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)
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 10:48 PM Mar 2012

Why the Supreme Court Should Kill ‘Obamacare’ [View all]

March 26, 2012
Finally 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 nation’s 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 Court’s 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 American’s 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, we’ve 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 Court’s 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
140 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No. elleng Mar 2012 #1
Did you read all three articles before posting? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #2
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
Yes DJ13 Mar 2012 #3
Here's ProSense Mar 2012 #4
The White House should have pursued the Medicare-For-Anyone approach. muntrv Mar 2012 #5
They did not have the votes - and that is per Bernie Sanders karynnj Mar 2012 #98
No. blue neen Mar 2012 #6
What's your opinion of the private insurance requirement of the law? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #8
If they throw out mandatory coverage, it will destroy the plan. Jackpine Radical Mar 2012 #10
It's not a public option pool. It's a private for-profit insurance industry pool. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #11
I'm not particularly defending Obama's plan. Jackpine Radical Mar 2012 #13
States can adopt a public option as Vermont has done and Oregon is doing. joshcryer Mar 2012 #15
Vermont health bill mislabeled 'single payer': doctors group Better Believe It Mar 2012 #16
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
Ahh, it was passed into law, but is not fully set up yet. joshcryer Mar 2012 #110
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
You might ProSense Mar 2012 #58
Muddling single payer and public option is right wing rhetoric. joshcryer Mar 2012 #109
actually, we may well end up with single payer here in Vermont cali Mar 2012 #78
Yes the public option turns into single payer relatively easy, imo. joshcryer Mar 2012 #111
No they cannot Sgent Mar 2012 #71
Tell that to Vermont. joshcryer Mar 2012 #112
I don't live in Vermont Sgent Mar 2012 #122
Was discussing this emilyg Mar 2012 #32
You don't ProSense Mar 2012 #9
+1...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #44
Too bad for kids whose parents don't have insurance themselves, or eridani Mar 2012 #34
And what happens to the 20-something who turns 26 or 27? shcrane71 Mar 2012 #54
Unfortunately, many people can no longer buy.. girl gone mad Mar 2012 #88
Excuse me? I wasn't saving money. I was saving my son. blue neen Mar 2012 #134
All I can say is, don't let perfect be an arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #7
Exactly, arthr. elleng Mar 2012 #12
That's my sense too. Build on it and make arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #17
How does one build on something the insurance industry and big pharma have a legal lock on? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #76
Deductibles, co-pays and benefit limits arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #90
+1000 baldguy Mar 2012 #41
Exactly Tomay Mar 2012 #120
Uh, no, if it gets struck down then health care will be rail roaded. joshcryer Mar 2012 #14
+1000. n/t pnwmom Mar 2012 #19
Fix what? The underlying system is fully the existing system. TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #37
If the ACA is overturned Dems won't even think about National Healthcare for 50 more years. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #46
+1...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #59
Bullshit, for no other reason than the cartel cannot survive 50 years with their current model TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #77
Democrats will be paralyzed, and do nothing. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #81
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
Then it is our duty to make it suicide not to work for universial care. TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #138
You're kind of obsessing over what it says today jeff47 Mar 2012 #51
What it says now is exactly what it is, Jeff. TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #86
It's hidden in your 3rd sentence. jeff47 Mar 2012 #93
No it isn't. HHS's rules have completely changed the health care landscape. joshcryer Mar 2012 #114
Comedy GOLD! TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #139
Absolutely agree with your assessment. Major Hogwash Mar 2012 #39
I strongly disagree. The last thing Rethugs would go for, while they're trying pnwmom Mar 2012 #18
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
When Social security was made DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #21
SocSec did NOT mandate purchase of retirement plans from Wall Street n/t eridani Mar 2012 #35
But SocSec did mandate withdrawals from your paycheck. n/t DippyDem Mar 2012 #53
To cover a government, not private, retirement program. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #61
And that changes DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #97
It was the extreme left that guaranteed that Roosevelt had to come up with something eridani Mar 2012 #99
and you think DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #113
