Backsliding on Healthcare

Last night marked President Obama’s landmark push for healthcare reform sometime this century.

I say well done…but too late.

Here are excerpts from the speech (commentary added). CBS News has the full transcript.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge — year after year, decade after decade — has led us to the breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. [Booooo, people on welfare! Hisssss!] These are middle-class Americans…..

Don't worry. We're not trying to help those evil obstacles to American prosperity, the poor.

We are the only democracy — the only advanced democracy on Earth — the only wealthy nation — that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone….

….One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America…

Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight here. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly — by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates…

…an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Now, let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up. [Not making a good case for why the majority of Americans should support this, Mr. President.]

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I’ve insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

Now, it’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated — by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn’t be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end — and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal [read: I can still score political points if and when the public option fails!]. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. [a good one?] And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need….

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

That was true then. It remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road — to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that is not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. (Applause.) I still believe — I still believe that we can act when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.

Because that’s who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America

As usual, the President weaves a very impressive verbal tapestry. I would have been hardcore behind this.

Had he done it two months ago.

The political obstacles Obama faces after letting the debate get perverted by the Right cannot be solved by direct, rational speech over why this is a good idea. The time for that was when the bill was first introduced and before Max Baucus got his lobbyist-tainted hands into the mix.

Exhibit A: Joe Wilson.

Super Teabagger! is infiltrating your Congress.

Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “Lie! You lie,” at President Barack Obama during Wednesday’s address to a joint session of Congress, earning repudiations from his own party and from Democrats.

Wilson answered the comment with his outburst, loud enough to be picked up on television and in such an unusually disruptive fashion as to merit reprimands from across the political spectrum.

Wilson took exception to a passage in Obama’s speech on health care in which the president said illegal immigrants would not get health insurance coverage under the overhaul.

“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Obama said.

Here’s what I have to say about rules against showing disprespect to a President:

Bullshit.

Is the President a menace to society? Call him out on it. Is he lying through his teeth? Call him out on it. I don’t put much stock in formal traditions and rules that raise fallible men above the rest of humanity.

But, for Protest’s sake, if you’re going to call the President a liar on national television, make sure you’re not lying yourself.

...PHOTOSHOP! YOU PHOTOSHOP! (I can see the pixels).

To clarify, I think there are rare cases when someone should be allowed to call it like it is on a public stage. I could’ve thought of a few times Congressmen should have done this during the Bush administration. But you have no right to ADD TO THE NOISE that is polluting this healthcare debate simply because you are the President’s political enemy. Have BACKING.

I’m just amused that he chose that particular statement to have an outburst. He would’ve done better by himself if he had starting yelling out “lies” during the part about Obama keeping the plan budget neutral.

But, you know what? Whether Wilson was accurate or not doesn’t matter.

Americans don't require their heroes to be armed with facts.

The mob being riled by Fox News and their ilk doesn’t care what the bill says. They don’t care what the evidence says. They don’t care what the outcome will be. This debate has been hijacked by the hacks whose sole purpose is to discredit this administration and made worse by our media’s pandering to the misinformed.

That’s what Obama should have addressed. He should have gotten up there and firmly told the American public that they are being lied to. That the real opposition to healthcare reform comes from the companies that have been fleecing us for decades. And he should have stood up to his own party and told Baucus and everyone else influenced by that lobby to BACK OFF the public option, rather than allowing for some wiggle room.

Instead, he’s trying to pass off this Great Comrpomiser bullshit which is NOT what I elected for and it’s not what I think most of us elected him for.

This is what will happen. Baucus’ bill will go forward “without GOP support” (that’s like saying an Israeli settlement was constructed without Palestinian approval, no shit). It has no public option. It will declare some difficult-to-enforce regulations on health insurance companies. It will tax those of us who can’t afford healthcare right now. And it will provide no non-for-profit option for those of us who would rather see a truly competitive factor enter this mess.

Now, I can only hope that we act. But my optimism on this issue died in the summer. We’re busy people, aren’t we? Can’t be bothered to go out and save this thing. We don’t even really have the avenues for it.

But I tell you what I will do. If the public option falls, it’s another strike against Obama in a mounting number of disappointments. If the public option fails, Mark Warner will NOT be receiving my vote when he’s up for election. And I’ll do my best to get the names of every Congressperson who contributed to the public option’s decline out there and put them on a boycott list in primary season.

