Obama's Anti- Fed Funded Abortion Executive Order

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Funny how folks that voted for him are surpised about health care reform. He ran on that and abortion and gay rights. Nothing surpising.

I'm not happy with this health insurance bill. It needs a LOT of work. I've always been of the opinion that we either keep free market health insurance and follow Ron Paul's advice on policy or go to a single payer national health insurance system. Whatever we do, we need to go all the way with it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

One’s position on legislation concerning health insurance isn’t a litmus test on being Republican. After all Republican Governor Mitt Romney and a number of Republicans on the state level have supported state level health insurance systems.

That was a different health care plan. I never said health care position was a litmus test. My statement was specific to the "obamacare" bill that just passed. No true conservative or republican can support or approve of that bill.

I'm for some aspects of health care reform, but what was passed - again - no real conservative or republican can support or applaud its passage.

[Aquila]

Interesting article from a liberal...

Diary of a Wimpy Health Care Bill
By Rose Ann DeMoro
California Nurses Association
California Progress Report, March 24, 2010
Passage of President Obama's healthcare bill proves that Congress can enact comprehensive social legislation in the face of virulent rightwing opposition. Now that we have an insurance bill, can we move on to healthcare reform?
As an organization of registered nurses, we have an obligation to provide an honest assessment, as nurses must do every hour of every day. The legislation fails to deliver on the promise of a single standard of excellence in care for all and instead makes piecemeal adjustments to the current privatized, for-profit healthcare behemoth.
When all the boasts fade, comparing the bill to Social Security and Medicare, probably intended to mollify liberal supporters following repeated concessions to the healthcare industry and conservative Democrats, a sobering reality will probably set in.
What the bill does provide
-Expansion of government-funded Medicaid to cover 16 million additional low income people, though the program remains significantly under funded. This limits access to its enrollees as its reimbursement rates are lower than either Medicare or private insurance, with the result some providers find it impossible to participate. Though the federal government will provide additional subsidies to states, those expire in 2016, leaving the program a top target to budget cutting governors and legislatures.
-Increased funding for community health centers, thanks to an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders, that will open their doors to nearly double their current patient volume.
-Reducing but not eliminating the infamous "donut hole" gap in prescription drug coverage for which Medicare enrollees have to pay the costs fully out of pocket.
-Insurance regulations covering members' dependent children until age 26, and new restrictions on limits on annual and lifetime on lifetime insurance coverage, and exclusion of policies for children with pre-existing conditions.
-Permission for individual states -- though weakened from the version sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich -- to waive some federal regulations to adopt innovative state programs like an expanded Medicare.
All of these reforms could, and should, have been enacted on their own without the poison pills that accompanied them.
Where the bill falls short
-The mandate forcing people without coverage to buy insurance. Coupled with the subsidies for other moderate income working people not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, the result is a gift worth hundreds of billions of dollars to reward the very insurance industry that created the present crisis through price gouging, care denials, and other abuses.
-Inadequate healthcare cost controls for individuals and families.
1. Insurance premiums will continue to climb. Proponents touted a "robust" public option to keep the insurers "honest," but that proposal was scuttled. After Anthem Blue Cross of California announced 39 percent premium hikes, the administration promised to crack down with a federal rate insurance authority, an idea also dropped from the bill.
2. There is no standard benefits package, only a circumspect reference that benefits should be "comparable to" current employer provided plans.
3. An illusory limit on out-of-pocket medical expenses. But even in the regulated state exchanges, insurers remain in control of what they offer and what will be a covered service. Insurers are likely to design plans to attract healthier customers, and many enrollees will likely find the federal guarantees do not protect them for medical treatments they actually need.
-No meaningful restrictions on claims denials insurers don't want to pay for. Proponents cite a review process on denials, but the "internal review process" remains in the hands of the insurers, and the "external" review will be up to the states, many of which have systems now in place that are dominated by the insurance industry with little enforcement mechanism.
-Significant loopholes in the much touted insurance reforms:
1. Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail "wellness" programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
2. Permitting insurers to sell policies "across state lines", exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will likely set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
3. Allowing insurers to charge three times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
4. Insurers may continue to rescind policies, drop coverage, for "fraud or intentional misrepresentation" -- the main pretext insurance companies now use.
-Taxing health benefits for the first time. Though modified, the tax on benefits remains, a 40 percent tax on plans whose value exceeds $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families. With no real checks on premium hikes, many plans will reach that amount by the start date, 2018, rapidly. The result will be more cost shifting from employers to workers and more people switching to skeletal plans that leave them vulnerable to financial ruin.
-Erosion of women's reproductive rights, with a new executive order from the President enshrining a deal to get the votes of anti-abortion Democrats and a burdensome segregation of funds, that in practice will likely mean few insurers will cover abortion and perhaps other reproductive medical services.
-A windfall for pharmaceutical giants. Through a deal with the White House, the administration blocked provisions to give the government more power to negotiate drug prices and gave the name brand drug makers 12 years of marketing monopoly against competition from generic competition on biologic drugs, including cancer treatments.
Most critically, the bill strengthens the economic and political power of a private insurance-based system based on profit rather than patient need.
As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote after the vote "don't believe anyone who says Obama's healthcare legislation marks a swing of the pendulum back toward the Great Society and the New Deal. Obama's health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation, building on a Republican (a private market approach) rather than a New Deal foundation. The New Deal foundation would have offered Medicare to all Americans or, at the very least, featured a public insurance option."
Unlike Social Security and Medicare which expanded a public safety net, this bill requires people -- in the midst of the mass unemployment and the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression -- to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket to big private companies for a product that may or may not provide health coverage in return.
Too many people will remain uninsured, individual and family healthcare costs will continue to rise largely unabated and private insurers will still be able to deny claims with little recourse for patients.
If, as the President and his supporters insist, the bill is just a start, let's hold them to that promise. Let's see the same resolve and mobilization from legislators and constituency groups who pushed through this bill to go farther, and achieve a permanent, lasting solution to our healthcare crisis with universal, guaranteed healthcare by expanding and improving Medicare to cover everyone.
Leaders of the National Nurses United have raised many of these concerns about the legislation for months. But, sadly, as the healthcare bill moved closer to final passage, the space for genuine debate and critique of the bill's very real limitations was largely squeezed out.
Much of the fault lies with the far right, from the streets to the airwaves to some legislators that steadily escalated from deliberate misrepresentations to fear mongering to racial epithets to hints of threatened violence against bill supporters.
For its part, the administration and its major supporters shut out advocates of more far reaching reform, while vilifying critics on the left.
Both trends are troubling for democracy, as is the pervasive corruption of corporate lobbying that so clearly influenced the language of the bill. Insurers, drug companies, and other corporate lobbyists shattered all records for federal influence peddling and were rewarded with a bill that largely protected their interests, along with a Supreme Court ruling that will allow corporations, including the health care industry, to spend unlimited sums in federal elections.
Rightwing opponents fought as hard to block this legislation as they would have against a Medicare for all plan. As more Americans recognize the bill does not resemble the distortions peddled by the right, and become disappointed by their rising medical bills and ongoing fights with insurers for needed care, there will be new opportunity to press the case for real reform. Next time, let's get it done right.
Rose Ann DeMoro is the Executive Director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, representing over 85,000 staff nurses throughout the nation.
http://www.californiaprogressreport....e/?q=node/7584

