|
Noam Chomsky on Health Care Reform and Dysfunctional Democracy |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Monday, 13 April 2009 00:00 |
|
The following is excerpted from Amy Goodman's recent interview of noted author Noam Chomsky: NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, healthcare is a dramatic case. I mean, for decades, the healthcare issue has been right at the top of domestic concerns, for very good reasons. The US has the most dysfunctional healthcare system in the industrial world, has about twice the per capita costs and some of the worst outcomes. It’s also the only privatized system. And if you look closely, those two things are related. And the privatized system is highly inefficient: a huge amount of administration, bureaucracy, supervision, you know, all kinds of things. It’s been studied pretty carefully. Now, the public has had an opinion about this for decades. A considerable majority want a national healthcare system, like other industrial countries have. They usually say a Canadian-style system, not because Canada is the best, but at least you know that Canada exists. Nobody says an Australian-style system, which is much better, because who knows anything about that? But something like what’s sometimes called Medicare Plus, like extend Medicare to the population. Well, up until—it’s interesting. Up until the year 2004, that idea was described, for example, by the New York Times as politically impossible and lacking political support. So, maybe the public wants it, but that’s not what counts as political support. The financial institutions are opposed, the pharmaceutical institutions are opposed, so it’s not—no political support. Well, in 2008, for the first time, the Democratic candidates—first Edwards, then the others—began to move in the direction of what the public has wanted, not there, but in that direction. So what happened between 2004 and 2008? Well, public opinion didn’t change. It’s been this way for decades. What changed is that manufacturing industry, a big sector of the economy, has recognized that it’s being severely harmed by the highly inefficient privatized health system. So, General Motors said that it costs them over a thousand dollars more to produce a car in Detroit than across the border in Windsor, Canada. And, you know, when manufacturing industry becomes concerned, then things become politically possible, and they begin to have political support. So, yes, in 2008, there’s some discussion of it. Now, you know, this is very revealing insight into how American democracy functions and what is meant by the term “political support” and “politically possible.” Again, this should be headlines. Will a proposal come that approaches what the public wants? Well, we’re already getting the backlash, strong backlash. And what private healthcare systems are claiming is that this is unfair. The government is so much more efficient that they’ll be driven—there’s no level playing field if the government gets into it, which is true.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
An important message from Sen. Ben Nelson (D-AHIP) |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Thursday, 07 May 2009 19:39 |
|
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 07 May 2009 19:42 )
|
|
Medicare for All - YES! Private Mandates NO! |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Thursday, 21 January 2010 16:51 |
|
This is from Medicare for All supporter "Faryn Balyncd" at Democratic Underground : Despite 65% to 72% of voters supporting "a public plan like Medicare" for all, by January only 34% supported the emerging Frankenstein's monster of perpetual MANDATED enslavement to a cartel, a mutant creation whose only likeness to the promise of "reform" was in its now misleading name. The message is loud & clear: Americans continue to support for the president's campaign principles of healthcare reform: - - - (1.) a public plan open to all - - - (2.) no mandates - - - (3.) no middles class tax hikes, specifically no John McCain-esque taxation of healthcare benefits But as voters saw the Senate Finance hearing begin with the banning and literal arrest of the doctors and nurses supporting Single Payer, the selling of principle to Big Pharma and Big Insurance, finally the spectacle of the White House pressuring the Senate to bow to Joe Lieberman and crush the last remnant of a public option (the Medicare Buy-In Option), their anger grew. So if the only bill we "can pass now" is a corporate mandate that will destroy us at the polls, not to mention making future transition to Medicare-for-All more difficult, if not impossible, what is the alternative? Perhaps we can regroup and try listening to the people: (1) Kill the mandate now! (Are you listening, Nancy?)
(2) Stand on principle, and fight unwaveringly for Medicare-for-All.
(3) Give no quarter: Force the obstructionists to actually physically filibuster (let them stand up and drone on, with their urine bags in place, until the American people see them for the corporate tools that they are).
(4) If they are to defeat the plan Americans desire, Medicare-for-All, force them to publicly vote down an uncorrupted bill, and make them pay for it at the polls in November. The Republican game plan was for us to pass an unpopular corporate give-away while they kept their hands clean, and let us self destruct in November.