It’s time to speak their language. If they’re going to drop the ball, it’s time for them to lose their jobs.

More on the boycott list later.

Health care myths + Alien prequel

Today:

– The AP looks at the myths and misconceptions being spread about health care and tackles them straightforwardly.
– News about Ridley Scott and the potential for a new Alien movie.

I guess, for the time-being, Phil the Pill is mainly a blog tracking the status of health care.

Here is the latest AP fact-check.

CLAIM: The House bill “may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia,” House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said July 23.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: “One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years … about alternatives for end-of-life care.”

"I'll die when I'm damn well ready!"

THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.

Advance directives lay out a patient’s wishes for life-extending measures under various scenarios involving terminal illness, severe brain damage and situations. Patients and their families would consult with health professionals, not government agents, if they used the proposed benefit.

New health czar?

So, the right wing is relying on outright horror stories that have no basis in the bill and would require the Grim Reaper himself to be working in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Someone explain to me why the government would seriously be seeking ways to kill the elderly? So they can pay for less? I thought the right-wing rhetoric was that government spends too much. Government HAS no profit incentive and thus has less reason to see old people die than good ol’ Cigna. But, hey, you’ve probably given private health insurers a great idea to keep themselves profitable.

Even if I were to turn on the cynicism, the main problem I would see in a money incentive for health professionals to discuss this with patients would be overly pushy doctors who are trying to make a buck trying to consult people who don’t want to be consulted. It’d be an annoyance. But, if we do a better job of getting doctors proper rates, then they’d have less reason to try to pursue the “death consultation reward,” wouldn’t they?

Bottom line: No one is going to force you to plan your death and they sure as hell aren’t going to force you to die.

"Have you heard about our special end-of-life deals? Make sure you die the American way - with dignity!"

CLAIM: Health care revisions would lead to government-funded abortions.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says in a video, “Unless Congress states otherwise, under a government takeover of health care, taxpayers will be forced to fund abortions for the first time in over three decades.”

THE FACTS: The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. But a health care overhaul could create a government-run insurance program, or insurance “exchanges,” that would not involve Medicaid and whose abortion guidelines are not yet clear.

Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of “not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions. The bill says health plans in a new purchasing exchange would not be required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does.

Congressional action this fall will determine whether such language is in the final bill.

What I’m hearing: the government will not provide public money for abortions. So if you’re using the public option, your abortion will not be covered. Good thing? I say, for the most part, yes. The abortion debate is far from over in this country and as long as most of the population feels that it could be murder to some degree, we can’t justify our government having a hand in it.

You see this baby? This is the baby Obama wants to KILL.

That said, can you see where some abortions are not simply a selfish, macabre method of birth control, but a medical necessity for a mother and a merciful option for a child born into disease or poverty? I wouldn’t be opposed to the government funding abortions to save the life of a mother.

As for private abortions, remember that states’ rights argument that conservatives like to throw around so much?

CLAIM: Americans won’t have to change doctors or insurance companies.

“If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing,” Obama said on June 23. “You keep your plan; you keep your doctor.”

THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.

There seems little argument against the idea that this would result in de facto booting from some insurance providers. It’s one of the most troubling results of the plan. But this is more problematic if the public option proves to be worse than the employer-provided health insurance. You weigh in, readers. What is the likelihood that your employer will stop offering private insurance? Is there an option for employers to insure you under the public plan? Would you be upset if you had to switch to another provider?

CLAIM: The Democrats’ plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.

“Expanding government health programs will hasten the day that government rations medical care to seniors,” conservative writer Michael Cannon said in the Washington Times.

THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.

Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions.

Obama says the goal is to identify the most effective and efficient medical practices, and to steer patients and providers to them. He recently told a forum: “We don’t want to ration by dictating to somebody, ‘OK, you know what? We don’t think that this senior should get a hip replacement.’ What we do want to be able to do is to provide information to that senior and to her doctor about, you know, this is the thing that is going to be most helpful to you in dealing with your condition.”

It’s pretty clear. Private insurers ration. Heard of the term “experimental treatment?” It’s a common reason for a private insurer to screw you. And the fact is that the government can’t write a blank check to anything you ask. This is where private insurance may still have a place in today’s society. If you’ve made it to the point where you can pay a premium to a company that can grant you more than what the government grants you, switch over. I still believe that the public option will leave more people alive and have a better reason for denial. Plus, if this feared health czar truly starts to ration in an inhumane way, at least there’s more accountability to citizens.

