OlsonOnline

Cutting through the crap on health care reform

From T.R. Reid's piece in yesterday's Washington Post exposing the myths undermining the argument for American health care reform:

"The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage."

In other words, no country with national health care allows private for-profit insurance companies to profit from the provision of basic health care.

Don't you think that prohibition, in and of itself, would slash the obscenely high cost of health care in this country by 20%? 

At least?

The private insurance companies in Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland don't seem to have a problem with the "no profit" rule on basic health care.  Why then should America's private insurers?

So, President Obama, there's your message --get the profit out of basic health care!  Start with that and leave behind the incessant chatter about public options and health co-ops.

Maybe that will break the stalemate in the House and the Senate.

Worth reading --health care, Iran, charter schools

A medical hiatus starting tomorrow means this is my last post for awhile.  So read these, if you please, during my absence.

On health care:

• Dave Lindorrf writes that Obama's "unwillingness to lead" on the issue of single payer health care will lead to his "Health Reform Waterloo."

• Pierre Tristam claims that Obama "...plays into the rhetorical ambushes of reform's enemies..." when he says stuff like this to the American Medical Association:

"...there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe ... that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth."

In other words, Obama himself conflates "single payer" with "government run health         care."  

• Meanwhile, a New York Times/CBS poll finds that most Americans "support" a "government-run health insurance option."  That means "single payer."

On Iran:

• Most discerning news readers know that the Khamenei -Mousavi stand-off in Iran does not herald the beginning of the overthrow of Iranian theocracy.  Mousavi was, after all, a principal player in the 1979 revolution that brought the mullahs to power. Phil Wilayto offers an economic -and class-- perspective to the conflict:

"Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi's supporters, and so instinctively identify with them?"

What Wilayto means is that Ahmehdinijad appeals to poor Iranians, Mousavi to the wealthier and better educated.  He also points out that Mousavi is for more rapid privatization of the economy, which puts him in conflict with the Iranian Constitution.  It decrees that all "large scale industries", like oil and gas, should be owned by the state, which enables the government to "fund a vast social safety net" for the poor.

On charter schools:

• Another study shows that charters do worse than their traditional public school counterparts in raising the achievement of students.

• And Caroline Grannan, in a comment to my last charter school post, argues that charters, at least in California, serve a much smaller percentage of special needs students than traditional public schools.  And they often get more money per student than the publics.

That's it for now.

Health care on 'The Stump': It's single payer, stupid!

You've heard all the stories about how Medicare and Medicaid are on the ropes, that doctors refuse to see patients from Medicaid because its reimbursements are so paltry, that both programs are essentially being SUBSIDIZED by the private insurers because they spend far more money than they take in, and so on and on and on.

Bottom line, say the critics, is that government-funded health care, a public option or single payer, would give us more of the same --a massive government bureaucracy that would collapse under the weight of its obligations.

Pure and utter baloney. 

There are only two problems with the existing public health programs:

• They're underfunded.

• They serve the poor and the elderly, not the young and the healthy.

That will change --dramatically-- once the for-profit insurers are pushed aside by a far more efficient public entity --think Medicare with a 3% administrative overhead (and NO profits)--  where all Americans, the healthy and the frail, are in the same insurance pool.

How can the cost of health care not go down?  The for-profit health industry skims $350 billion off the top for its investors before any health care at all is delivered!

Dr. Peter Mahr, over at 'The Stump', asks:

"So what do we do with a health care non-system that is a big money maker for insurers, some hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry but leaves one in seven people lacking insurance and most with insurance that is too costly and inadequate? How do we repair a delivery system that is expensive, focuses on moneymaking services rather than primary and preventative care and has little emphasis on evidence-based medicine?"

The answer is simple and straightforward:  Single payer, stupid!

And a few days ago on 'The Stump', Stephen Gregg, a self-described "free marketer", called Medicare a "very sweet deal":

" ...the initial Medicare signals seem favorable, bordering on a breath of fresh air:

--Stable premium increases.
--Ubiquitous access to almost any provider in the country.
...

--Ability to switch carriers, no questions asked, once a year.
--So far, decent public-private customer service throughout.
--Very little uncertainty as to whether I am covered for all the possibilities.

"It's a challenge to argue that Medicare is an inferior alternative to a more responsive and dynamic private sector."

So there you have it.  Both 'Stump' posts, needless to say, brought out the anti-government critics.  But national polls indicate that single payer, or at the very least a public option, have the support of a majority of the American public.