But they have no defense if we stand on principle for the American people. "If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform...."
- Howard Dean
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 21 January 2010 17:00 )
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 08 August 2009 19:32 |
|
Some have thoughtfully raised the question,"why target private health insurance companies at all; after all they can not change the law"? Others have said that targeting them for civil resistance actions is also not particularly effective because what is the rational demand?
This must be included in our response:
1. The private health insurance industry is the primary villain and cause of the US healthcare crisis.
2. The private health insurance purchases political support in Congress that keeps it in existence.
3. The private health insurance industry spends its unjust enrichment on massive disinformation campaigns that confuse the sick, scared, and dying into political submission.
We can make a quintessential rational demand. It is an economic justice demand and a moral demand. It is a demand that many of us are not use to making because it seems so exotic. It is a class struggle demand based on the human right to health care. This is the case that we must make.
So what should our explicit demand be to the private health insurance industry?
1. Get out of the business of providing for-profit health insurance for medically necessary health care.
2. Stop funding elected officials to vote for your continued existence.
Some will say that these are not rational demands. Of course they are. Do we really expect the private health insurance industry to comply? Yes, eventually. Our task is to build the political momentum to get that result. Targeting the private health insurance industry with high profile actions will get media attention and public sympathy. It expands the venue to get our message out. We have the truth on our side. Our intent is to make life quite uncomfortable for this industry. We must stay this course.
But this tactic can not occur in isolation.
We must also, with high profile direct actions, target those elected officials who are taking money from the private health insurance industry and who are using this financial power to block passage of single-payer legislation.
So what should our explicit demand be to the elected officials? 1. CBO scoring and full congressional Hearing on single-payer before any full house or full senate vote on healthcare reform is taken. This is critical. Waxman's strategy is a ruse to get an early defeat for HR 676. We must have more effective public education before any such vote.
2. Vote down any legislation that keeps the private health insurance in the business of providing health insurance for medically necessary care.
Our greatest impediment may be from our own ranks. Those folks who think a so called "robust public option" should be an acceptable compromise. We must say no to this. The ball is really in our court; but we can not afford to have a single-payer losing vote take the wind out of our sails. We can mitigate the damage by having the CBO scoring and a full Congressional Hearing occur before any such vote takes place.
We must build an ongoing campaign locally and support single-payer activists nationally who are attempting to implement more aggressive direct actions that target either the private health insurance industry or elected officials. Locally, we must strive do to both and show how each tactic mutually reinforces the power of the other tactic. We must never counterpose these tactics. Together they build the most powerful strategy to get media attention, public sympathy, and impress upon the power elite where the real power lies. This is especially true if they are coordinated nationally and if we can bring more constituents into the leadership of this work: labor, the disabled community; the faith communities; national people of color organizations, small businesses...etc. Lets model this strategy locally and actively encourage it nationally.
--Ajamu Sankofa founding member of PHIMG |
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 08 August 2009 20:24 )
|
|
UnitedHealthcare's Latest Bid to Screw Over Hospitals |
|
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Tuesday, 26 January 2010 17:00 |
New York Times via PNHP Blog: A front in the national health care battle has opened in New York City, where a major hospital chain and one of the nation’s largest insurance companies are locked in a struggle over control of treatment and costs that could have broad ramifications for millions of people with private health insurance. The fight is between Continuum Health Partners, a consortium of five New York hospitals, including Beth Israel Medical Center and St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, both major teaching hospitals, and UnitedHealthcare. The prestigious hospitals and the major health insurer have been in bitter contract negotiations, not just over rates but also over UnitedHealthcare’s demand that the hospitals notify the insurance company within 24 hours after a patient’s admission. If a hospital failed to do so, UnitedHealthcare would cut its reimbursements for the patient by half. UnitedHealthcare says the proposed rule is meant to improve the quality of care and cut costs by allowing insurance case managers to jump in right away. The hospitals say that having their reimbursement cut in half is too much to pay for a clerical error, and that the revenue drain would ultimately hurt their patients. The dispute signals a “ratcheting up” of a long tradition of insurers trying to cut costs, said Jeffrey Rubin, an economics professor at Rutgers University.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 26 January 2010 17:15 )
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 8 of 44 |