Over the weekend Sarah Palin again claimed that the Democratic health care bill contained provisions for "death panels" saying, "We had been told there were no 'death panels' in the bill either, but look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care."
Well, I did. Here is a run down of all sections in the bill that mention a panel of any kind:
Page 113 discusses a Health Benefits Advisory Committee which is to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding the the various catagories of treatment that are to be covered. This is administrative language; the kind that is necessary to ensure things like cosmetic surgery are not covered while life saving proceedures are covered.
Page 734 describes another advisory panel that will conduct and support research to identify ways to most effectively prevent, diagnose, treat and manage diseases, disorders and other health conditions. To do this, these panels will consult with patients and other stakeholders, (page 736). To ensure there are no conflicts of interest, panel members must disclose financial interests, (page 748). This all sounds good to me.
The Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel, mentioned on page 1624 will provide recommendations on working conditions and training for those who provide long-term health care services. (AKA quality control.)
Page 1712 outlines a board that will create training and certify health practioners. (Quality control.)
Finally, page 1807 establishes a peer review panel to ensure the health care services provided to Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations meet the same standards found elsewhere in the country. (This is due to the historically poor quality of health care provided to Native American communities.)
There is nothing in this bill that remotely suggests anything like Palin's "death panels" which are nothing more than fear mongering used to advance her own agenda. But don't take my word for it... Educate yourself. Read the bill.Over the weekend Sarah Palin again claimed that the Democratic health care bill... more
Take heed republicrats, wealthcare reform is not a liberal or conservative issue. Both parties are guilty of selling out to private insurance companies. Politicians should be required to dress like race car drivers displaying their Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Banking sponsors on their jackets
Do police officers, firefighters and teachers qualify as socialists? So why isn't medical care a government run, not for profit system as well? At the very least a reform bill should include the Kucinich amendment allowing states to decide for themselves on a single payer plan, without facing litigation from private companies.
For more information on viable health care reform visit: http://www.singlepayeraction.org/Take heed republicrats, wealthcare reform is not a liberal or conservative issue. Both... more
"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system."
"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."
"But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross."
"By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy."
"During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies."
"Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street."
"This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care."
"Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals."
Please know the struggle for real health care reform will continue. Contribute, we can make a difference.
Thank you.
The Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee http://kucinich.us/hcpetitionCongressman Dennis Kucinich after voting against H.R. 3962 addresses why he voted NO,... more
Yesterday I listened to almost three hours of debate over HR 3962 (the Democrats health care bill) on C-SPAN. Here is a synopsis:
Democrat, "The American people overwhelmingly support this health care legislation..."
Republican, "Americans overwhelmingly oppose this health care bill..."
Again and again each side would make this claim.
Well, as I recall, the last time Americans made a statement of "overwhelming" proportions was when we elected Barack Obama President of the United States and elected Democrats in overwhelming numbers to the House and Senate.
I'd say Americans have spoken.Yesterday I listened to almost three hours of debate over HR 3962 (the Democrats... more
The House of Representatives passed the Democratic health care bill yesterday. I encourage everyone to read the bill, or at least search for the key components that you care about and read those, before passing judgement. Do not buy into the overly glorified or demonized rants of the politicians or media. Politicans have their own agenda and the media is driven by ratings. I'll respect anyone who can make an educated argument regardless of their stance on the issue. I have no respect for someone who just regurgitates extremist propaganda they hear on some talk show.The House of Representatives passed the Democratic health care bill yesterday. I... more
Yes there are positives touted by Pelosi et al. But the negatives outweigh the positives:
- No effective cost containment mechanisms
- A negligible pubic option (you remember the public option don't you?)
- Will not result in making health care more affordable
- Many provisions that will benefit corporate stakeholders (no kidding, it was written by insurance lobbyists)
- This loophole has been added—“while making sure that such a
change doesn’t further destabilize the current individual health insurance
market.”
- No say over reimbursement and
coverage policies
All of this from a progressive health reform website. The article contines with the following:
__________________________________________________
In sum, this $1.055 trillion plan over ten years will not fix the major problems of cost and affordable access to health care in our deteriorating system, will add new layers of bureaucracy and complexity to the present system, is not fiscally responsible, and is not sustainable.
What to do now? Rather than accept an unworkable bill that is politically expedient, we would be better off to make a major course change. The best first option would be to call for a floor vote, as originally promised by the House Speaker Pelosi, for the amendment proposed by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to substitute HR 676, a single-payer proposal, for HR 3962. If that fails, shelving this bill would be the best option, but if that is not possible, lawmakers should be pressed to retain the amendment proposed by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to allow states to experiment with single-payer plans, as a number of states would like to do (eg. California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, New York and Pennsylvania). That amendment has already been passed by a rare bipartisan vote of 27-19 in the House Education and Labor Committee.
_________________________________________________
This article defines HR3962 in detail with links to the bill text and bullet points on what it does do. What about what it doesn't do? It is a compromise on what we really need in America ( a single payer system).
But is it worthy of a first step? Is it a health insurance industry bailout in disguise? If it is passed will Americans (who are now actively concerned and holding Congress' feet to the fire) remain steadfast and committed to push for real sustainable meaningful reform for a fair and affordable health care system for ALL Americans, not just 95% covered by this bill.
Estimates on the number of new people who stand to be covered under the various proposed public option plans range from 5 million to 20 million, and forsake the rest of the 50 million (and growing number) of people with no health care insurance at all. Is this what America needs or is it an appeasement to shut us up?
"You can keep your doctor and your current plan if you like them..." But will you have to keep them if you don't like them. Will all Americans be mandated to pay for health insurance giving the health insurance industry a guaranteed perpetual government enforced bailout? Pelosi and the other politicians touting HR3962 are careful to avoid these questions.
Do you see Congressmen Weiner or Kucinich supporting this bill (or bull)? Their amendments to allow states to have single payer plans or give us single payer options are not even going to be voted on. protesters who sat-in on Pelosi's San Francisco office were arrested in protest of these very points. Yet there is no mention of them anywhere in the news. What kind of bull crap are these people trying to pull?
There may be a few crumbs of reform in this bill. But it is hardly worthy of giving up the fight for real health care reform.
Yes there are positives touted by Pelosi et al. But the negatives outweigh the positives:
- No effective cost containment mechanisms
- A negligible pubic option (you remember the public option don't you?)
- Will not result in making health care more affordable
- Many provisions that will benefit corporate stakeholders (no kidding, it was written by insurance lobbyists)
- This loophole has been added—“while making sure that such a change doesn’t further destabilize the current individual health insurance market.”
- No say over reimbursement and coverage policies
All of this from a progressive health reform website. The article contines with the following:
__________________________________________________
In sum, this $1.055 trillion plan over ten years will not fix the major problems of cost and affordable access to health care in our deteriorating system, will add new layers of bureaucracy and complexity to the present system, is not fiscally responsible, and is not sustainable.
What to do now? Rather than accept an unworkable bill that is politically expedient, we would be better off to make a major course change. The best first option would be to call for a floor vote, as originally promised by the House Speaker Pelosi, for the amendment proposed by Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to substitute HR 676, a single-payer proposal, for HR 3962. If that fails, shelving this bill would be the best option, but if that is not possible, lawmakers should be pressed to retain the amendment proposed by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to allow states to experiment with single-payer plans, as a number of states would like to do (eg. California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, New York and Pennsylvania). That amendment has already been passed by a rare bipartisan vote of 27-19 in the House Education and Labor Committee.
_________________________________________________