Now its up to the the pols --and Obama-- to see it through.

The truth about taxes in Oregon

From Sunday's Oregonian:

"Oregon businesses will continue to enjoy one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation even after the Legislature voted last week to raise their taxes."

That doesn't matter to Republicans who call any business tax increase a "job killer."  Or to Democrats like Mark Hass who howled that the tax increases should be temporary.

Temporary?  That simply means that in short time, the regressive Oregon tax code would revert to this:

"...individuals now carry nearly two-thirds of the state and local tax burden."

It wasn't that long ago that the income tax, Oregon's primary revenue source, was split about evenly between businesses and individuals.

And remember this:  poor Oregonians pay a higher share of their income in total taxes than the richest Oregonians.  That's the very definition of a regressive tax code.

When the anti-taxers fume about an overhaul of Oregon's system of taxation, what they're really talking about is making the system even more regressive than it already is.  Tax reform to them means a sales tax --the most regressive of taxes-- and a cut in the income tax --the most progressive of taxes, especially if it's done right. 

The legislature's move to raise the marginal tax rate on couples making more than $250,000 was a step in the right direction, a step toward tax fairness. 

*************************************

The mantra of the anti-taxers, like Russ Walker's FreedomWorks Oregon, is this:

"Only by reducing taxes and regulations, and making Oregon a more business-friendly state can we achieve the goal of real economic growth, and real prosperity for Oregonians."

"Only by reducing taxes... ."  That worked well under Reagan and Dubya, right?  Well, maybe not so much.  Here's a comment from a recent Blue Oregon post on taxes in Oregon:

"Yes, cutting taxes always results in drops in unemployment. I mean, look at 1982, after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. The national unemployment fell from 7.6% to 9.7%.

"And look at 2002 after the Bush tax cuts of 2001, then the unemployment rate fell from 4.7% to 5.8%.

"All I can say is, God save us from any similar drops in unemployment."

It's nice to have those stats at your finger tips.  But then again, all you have to do is read the newspaper to realize how disastrous Republican tax and economic policies have been.

***********************************

And then there's the O's Susan Nielsen throwing fuel on the anti-tax fire that still burns hot in Oregon.  Here are some comments from her latest column:

"Democrats also are pushing their luck on taxes."

"They open Democrats to criticism that they're too eager to confiscate people's earnings. They also make the Democratic party (not to mention the state itself) less attractive to doctors, lawyers, potential business recruits and other professionals who are already worried about higher federal taxes -- and who get wet whenever anyone decides to 'soak the rich.' "

I probably don't need to remind you that Nielsen is on the editorial board of Oregon's largest daily newspaper.  Her Sunday column certainly found favor with the rabid right.

Just read the comments.

Dems versus Dems, redux

On Monday I wrote that the "real obstacles" to health care reform are corporate Democrats, not Republicans.

Chris Bowers agrees:

"Stop telling me how bad Republicans are--we don't need a single one to pass the public option. ...

"...until then, I really have grown sick of progressives telling me about the latest stupid thing that fell out of Limbaugh's mouth. He is not the problem right now. Democrats like Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and Arlen Specter are. If the Democratic leadership is either unwilling or unable to pressure enough of those types of Democrats into passing the lowest bar of progressive governance, then it is time to redirect our activism into less partisan and /or less electoral directions."

Amen!

Maybe we should add Ron Wyden's name to the list of problem Dems on health care reform.

(Speaking of backsliding Dems, what's with Oregon State Senator Mark Hass*?  First he threatens to blow up the legislature's tax increase on corporations and wealthy individuals, then he backs down.  Constituent pressure?  Party pressure???) 

*(Is Hass the new Senator from Nike?  His opposition to the "permanent" tax increases echoes the postion taken by the old Senator from Nike, Ryan Deckert, now head of the Oregon Business Association.)

Dems versus Dems on health care

Who are the real obstacles to overhauling the American health care system?

If you say Republicans, you're wrong.  There aren't enough of them left in Congress to affect the outcome of pending health care legislation.

No, the real obstacles to effective and affordable health care for all Americans are ...Democrats!  Not all of them.  Just the "moderate" or corporate Dems who oppose single payer or even the possibility of a government-backed public option insurance plan. 

The Associated Press says that the two factions are on a "collision course" when it comes to health care reform:

"The conflict between the liberals and moderates is over the contours of a new public insurance plan that's likely to be included in a health care overhaul. ...