Nyet. Your cosmetic breast enhancement surgery coupons are insufficent. Consider yourself rationed. *evil laughter*

CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.

Obama has pledged that “health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it.”

THE FACTS: Obama’s pledge does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase Medicare fees for doctors. The White House says the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration’s policy.

Beyond that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill lacks mechanisms to bring health care costs under control. In response, the White House and Democratic lawmakers are talking about creating a powerful new board to root out waste in government health programs. But it’s unclear how that would work.

Budget experts also warn of accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says they include back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

Government waste is an issue that not only applies to health programs, but to federal civil programs, government bureaucracy, and especailly defense spending. If you cut out a few contracts to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumann, you pay toward the health programs. If you start taxing the citizens who can afford it (i.e. most of us) and spend less on pork, you start turning budget surpluses. Priorities, people.

So, in sum, there are some big discussions to be discussed here, mainly: how to make sure people have the maximum amount of choice in their insurance decisions, how to crack down on bureaucratic waste, and how to make sure the “health czar” (I f***ing hate that term…why are we calling people czars?) answers to the public. Keep debating America, but stop perpetuating the lies. Be informed. Do your research. And never, ever listen to anything Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Sean Hannity have to say about a public health insurance option. They are, undeniably, liars.
—–

In other news, Ridley Scott is going to return to the Alien franchise to make a prequel, presumably exploring where the Xenomorphs came from?

Perhaps also a candidate for the new health czar?

Purists will insist this was the best choice, because Ridley Scott was TEH ORIGINAL and thus TEH BEST. Anyone with a modicum of competence knows that James Cameron made the best movie and would make an awesome next installment, but I will respect Scott’s expertise and “haunted house in space” direction which many remember so fondly.

But why do I feel like the studio is going to meddle?

My prediction: They find a way to make Ellen Ripley Clone 54 go back in time and give birth to a Predator/Ripley hybrid which creates the Xenomorphs, thus creating an ironic loop and providing for more ALIEN VS PREDATOR “awesome.”

Eh. I’ll watch it.
—–

And now for today’s edition of:

Hey! I saw that on the Internet too! Laugh Out Loud!

Quote of the Day

“The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best — and therefore never scrutinize or question.” – Stephen Jay Gould

Blue Dogs that hijacked health care support War

Well, yesterday was an exciting day. And potentially the peak viewership for Phil the Pill. To sum it up, after an entire night/morning of procrastination, homework, and watching Daily Show/Colbert on Hulu, I decided I finally had time to write a letter to Virignia’s senators about passing health care reform. After essentially writing an ideological speech, I felt very worked up about and attempted to pimp it on the social media sites.

It worked. And I’m glad it got attention, because I do believe in two main things: 1) the private health insurance industry has played with people’s lives and health and should not be allowed in a civilized society and 2) people don’t tell their representatives to do their job or lose their seat often enough.

Getting that much attention made me somewhat insecure too. I didn’t really analyze this issue as thoroughly as I think people should. There are legitimate concerns with the bill supported by House democrats. On one level you could aruge that it doesn’t do enough. On the other you have a serious question of whether the government can manage this properly.

I’m not sidestepping the fact that it’s a complex. But I do support legislators doing something rather than nothing and I believe they should be listening to individual citizens and not lobbyists to conclude what it is that we need. And that’s why I mailed those letters. To send a strong message that I want cheaper, affordable healthcare and that I’m willing to vote for someone who does if they won’t.

Picture related.

On the health care front, mainstream Democrats made deals with the Blue Dog Democrats to tool the House bill on health care. Some concessions have been made which should appeal to some fiscal conservatives.

House Democrats pushed ahead with a compromise health overhaul Thursday over liberals’ complaints, intent on achieving tangible — if modest — success on President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority ahead of a monthlong summer recess.

But the concessions Waxman made to the so-called Blue Dog Democrats infuriated House liberals. They denounced the proposed new structure of the public plan, which was originally designed to be based on Medicare rates. The new structure says rates would be negotiated with providers as occurs now with private companies, which could result in more expensive care.