Obama will make mincemeat of Mitt on health care no matter what the court decides eridani Mar 2012 #121
call it horseshit DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #124
I'm not talking about any specific policy eridani Mar 2012 #131
In a perfect world Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2012 #24
And in this magic world nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #26
And how many Democrats are needed in the Senate to pass Medicare for All? 51? 60? 70? More? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #27
If the congress and senate of 2008 did not teach you this nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #31
Do you think 80 Senate Democrats would be enough to get it passed? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #62
And we don't have that right now nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #69
And when do you think 80 Democrats will be in the Senate? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #79
Once again, in the current environment it ain't happening nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #82
It could take generations to achieve single payer if the insurance industry law is allowed to stand. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #101
I prefer to live in reality nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #102
That "reality" accepts without a fight the domination of health care by Wall Street. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #129
In your imagination nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #133
You got it, dear Nadin! elleng Mar 2012 #28
+1 Johonny Mar 2012 #29
Good. At least by what I assume your definition of regulate is. TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #100
Well, ProSense Mar 2012 #30
That they actually believe that Codeine Mar 2012 #67
In the context of the Individual Mandate, it's not a "tax". The intent of a "tax" is to generate cherokeeprogressive Mar 2012 #33
The mandate is easily covered by the commerce clause. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2012 #52
You should have called the Supreme Court before they had their meeting today then. cherokeeprogressive Mar 2012 #126
Actually, I found today's coverage to be far too "chicken little" jeff47 Mar 2012 #130
No. Fucking. Way. jmowreader Mar 2012 #36
BINGO DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #38
Slightly OT, but what credit card company is in VA? n/t FSogol Mar 2012 #50
Capital One and several others DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #89
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
Wow, what strange bedfellows they have. joshcryer Mar 2012 #135
If the court says the Federal Government can't mandate rucky Mar 2012 #42
That would be the biggest argument laundry_queen Mar 2012 #85
Keep trying...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #43
Unrec. More RW BS. n/t FSogol Mar 2012 #45
I agree but unfortunately, both political parties are married mmonk Mar 2012 #47
Then just pass Medicare for all, there is no need to throw out Motown_Johnny Mar 2012 #48
Kill ObamaCare now, and we, the right-wing Republicans ... JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2012 #49
Advocated by people that HAVE health care who want the system thrown into Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #64
Why and how is a system designed to prevent anything like single payer going to usher it in? TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #92
It is this law or nothing. Jennicut Mar 2012 #65
Nurses: Health Care Crisis Will Continue No Matter How Court Rules Better Believe It Mar 2012 #66
As a nurse, totally agree. Single payer is the only solution. n/t K Gardner Mar 2012 #72
But the belief that single-payer will rise from the ashes of a repealed ACA is insane... SidDithers Mar 2012 #73
and if congress could not get the ACA done right DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #95
No. Lisa D Mar 2012 #68
Funny stuff SOS Mar 2012 #70
Steffie Woolhandler was on Amy's show this morning. EFerrari Mar 2012 #74
Interesting ProSense Mar 2012 #80
The mandate is unConstitutional. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #75
EXACTLY. WinkyDink Mar 2012 #117
Ah yes, the old "all or nothing" JNelson6563 Mar 2012 #83
"forcing the public and the political system to finally consider the only real answer" wyldwolf Mar 2012 #87
bullshit. spanone Mar 2012 #91
ditto that bullshit call mikekohr Mar 2012 #123
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
I agree. CBGLuthier Mar 2012 #103
Medicare for everyone is the only solution!! B Calm Mar 2012 #104
We continue to feed the obscenely rich woo me with science Mar 2012 #105
Obamacare NOW--until Medicare for all spreads from state to state ErikJ Mar 2012 #106
The United States isn't like Canada. Canada has a multi-party system and democratic elections. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #128
What I fear is that ACA will be replaced with the status quo Cali_Democrat Mar 2012 #107
Yes. It will be just like it was pre-2010. BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #118
PNHP is a right wing tool. bornskeptic Mar 2012 #108
I'm getting sick and tired of only gutless people defining "feasible" eridani Mar 2012 #132
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
Horseshit. Bobbie Jo Mar 2012 #137
No... cynatnite Mar 2012 #125
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why the Supreme Court Sho...