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

That was a different health care plan. I never said health care position was a litmus test. My statement was specific to the "obamacare" bill that just passed. No true conservative or republican can support or approve of that bill.

I'm for some aspects of health care reform, but what was passed - again - no real conservative or republican can support or applaud its passage.

I don't believe that's necessarily so. First, it depends on who that Republican represents. Some Republicans in the North East represent constituents that are liberal on the issue. Therefore they are voting according to the will of the people who elected him. We don't necessarily elect our representatives to vote along partisian lines, we elect them to represent us. I'd say that if a Republican's constituents support the measure, that Republican is doing a good job in representing his people if he supports it... even if the legislation is contrary to partisian dogma.

Do you believe that everyone should pay for their own health insurance? Do you believe that forcing people to pay for someone else's health insurance is criminal? If so, then the only real action that can be taken is forcing all Americans to purchase insurance and pay into a national system. Then EVERYONE is paying for their health insurance coverage. (The only exceptions might be those living at or below poverty level.) The majority of the uninsured or underinsured in our nation are working middle class.

[Aquila]

Old but interesting article,

Health & Healing
Doctor's Orders: Health Coverage for Everyone
An agenda that puts people first: Health Care
Document Actions Share Send this Print this RSS Feed by Daina Saib
posted Jul 29, 2008






Dr. Rocky White, a former Republican, has become a leading advocate of single-payer, national health insurance.

You wouldn’t know it from the candidates’ debates or reports on the major television networks, but a majority of Americans favor a government-run health insurance system similar to Canada’s.

Those lining up to support single-payer health care include medical professionals, business people, and many Republicans. Dr. Rocky White has been all of those things.

White is a former Republican, from a conservative, evangelical background, who got interested in health care reform nine years ago when his own medical practice slipped into the red. His research into the health care system led him to conclude that the problem wasn’t just in his practice— the health care system itself is broken, and a single-payer program is the most efficient way to fix it.

Under the single-payer system, doctors’ offices and hospitals remain private for-profit or non-profit institutions. But the federal government covers the bills for patient services, with funds coming from taxes. The patient gets the health care they need. Paperwork and billing are kept to a minimum. Employers no longer have the difficult task of choosing, administering, and paying for health insurance for employees. Everyone is covered.

