality was stated by head of our NIH Dr.Elias Zerhouni a few summers ago, and by many others, that a high-tech-high-cost treatment driven "disease care system" is NOT economically sustainable. We should not be trying to figure out how to finance a fundamentally conceptually broken health care system. That said the key to a sustainable future in health care is ethical and compassionate rationing or, if we don't like that politically charged "R" word, suggest use "allocationof proven efficacious(does it work?) and safe (does it harm?) medical interventions" (both diagnostic and therapeutic) This change must be incrementally implemented since the US Public is so wedded to a treatment model of health care.

Ultimately we need the kind of dramatic and bold change in health care as we envision and propose to address for our global environmental crisis. Nothing less will carry the day

Thanks and Be Well,

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,PA
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two Birds With One Stone
Posted by: cynyk on Nov 13, 2008 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a thought...the Obama administration can fix our broken healthcare system and provide a bailout to the auto industry at the same time. U.S. automakers have been complaining for some time now that the cost of providing health insurance contributes greatly to their inability to compete in the world market. Sounds like a great argument for universal national health.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is only one solution............
Posted by: peridot on Nov 13, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and that is a single payer national health service. If the 'coalition' cannot move Obama NOW....it will never happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why count on the White House alone?
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 13, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay attention to your Reps and Sens in Congress and pay attention to your pols in local and state governments. That's where you're gonna be able to push for better health care. Now get back to work and fix that voter turnout on state and local elections !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No mas
Posted by: solrev on Nov 13, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama does not have a plan to reform healthcare, in fact Obama does not have a plan to change anything. Healthcare reform could do a lot to end the recession. I do not hear that debate going on anywhere. All I hear is that we can not change. With the economy tanking the politicians can use that as a defense against change. Without real change they will not be able to get out of the economic box. Sickem Sarah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Healthcare reform now!
Posted by: sausage on Nov 13, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep hearing rumors that with the sour economy, and all, the in-coming Obama administration will push health care reform onto the back burner. And keep shoving it back until, hopefully, we all forget about it.

My advice is don't. Keep the Democrats' feet to the fire of health care.

During the election cycle many incumbent Democratic politicians touted the Federal Employees Health Benefits system (FEHB) as a model for the rest of the country. Well, let me tell you it ain't all that great, in fact it's kind of bogus.

Right now, current and retired federal employees are in the midst of what's called "open season" on health care insurance coverage. And every year, around this time, I struggle with staying with the HMO I've been with from the past twenty years--and I must say that it has been very good to me, never a treatment or claim denied--or another plan.

This year I'm trying to decide between my current HMO, the monthly premium stays where it was in '08 but the copays are going up, or an plan's PPO with higher monthly premiums but lower copays. The lower monthly premium is attractive because I only see a doctor when needed or they request an in-office routine examine. But I take four prescription medications for the heart condition, which lead to my early disability retirement, and that's my biggest health care expense every month, every year.

The "booklets," the things are as thick as "War and Peace," the FEHB sends one to aid in making an "intelligent" health care insurance decision are almost worthless, as they're written in bureaucratese, gobbledygook and hog wash.

Now, really people, I don't want to have to choose. And, really, even though I have a list of choices as long as my arm...it's Hobson's choice, since they just about mirror one another on what's covered and what's not.

I'm tired of this bullshit.

I don't mind paying copays for doctor's visits. I don't mind paying copays for meds. But nobody should have to go through this "open season" crap every year so some suit with an MBA can rake in the dough. Why can't we, in the United States, have what all Canadians enjoy? Or if we just have to have the private sector involved, why can't this country follow the German example?, see: http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInGermany.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Single Payer . . . .Baucus Yesterday--in three years hopefully
Posted by: maggiemahar on Nov 13, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since many of you write about Single Payer,
let me be clear, I am not against Single Payer.

But the vast majority of Americans (roughly 85 percent) have employer-sponosred insurance, with their employer paying an average of 60 percent of the cost.

They do not want to be told that they Must
switch to a new single-payer government plan.
People fear change. In many cases, employers pay 75 percent of the cost of their premiums, and 15% of "better paid workers" (earning over about $65,000) pay Nothing for their insurance. Their employer pays all of their premium.

If your employer pays 75% to 100% of your premium and we switch to single payer, you will have to pay more for your health insurance than you do now (probably in the form of taxes.) It will not be free.

People know this. So those who have a prarticularly good deal with their employer do not want to switch to single payer for that reason. Others don't want to be forced to switch because they fear the unknown. They prefer to keep what they have, even if it's not great.