“This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards,” 53 Progressive Caucus members said in a letter to House leaders Thursday. “Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable.”

Some details of the deal remained murky. As part of the agreement the Blue Dogs are insisting they won’t vote for a bill that costs more than $1 trillion over 10 years, but that would require Democrats to make more cuts or raise more money. It wasn’t clear how much, or how it would be accomplished.

I’m not terribly offended by negotiating rates as opposed to imposing rates by law, but who are these “providers” that are separate from doctors? I’ll put it at the list of questions at the bottom.

As long as there is a public option, subsidized for those who truly can’t afford it, I’m happy. But as far as Blue Dogs voting against something that costs more than a $1 trillion over 10 years what about something that will cost over $1 trillion in two years?

Military-Industrial Complex Watch

Crooks and Liars discussed the Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, citing this Washington Post article:

The Democratic-controlled House is poised to give the Pentagon dozens of new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the military does not need to fund next year, acting in many cases in response to defense industry pressures and campaign contributions under an approach he has decried as “business as usual” and vowed to help end.

The unwanted equipment in a military spending bill expected to come to a vote on the House floor Thursday or Friday has a price tag of at least $6.9 billion.

The White House has said that some but not all of the extra expenditures could draw a presidential veto of the Defense Department’s entire $636 billion budget for 2010, and it sent a message to House lawmakers Tuesday urging them to cut expenditures for items that “duplicate existing programs, or that have outlived their usefulness.”

Roughly $2.75 billion of the extra funds — all of which were unanimously approved in an 18-minute markup Monday by the House Appropriations Committee — would finance “earmarks,” or projects demanded by individual lawmakers that the Pentagon did not request. About half of that amount reflects spending requested by private firms, including 95 companies or related political action committees that donated a total of $789,190 in the past 2 1/2 years to members of the appropriations subcommittee on defense, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog group.

The White House criticized the addition of $80 million for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program, which Gates and other Pentagon officials have said is technically troubled, behind schedule, and billions of dollars over budget. But Northrop Grumman, the principal contractor, is building a technology center in Murtha‘s district that would bring 150 related jobs, and Murtha’s subcommittee sought its continuation as a way “to recoup the technology,” according to an appropriations staff member, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

A spokesman for Murtha did not reply to a request for comment.

The latest vote on the has been, surprise, overwhelmingly in favor. Those opposed included Barney Frank, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich. None of them are Blue Dogs. C&L questioned whether the BDs helped this pork-barrel legislation too. I wondered if perhaps they weren’t talking out of their ass. So I looked up the list of Blue Dog Democrats in the House.

Okay, get your buzzers ready. How many of the 49 Blue Dog Democrats in the House opposed this bill with at least $6.9 billion in earmarks and, one could argue, wasted money in campaigns to kill innocent people and lose hearts and minds in the Middle East?

Time’s up. One. Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama.

Congratulations, represenative Griifith! You win the Consistency in the Face of Mind-Boggling Hypocrisy Award!

So, I get it. Healthcare spending? Wasteful. Defense spending? AMURRRIKUH!

I tried to avoid criticism of the Blue Dogs until now. But now it’s clear that they should just stop posing as “fiscal conservatives” and just admit it – they’re neocons trying to get gay, black votes. Well, any candidate campaigning as a “Blue Dog” in my districit isn’t getting THIS gay, black vote.

Er…straight, Latino vote.

I leave you on the political note with a 10-minute video on what we have money for.

The video, from the American Friends Service Committe points out how one day of the Iraq war costs $720 million per day. In addition to health care, that could be 6,482 homes, 34,904 scholarships for four year universities, higher pay for teachers, 1,274,336 homes with alternative energy, or 1,153,846 free lunches for children.

It’s enough to make you consider voting for Ron Paul.

All right, it’s late. I wonder where I can find funny pictures…maybe 4chan…OH, DEAR, GOD, NO!

Quote of the Day

Suicidal glory is the luxury of the irresponsible. We’re not giving up. We’re waiting for a better opportunity to win. – Lois McMaster Bujold

Questions for Readers

What “providers” are being referenced in the amendments to the health care bill? Who do we need to worry about paying their fair share other than doctors?

Is Robert Gates a good Secretary of Defense?

How much do you think we could be saving on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives, why are they voting for this much spending in the defense budget?