Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why the Supreme Court Should Kill ‘Obamacare’ [View all]
March 26, 2012Finally Getting it Right?
Why the Supreme Court Should Kill Obamacare
by DAVE LINDORFF
The US Supreme Court has a chance to do the people of America a big favor, perhaps atoning at last for its shameful betrayal of the electoral system in 2000 when a conservative majority stole the Florida, and national election, for George W. Bush, and for the liberal-led and equally shameful betrayal of fundamental property rights in the Kelo v New London case that, in 2005, upheld the public theft of private homes in Connecticut on behalf of a government-backed resort development. The court can atone for these betrayals by declaring the ramshackle, corrupt, hugely expensive and cynically misnamed Affordable Care Act to be unconstitutional.
The act, pushed through a Democratic Congress by President Obama in 2010, is a disaster, a cobbled-together set of measures that was fatally corrupted by the insurance lobby and other parts of the nations medical-industrial complex, which leaves millions uninsured, continues to tether workers to their employers like indentured servants, and undermines the Medicare program, which should be the cornerstone of a real health reform.
By killing this monstrosity of political expedience and lobbyist strong-arming, the Supreme Courts conservative wing could give us a good chance to finally move the country to a real national health reform which would reduce costs substantially, provide quality health care to all, and finally drive a stake through the heart of the health insurance industry, the real vampire squid of American capitalism which has been sucking money out of Americans wallets and driving many into bankruptcy for decades (family health crises are the major single cause of bankruptcies and homes foreclosures in the country).
By killing the whole Obamacare law, the court will throw the system back into crisis mode, forcing the public and the political system to finally consider the only real answer: expansion of the Medicare program to cover everyone.
Read the full article at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/26/why-the-supreme-court-should-kill-obamacare/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 26, 2012
Contact:
Garrett Adams, M.D., president PNHP
Andrew Coates, M.D., president-elect PNHP
Oliver Fein, M.D.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D.
Mark Almberg, PNHP communications director, (312) 782-6006, [email protected]
Leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization of 18,000 doctors who advocate for single-payer national health insurance, released the following statement today:
Regardless of whether the Supreme Court upholds or overturns the Affordable Care Act in whole or in part, the unfortunate reality is that federal health law of 2010 will not work: (1) it will not achieve universal coverage, as it leaves at least 26 million uninsured, (2) it will not make health care affordable to Americans with insurance, because gaps in their policies will leave them vulnerable to bankruptcy in the event of major illness, and (3) it will not control costs.
Why? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry. That industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars annually for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals; it denies care in order to increase insurers bottom line; and it obstructs any serious effort to control costs.
In contrast, a single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system would achieve all three goals truly universal, comprehensive coverage; health security for our patients and their families; and cost control. It would do so by replacing private insurers with a single, nonprofit agency like Medicare that pays all medical bills, streamlines administration, and reins in costs for medications and other supplies through its bargaining clout.
The major provisions of the ACA do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to wait and see how this reform plays out, weve seen how comparable reforms in Massachusetts and other states have worked over the past few decades. They have invariably failed our patients, foundering on the shoals of skyrocketing costs even as they have profited the big private insurers and Big Pharma.
The Supreme Courts ruling is not expected until June. Regardless of how it rules, we cannot wait for an effective remedy to our health care woes any longer, nor can our patients. The stakes are too high.
We pledge to continue our work for the only equitable, financially responsible and humane cure for our health care mess: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.
******
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/march/health-law-constitutional-or-no-fails-to-remedy-ailment-doctors-group
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-single-payer doctors: Health bill leaves 23 million uninsured
A false promise of reform
For Immediate Release
March 22, 2010
Contact:
Oliver Fein, M.D.
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, [email protected]
The following statement was released today by leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program, www.pnhp.org. Their signatures appear below.
As much as we would like to join the celebration of the House's passage of the health bill last night, in good conscience we cannot. We take no comfort in seeing aspirin dispensed for the treatment of cancer.
Instead of eliminating the root of the problem - the profit-driven, private health insurance industry - this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of Americans to buy private insurers' defective products, and turn over to them vast amounts of public money.
The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:
About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.
Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.
Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.
The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.
People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.
Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.
The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017.
Women's reproductive rights will be further eroded, thanks to the burdensome segregation of insurance funds for abortion and for all other medical services.
It didn't have to be like this. Whatever salutary measures are contained in this bill, e.g. additional funding for community health centers, could have been enacted on a stand-alone basis.
Similarly, the expansion of Medicaid - a woefully underfunded program that provides substandard care for the poor - could have been done separately, along with an increase in federal appropriations to upgrade its quality.
But instead the Congress and the Obama administration have saddled Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new taxes on workers' health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today.
This bill's passage reflects political considerations, not sound health policy. As physicians, we cannot accept this inversion of priorities. We seek evidence-based remedies that will truly help our patients, not placebos.