The current setup is as complicated as single-payer is simple. Today, the discerning consumer must wade through a complex system of pre-existing condition exemptions, co-pays, and deductibles—if they have coverage at all. Arguments over billing among doctors’ offices, insurance companies, patients, and their lawyers eat up millions of dollars. An estimated $25 out of each $100 spent goes to paperwork, profits, and executive pay and bonuses. And disagreement over medical coverage is one of the most common sources of labor disputes for employers who have seen insurance premiums double since 2000.

With these inflated costs, it’s little wonder that in 2006, the last year for which government figures are available, 47 million Americans had no insurance at all, including 8.7 million children, or that 68 percent of bankruptcies in the U.S. come as a direct result of medical expenses among people who do have insurance.






A CNN/Opinion Research Poll last year showed 64% of Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes for a national health care system.







When White learned about Physicians for a National Health Program and their plan for a single-payer health care system, he saw it was similar to his own idea and he joined their effort.

Other medical professionals have had a similar reaction. The American College of Physicians—the largest organization of medical specialists in the country—endorses single-payer health care as does the California Nurses Association, the largest organization of registered nurses.

And so do 55 percent of Americans, according to a CBS News poll conducted in September. In another poll, 64 percent said they would be willing to pay higher taxes for a national health care insurance program.

In Congress, HR 676, the “Medicare for All” bill introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, currently has 90 co-sponsors—more than any other health care reform proposal—and the endorsement of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Republicans for Single-Payer
Support for single-payer health care is not just strong among progressives. George Swan, for instance, is a health care administrator, self-described “Purple Republican,” and a founder of Republicans for Single Payer.

“It’s about being American and doing what’s right,” Swan says. “What’s right is not paying a 30 percent premium to the insurance system and receiving sub-standard health care.”

Business owners are also supporting single-payer health care. For 25 years, Jack Lohman owned a company that provided cardiac monitoring services to hospitals. Today, he’s a co-founder of the Business Coalition for Single Payer. A “lifelong Republican,” Lohman argues that conservatives should support single-payer because it’s pro-business.

“For the same 16 percent of GDP that we are spending on health care in the U.S.,” he says, “we could provide first-class health care to 100 percent of the people.” And single-payer would “get health care off the backs of corporations so they can be more competitive with products made overseas.”

John Arensmeyer spent 12 years running an e-commerce company with 35 employees. Then he founded the Small Business Majority to advocate for the interests of small businesses, particularly on health care issues. Sharp rises in health care costs for small businesses are hurting their ability to survive, Arensmeyer says. “It’s antithetical to what we’re all about as a country, which is to allow people the freedom to go out and start new enterprises.”

Small business has often been portrayed as opposing health care reform, but SBM’s research shows that small businesses are interested in being part of the solution—even if it means paying higher taxes.

Walter Maher, former vice-president of public policy at the DaimlerChrysler Corporation, sees the problems in similar ways, although he looks at health care costs through the lens of large corporate employers.

General Motors, he says, is paying people to leave their jobs so they can hire replacements at 50 cents on the dollar with reduced health benefits. “It’s sad,” he says. “You have a giant albatross around your neck because you choose to provide a good standard of living for your employees.”

Money in Politics
If the current system is so unpopular among medical professional, patients, and business owners, what’s keeping it in place? Most advocates for single-payer agree that money in politics is the greatest obstacle to change. During the 2006 election cycle, the health care industry spent $99.7 million on campaign contributions. Lobbying on health care issues topped $446 million in 2007.

For Jack Lohman, that’s the crux of the problem. “Both McCain’s and Obama’s plans for health care are lousy,” he says. “Although both claim they’re not taking lobbyist money, somehow this money is getting through. They are each supporting health care that keeps the insurance industry involved.”

And all that money can buy a lot of misinformation and scaremongering. Rocky White says he finds that people get interested in the single-payer approach if they understand what’s actually being proposed: “When people realize that all that it is,” he says, “is a publicly owned insurance company, all of a sudden business people start to lose that fear that ‘Oh my God, we’re going to become the Soviet Union.’ Even Republicans say, ‘This really makes a lot of sense.’”

While White would like to see reform happen on a national level, he believes it’s more realistic to work at the state level for now. And for him, that means Colorado. White sits on the board of Health Care for All Colorado, a nonprofit, volunteer-run group with 250 members that includes Democrats, Republicans, physicians, business people, college professors, and economists. And he is running for a Democratic seat in the state legislature to add “the voice of medicine” to the debate.

“Any time a state has studied it, they find that single-payer is the most cost-effective and covers everyone,” White says. His proposal for a single-payer system in Colorado is being studied by a blue ribbon commission created by the Colorado Legislature.

In May, the 6,000 delegates to the Colorado Democratic Party Convention endorsed a pro-single-payer resolution that will be forwarded to the national convention in Denver in August.

If one state can make a single-payer plan work, White believes, it could start a cascading effect similar to what took place in Canada during the 1940s and ‘50s.

“People are discouraged, they’re angry, they’re upset,” White says. “But politics is the process that drives policy, and if we don’t get involved in the political process we’ll never make a difference.”

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/pu...e-for-everyone