If we have single payer, why would everyone have to switch? Because most of the people who would sign up for the govt plan would be those who have no insurance or very, very poor insurance today. They tend to be the poor and low-income workers who, in general, are in poorer health and more expensive to insure. (You income is the major factor that predicts how healthy you are in this country.)
More affluent, healthy employees who have employers paying 75 % to 100% of their premiums would not sign up for single-payer.

As a result, the single-payer plan would be very, very expensive and would go broke.

Finally Congress won't vote for single payer because the Majority of Your Fellow Citizens don't want it at this time, and in this country, the majority rules.

Alternative: Both Obama's plan and the workig paper Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus unveiled yesterday would give people a choice between a public sector plan and private sector insurance. The private sector insurance would be tightly regulated. Insurers would not be able to deny anyone coverage, and they would have to charge everyone in a given community the same price, no matter how sick or old they are.

This alterative is similar to most European health care which is a mix of public sector and regulated private sector care. Only the UK and Canada have "single payer."

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE?

When asked at a press conference how long it would take to get to universal coverage, Baucus said "hopefully, three years."

In the past (before the economic melt-down) Obama has said he hoped to get to universal coverage "by the end of my first term."

Look at Baucus 89-page disucssion. Healthcare is very, very complicated. The system is a mess,Reforming it will take much time and thought.

If you think it can be done easily,you just have't studied health care--here, or in other countries.

There are things we can do next year: put more money into Medicaid; expand SCHIP (for poor children), begin wringing some of the waste out of the system by cutting back on unncessary, over-priced teratments, cancel the windfall bonus for Medicaid Advantage insurers,
begin importing drug from Canada (which Obama plans to do . ..)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bogus assumptions, lady Posted by: sausage
Single-payer is the Only Way to go
Posted by: bandz on Nov 13, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is really only one solution to our healthcare crisis that will really work. That is a single-payer system modeled on those of Canada, Japan, France and other similar programs. A "Medicare For All" program, if you want to use a U.S. model. Unfortunately, Obama has so far lacked the courage to endorse such a solution. Early indications are that (like Hillary Clinton in 1993) he will succumb to the tired and discredited fears that such a program will impose a system of "socialized medicine" that would result in loss of "freedoms." We're getting to the point that these irrational fears are losing their stanglehold on American minds. What is needed now is for Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress to show enough courage to offer us what will solve the problems instead of offering more wishy-washy compromises that will only reinforce the present failed health care approach while disguising, for awhile, the fact that the basic problems still remain. We MUST have a national, universal, comprehensive, single-payer, not-for-profit, healthcare system. Nothing short of that will really solve the present problems. To settle for less than that, will only prolong the problems and injustices that plague the present healthcare debacle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

single Payer is the Only Way--So Much Misinformaiion
Posted by: maggiemahar on Nov 13, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As they say, you have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Japan and France Do Not Have a Single-Payer System.

Until you understand what Single Payer is and how it works, it's probably not a good idea to write posts proclaiming that it is the Only Way to Go.

Single Payer can work. So can other forms that combine private sector and public sector like
France's system or Germany's.

There is so much mininformation out there, pro and con about single-payer---that we can cover everyone and under single payer, it won't cost anything (Not true) , that if we have single payer, we'll have long lines (Not True--if it's organized efficiently) etc. etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

caronome
Posted by: Bayardtom on Nov 13, 2008 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should we have to wait for a national health care plan??? This should be the top priority for the Obama tenure.
For those of us who have been held hostage to a hateful job because of health care coverage, it may be too late but it still should be first on his agenda. It wouldn't be a greater cost for the government because health care costs would plummet quickly if devoid of the cost of lining the pockets of the insurance companies. That fact is so obscene and should naver have happened in this country or any other.
If Obama has any doubts about this, he should contact Dennis Kucinich about the details.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DENTAL CARE MATTERS TOO!
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 13, 2008 4:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been very healthy most of my life.
But my TEETH are not doing very well.
The last time I could afford to have a dentist see me was in 1979 and I paid for it out of my pocket.

The last time I saw a dentist was in a low-income clinic and the only way that I got in was I had a severe case of blood poisoning and probably would have died. They had to treat me with antibiotics for a while before they could finally take it out. I paid for the antibiotics and for the removal of my tooth.

Five years later, the undocumented people have crowded us US citizens out of all of the clinics that our tax dollars created.

This time, I have another bad tooth and no money to go to the dentist on account of not being able to find a steady job since 2002 NEVER MIND FINDING A JOB WITH HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE! I don't know if I will be able to go to the low-income dental clinic this time.

IT WOULD BE GREAT TO BE ABLE NOT TO HAVE TO WORRY WHETHER OR NOT I WAS GOING TO DIE OF BLOOD POISONING OR NOT AND I COULD GET MY TOOTH TREATED!

