"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
A vast majority of rank and file Democrats support single-payer legislation. Also significant percentages of Indys and Republicans support it as well. Obama said he supported single-payer back in 2003. A few years later he said that he still supported it, but that Democrats would have to take back congress and the White House for it to happen. But now that Dems control the government, he said that it would be too much of a radical change, and he wants a "uniquely American solution." What happened? It's not like he even tried to pass single-payer, in fact he constantly ignored and censored single-payer activists. What can regular citizens do when their elected leaders in government lie and betray them? Organize. Look, I know it sucks that Obama is not going to be helping us in this fight. I worked for him in 08 too, but we need to recognize that Washington is too saturated with corporate money for anything meaningful to happen. So, we need to get on the ground in every state and push for the policy that we know will work best--single-payer. Canada started with single-payer at a state level, and there is no reason that we cant do the same. Organizing for Congress's "health-insurance reform" is an embarrassment and might even be counter-productive.
This isnt between a full loaf and a half loaf. Its between a half loaf and a half loaf spiked with arsenic. The sad reality is that we are going to solve anything this year, but if we start organizing for single-payer now maybe in the near future we will have a better shot.
You can graduate and when you come back to campus some things might be different than how you remember them. There's a new scoreboard on campus, new residence halls, the Eddy Street Commons. But other things seemingly never change. The familiar crunch of fresh autumn leaves on the quad, the candles at the grotto, and, of course, intellectually dishonest hyperpartisan rants from Professor Emeritus Charles Rice.
In an era in which many media editorial rooms suffer from a lack of ideological diversity, the Observer Viewpoint continues to flaunt its open-mindedness with a biweekly column from a true wingnut. This provides Notre Dame students with exposure to ideas that rarely find their way into policy discourse outside of angry town hall mobs. After revealing himself this March as a supporter of the "birther" movement (See "Charles Rice Shows His True Colors"), Professor Rice has decided this week to step it up a few notches and come out as a "deather" as well.
I hadn't picked up an Observer since I graduated, and as luck would have it, I pick up one with another Charles Rice column in it. Woohoo.
In Tuesday's self-refuting "'Obamacare' raises problems" Rice throws in with the angry mob crowd using an argument held together with chewing gum and baling wire (or, more appropriately, held together by selective quoting and the word "could"). It's a fun read. Rice kicks off his column boasting about how he has actually read H.R. 3200, one of the health care bills that hasn't come up for a vote yet. Subsequently his entire column is his own interpretation of Section 1233 of the bill which he quotes in pieces using his very...unique...and...reliable...quoting style that he's famous for. Section 1233 is the part of the bill that refers to non-mandatory end of life consultations to help patients come up with living wills to prevent a Terri Schiavo-type situation from occurring. This section, the crux of Rice's opposition to reform, is by Rice's own admission already irrelevant.
"Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says the Senate Finance Committee has removed 'the end-of-life provisions' from its bill because they would pay physicians to 'advise patients about end-of-life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care.' But that bill is only one of several on the subject. It is too early to count the end-of-life consultations out"
So the Senate Finance Committee is going to stonewall on this issue and pretty much guarantee that end-of-life provisions will not make it into any health care reform bill passed by that committee, so whatever bill comes out of reconciliation and is enacted into law won't have those provisions. But hey, thanks for warning us about something that could happen, maybe. And of course if the end-of-life provisions that could make their way into law actually did do so, they also could turn from a helpful optional service into those dreaded death panels we've heard so much about.
"Regulations could, in effect, make the consultations mandatory, to be initiated by the individual or the practitioner with penalties on the individual who fails to initiate it."
To sum up Charles Rice's argument:
1) Provisions in one of the health care bills in committee in the House would provide end-of-life consultations to the sick and dying, even though the Senate Finance Committee would never agree to any similar provision. 2) In the future, some similar provision could appear in the final bill that the President would sign, maybe 3) While that provision would in no way let anyone but the patient decide when the patient will stop receiving treatment, future regulations could change that. 4) Therefore, health care reform=death panels
Rationing
"Obamacare" seeks to increase those who are covered and to reduce costs. The only way to achieve both objectives is to ration the health care provided to the elderly and the disabled"
Really, Charles? Is that the only way?