"The disagreements underscore steep challenges ahead as Congress rushes to meet Obama's goal of passing a health care overhaul that keeps down costs and extends coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans."

Single payer advocates, who want to take the profit out of health insurance, are skeptical of the public option.  As long as the private insurers are still in business, they say, a government-backed insurance program is likely to attract the least healthy Americans, thereby driving the cost of the program up.  

According to Helen Redmond, that's what happens when you mix private and public insurance programs.  She quotes the founders of Physicians for a National Health Program on the impact of private insurance impact on Medicare:

"A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage."

Single payer advocates, says Redmond, also object to a public option for other reasons.  Among them:

• It doesn’t make health care a human right that can never be taken away.

• The system would continue to have multiple payers and therefore the complexity and gaps in coverage that are inevitable when there are numerous bureaucracies to navigate.

Speaking of the public option, Robert Reich reports that the moderate Maine Republican Olympia Snow has convinced some Dems, including Oregon's Ron Wyden, to sign on to a plan concocted by "Big Pharma and Big Insurance" for the public plan to "kick in years from now,"  but only if the private health care industry fails "to bring down healthcare costs... ."

Reich says that " 'years from now' in legislative terms means never."  

"Everybody in, nobody out!" Video of Kershner's arrest at single payer protest

"Everybody in, nobody out" is the chanted slogan of the single payer movement.

Opponents of single payer have turned that around to mean everybody (if they're single payer advocates) out of the town hall meeting with Blumenauer and Howard Dean.

But maybe they mean everybody in jail.

Harry arrested at single payer protest

Word comes from my friend Anne Trudeau that Harry Kershner, radical leftist (although he calls himself a centrist in step with the majority of Americans) was arrested at yesterday's single payer health care protest at Portland Community College, Cascade Campus, where Earl Blumenauer and Howard Dean were speaking.  (Or as Harry would say, "lying their asses off".)

Say what you want about Harry, who many view as a dogmatic ideologue.  But never deny that Harry Kershner has the courage of his convictions:

He walks his talk. 

That's more than can be said about most of us who share his views on health care, American foreign policy, and the disgusting timidity of our elected Democratic political leaders.

The latest on single payer

The founders of Physicians for a National Health Program published a study in the August, 2003 edition of the  New England Journal of Medicine contrasting the administrative costs of health care in the United States and Canada.

The results?  Total administrative costs covering six categories --for example, insurance overhead, hospital administration, practitioner administrative costs-- for the United States:

$1059 per capita.

For Canada:

$307 per capita

Conclusion?

"...the difference in the costs of health care administration between the United States and Canada is clearly large and growing.  Is $294.3 billion annually for U.S. health care administration money well spent?"

Hmmmm.  Is the answer .... NO?

*************************

Recently Tim Carpenter of Progressive Democrats of America took on Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelley over the issue of single payer health care.  Here's the video:

Fox News, as you would expect, is anti-single payer. Kelly spouts the usual right-wing "talkng points" about long waits in Canada for vital surgeries.  Are they true?

Warren Pease responds to the notion that single payer would "result in long waiting lists for even the most mundane procedures:"

"But, as usual, corporate mass media is lying through its bleached teeth. If that vision of health care hell were true, all other Western democracies would exhibit shorter average life spans, higher rates of cancer and heart disease, higher infant mortality rates, lower birth weights, fewer average healthy years, failing mental health programs and far more serious epidemiological incidents than does the US. Since the opposite is true in all cases, it seems fair to conclude that single-payer, universal-access works, this cobbled together disaster we call a health care system is not getting the job done and that we're being ill served by US media yet again."

Under the for-profit "disaster" that passes for health care in this country, people, even the ones with health insurance like Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year old girl who was denied* a liver transplant by Cigna HealthCare in order "to maximize its profits," actually do die.

*(Cigna did eventually relent, but just hours before young Nataline expired.  Good PR for Cigna.  Not so good for its client.)

Worth reading: Albert Einstein on socialism, 1949

Some excerpts:

"...nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called 'the predatory phase' of human development. ... Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. ...

"Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. ... As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. ...

"I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. ... Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules."

Little has changed since 1949.  The near collapse of Western market-based economies in the last year is evidence of that. 

That leaves me to wonder how the libertarians, objectivists and "teabaggers" would respond to Einstein's carefully crafted defense of what he terms socialism, and his harsh critique of the predatory nature of capitalism.

(Also worth reading is this Monthly Review article, "Albert Einstein, Radical: A Political Profile.")