I have worked very hard all of my life. In spite of sacrifices made to get an education, the American Dream never happened for me and I never once had a job with health and dental insurance, 401K or any benefits...

It would be nice to be able to eat something without worry whether or not food particles would get into the hole in the side and in the top of that tooth and hurt and become infected again...

TO GET ANY ASSISTANCE NOW, YOU HAVE TO BE AN UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN WITH CHILDREN!

NATIVE AMERICANS, AFRICAN AMERICANS, HISPANIC AMERICANS ARE TURNED AWAY!SO ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO YOUNG TO BE ON SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICARE BUT ARE CONSIDERED TO BE TOO OLD AND DISPOSABLE FROM THE WORKFORCE.

Seems to me the SMART thing to do would NOT be to encourage welfare lifestyles and anchor babies and TO TAKE CARE OF OUR AMERICAN CITIZENS FIRST!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE BEST GOVERNMENT MONEY CAN BUY ALWAYS GETS A LAUGH. THAT IS
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Nov 16, 2008 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because is is true. This must be his first priority. All other priorities will be infected if he can't put a stop to it. I doesn't require a mental giant to figure this much out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bill
Posted by: mycuz on Nov 17, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first step in health care reform is to focus on prevention, and the second step is to add vitamins and dietary supplements to medicare coverage. We will not only improve the health of Americans we will save billions of dollars in health care costs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

UAW and State of Michigan
Posted by: Kimberly on Nov 17, 2008 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1998 Current Governor Granholm D-MI, ( acting MI Attorney General at the time ~ she was also a previous US Attorney), made an illegal agreement with Region 5 HCFA, Federal HMO Contractors and US Attorneys, to ALLOW Hospital Insurance Fraud ( Anti-dumping and Anti-Kickback Violations resulting in serious bodily injury and death ) AGAINST 'Entitled' Michigan Citizens with Existing HMO policies.
Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm should be arrested and prosecuted for criminal and financial misconduct or be Deported for felony fraud against the Citizens of Michigan.
.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to ALLOW [ T18CFR286CRIME ] officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights [ T42CFR417.1 Denial of Covered Claims, grievance procedureadverse determinations, misprison of a felony T18CFR24CRIMES ] protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees.
.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.
.
The Free Press, in calling 13 health care providers with operations in Michigan, confirmed that three will be retained as GM's health plans in Michigan. They are Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Health Alliance Plan, both based in Detroit, and HealthPlus of Michigan, headquartered in Flint.
.
1999 OPM FEHBP - Federal HMO Hospital Service Contract Provider - Illegal ImmunityAbove the Law ~ Health Alliance Plan Detroit ( Region 5 HCFA ) MI HAP PROVIDERS offers 2,596 personal care physicians (PCP) and 4,901 specialists. HAP’s delivery system includes 45 hospitals ( inducing forfiture: T42sec417 ~ 1998 DHHS OIG VOLENTARY DISCLOUSURE Program: misprison of a felony: DHHS Employee Hospital discharge procedures: T42CFR417.1 Grievance Procedure, adverse determination: illegal denial of Existing OPM Hospital Insurance Services -administrative Fraud by Fright - anti-dumping violation ) in southeast Michigan and the Flint area, including 23 major hospital networks ( robbing the Elderly of 401k's and savings accounts to Force Medicaid kickback Conversions -eligibility / Poor ), 65 urgent care centers and 765 ancillary providers: Hospital Affiliate Nursing Homes [ illegally Billing OPM FEHB for criminally Denied T42CFR409.33 COVERED Post-hospital Extended Care Claims CITE: 5CFR890.105, to force illegal HCFA State OFIS Medicaid kickback conversions ),mental health facilities, optical providers, laboratories, durable medical equipment providers,ambulance services and Pharmacy Chains.
.
2007 -- H.R. 3199 - USA PATRIOT Conference Report ( SENSENBRENNER - Judiciary) (Subject to a Rule) (Sec. 4) Requires the ATTORNEY GENERAL, on an ANNUAL BASIS ~ HHS OIG VOLENTARY DISCLOUSURES ~ INVOLVING IMMEDIATE DANGER OF DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY CLOSED WITHOUT the filing of CRIMINAL CHARGES: 9-110.800 Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity (18 U.S.C. § 1959)
.
Sincerely,
All ENTITLED Federal Employee Health Beneficiaries & the General Public who are being criminally denied DHHS T42CFR417.1 Existing ( Federal State Private ) HMO Health Insurance Coverage, illegally billed for HMO denied covered claims and forced into HCFA State Medicaid Programs for the POOR. Kimberly Kimball MICHIGAN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]