Tonight, President Obama will be addressing both houses of Congress detailing his goals and intentions for health care reform. Hopefully tonight we will learn whether or not he is committed to a public option to go along with health care reform. If he chooses not to do so, health care reform will come in the form of subsidizing the health care industry with a government mandate that forces American citizens to all buy into private health insurance. Government subsidies would then provide private insurance to people who cannot afford coverage. This plan would also bar private insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. They'd be able to afford to do this because they would no longer have to worry about free-riders refusing to buy into health insurance plans until they need it, which costs them money, and they would make even more money from the government buying health care plans for the poor. This would also increase the amount of preventative care that would reduce the amount of costly procedures needed in the future. This is a cost-cutting measure that would work to stop "rationing".
If Obama does choose to go with a public option, then the government would be providing a tax-payer funded health insurance plan for the uninsured. Unlike a private insurance plan, the public plan would not have to turn out a profit to benefit its stockholders, pay executive salaries and bonuses, or pay for advertising or lobbying. Also, unlike private insurance, the public option, like other government programs, could operate at net losses indefinitely and just contribute to America's debt.
Whichever way Obama goes, it's clear that there are ways to cut costs without "pulling the plug on granny". If you're really concerned about rationed health care resulting in the denial of treatment for those who truly needed it, you should be in favor of health care reform, since that's exactly what private insurance already does without health care reform.
Believe it or not, there are legitimate concerns that people should have about health care reform (being forced to purchase health insurance, deficit spending, the possibility of higher taxes, etc.) You don't need to resort to pulling stuff out of thin air.
Obama is set give a big speech this Wednesday on reforming healthcare in this country. While healthcare was supposed to be his most important priority, and he has been talking about it throughout the campaign and over the last 6 months, we still know remarkably little about what he really wants. This is will change Wednesday, and we will know if he is with them or us. Many of you here may be a little uneasy about those "black and white" or "divisive" terms but let me explain. There is really only one long-term solution to the healthcare crisis in this country, and that is the destruction of the health insurance companies and the implementation of a single-payer program, or "Medicare for all." For some reason, which I will never understand, progressive and liberal leaders in this country gave up on the most direct, simple to explain, cheapest, solution to healthcare without one shot fired. Progressive caucus leaders in the House shunned advocating for this, because it wasn’t "politically practical," in other words they were cowards. They pushed for something called a "public option" which is program that was originally dreamt up by Jacob Hacker that would include over 100 million Americans and would use Medicare rates. And the reality is that if something like this was actually implemented the insurers would go out like a light. Let me repeat that, any well done "Public option" will take out private insurers. This is why the insurers hate is so much, and why they will fight it tooth and nail, because it looks just as bad as a single payer plan to them. Now, here's the truth, nothing like the public option that I just illustrated above is currently in any of the bills in congress. A couple of them have a half-assed "public option" that will be just as expensive as private insurance and will only allow 10 million into the program. But a program with only 10 million (not everyone can join) can never compete with private insurance. Public competition with the private sector was the way to drive down costs, but if you don’t have a real public option, then cost will continue to rise. Now here the second part, most bills in congress have what is called an "insurance mandate" this means that everyone has to buy insurance, and for the vast majority of us, that means private insurance. Private insurance, which has costs that continue to rise, because there is no real competition, like in the form of a real public option. Most bankruptcies in this country are a result of medical bills. An individual insurance mandate would be an indirect regressive tax on the American people, and a giant bailout for the insurance companies. It would condemn us to put our heads into the jaws of a shark and pay for the privilege. That is what happens when there is no realpublic option. So, what will Obama say on Wednesday? All signs point to him not committing to real alternative for Americans, but instead committing us to buy expensive private insurance. Of course he will dress up his speech with a lot of bullshit about looking at both perspectives and so on, but we know that this problem is not so complicated in the end. I believe that this is his Waterloo, his make or break moment, and on Wednesday we will know where his allegiances are.