A genuine remedy is in plain sight. Sooner rather than later, our nation will have to adopt a single-payer national health insurance program, an improved Medicare for all. Only a single-payer plan can assure truly universal, comprehensive and affordable care to all.
By replacing the private insurers with a streamlined system of public financing, our nation could save $400 billion annually in unnecessary, wasteful administrative costs. That's enough to cover all the uninsured and to upgrade everyone else's coverage without having to increase overall U.S. health spending by one penny.
Moreover, only a single-payer system offers effective tools for cost control like bulk purchasing, negotiated fees, global hospital budgeting and capital planning.
Polls show nearly two-thirds of the public supports such an approach, and a recent survey shows 59 percent of U.S. physicians support government action to establish national health insurance. All that is required to achieve it is the political will.
The major provisions of the present bill do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to "wait and see" how this reform plays out, we cannot wait, nor can our patients. The stakes are too high.
We pledge to continue our work for the only equitable, financially responsible and humane remedy for our health care mess: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for All.
Oliver Fein, M.D.
President
Garrett Adams, M.D.
President-elect
Claudia Fegan, M.D.
Past President
Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Congressional Fellow
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Co-founder
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D.
Co-founder
Quentin Young, M.D.
National Coordinator
Don McCanne, M.D.
Senior Health Policy Fellow
******
http://pnhp.org/news/2010/march/pro-single-payer-doctors-health-bill-leaves-23-million-uninsured
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
140 replies, 27890 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (21)
ReplyReply to this post
140 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I agree, I think think there's going to be one hell of a backlash they just don't see coming,
mother earth
Mar 2012
#140
It's not a public option pool. It's a private for-profit insurance industry pool.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#11
It is already in place. It is being funded by people choosing the public option.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#20
So "It is already in place" Please post the fee and benefit schedule for it.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#56
I see you edited your post. I did not, in fact, say it was single payer. You were talking about...
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#22
I didn't claim you said it was a single payer system. I quoted the doctors press release.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#55
"Please stop the right wing rhetoric" Why do you think the doctors organization is right-wing?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#57
How does one build on something the insurance industry and big pharma have a legal lock on?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#76
If the ACA is overturned Dems won't even think about National Healthcare for 50 more years.
JoePhilly
Mar 2012
#46
Bullshit, for no other reason than the cartel cannot survive 50 years with their current model
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#77
Of course it can't, but in the intrim people will die and suffer miserably. We agree.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#115
Proping it up to try and get a couple generations out of it, has no costs?
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#136
How many Democratic Senators would you need in the Senate to get 60 votes for single payer?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#23
Single Payer is supposedly very popular among the public (so we keep hearing)
Proud Liberal Dem
Mar 2012
#25
Why won't Democratic Senators even co-sponsor Senator Sanders single payer bill?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#60
Probably because most know/knew it's not going anywhere right now (and not even 2009-2011)
Proud Liberal Dem
Mar 2012
#84
It was the extreme left that guaranteed that Roosevelt had to come up with something
eridani
Mar 2012
#99
Obama will make mincemeat of Mitt on health care no matter what the court decides
eridani
Mar 2012
#121
And how many Democrats are needed in the Senate to pass Medicare for All? 51? 60? 70? More?
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#27
It could take generations to achieve single payer if the insurance industry law is allowed to stand.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#101
That "reality" accepts without a fight the domination of health care by Wall Street.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#129
In the context of the Individual Mandate, it's not a "tax". The intent of a "tax" is to generate
cherokeeprogressive
Mar 2012
#33
You should have called the Supreme Court before they had their meeting today then.
cherokeeprogressive
Mar 2012
#126
Check out the "friend of the court" briefs (record number) in this case. Who's for and who's against
pampango
Mar 2012
#40
And what is the position of the health insurance industry and big Pharma? They wrote the law.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#63
Why and how is a system designed to prevent anything like single payer going to usher it in?
TheKentuckian
Mar 2012
#92
But the belief that single-payer will rise from the ashes of a repealed ACA is insane...
SidDithers
Mar 2012
#73
"forcing the public and the political system to finally consider the only real answer"
wyldwolf
Mar 2012
#87
never ceases to amaze me that some folks believe the Right will suddenly come to their senses
librechik
Mar 2012
#94
Meh. What do I care? My mom was natural born Canadian. Thus, I am Canadian too.
lumberjack_jeff
Mar 2012
#96
The United States isn't like Canada. Canada has a multi-party system and democratic elections.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#128
If Congress wants to regulate the commerce of health, LET THEM DEMAND LOWER RATES FROM THE INSURERS.
WinkyDink
Mar 2012
#116
Realistically, if ACA is overturned, health care reform of any kind is dead for decades.
backscatter712
Mar 2012
#119
If the health insurance industry bill is upheld, progressive health care reform is dead for decades.
Better Believe It
Mar 2012
#127