Political Commentary: Joan McCarter
Just Say “No” to Healthcare?
Resistance to a public, federal option to health care reform in the form of a "declaration of independence" from the federal government is, predictably, starting in the West.
By Joan McCarter, 7-05-09
Arizona has become the first state to try to make a decision for all of its residents to opt out of a public health care option, though that option doesn’t yet exist, and despite the fact that every piece of draft legislation created and being seriously considered by the Congress maintains individual choice in health care. The private insurance industry isn’t going to go anywhere in the foreseeable future, though it might see it’s profit margin--and ability to pay exorbitant salaries to executives--somewhat curbed.
But anti-federal zealots are going to let a thing like facts get in the way of their states’ rights statement making. In Arizona, the state legislature passed the ironically titled “Health Care Freedom Act,” which will be sent to the state’s voters next year. And it’s not the only state considering asserting its sovereignty over the health care choices of its residents:
Under Arizona’s Health Care Freedom Act, which was passed by the state legislature this week, a voting initiative will be placed on the 2010 ballot that, if passed, will allow the state to opt out of any federal health care plan. Five other states—Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming—are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots.
“Our health care freedoms are very much at risk by health care reforms proposed in Washington, D.C.,” said Arizona state Rep. Nancy Barto, the Republican legislator who sponsored the measure. “We needed to act as a state to protect our citizens and ensure that they will always be able to buy their own health care and not be forced into a plan they don’t want.”
Nancy Barto appeared on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” this week to talk about her bill.
[SCHULTZ] Ms. Barto, thank you for your time tonight. What is the mission here? If this passes, wouldn‘t this deprive a bunch of Arizonans from possibly getting some health care? What is happening here?
NANCY BARTO (R), ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: On the contrary, Ed. What the Arizona Health Care Freedom act will do, if Arizonans pass it, which I believe they will, it will guarantee that they will have more options for health care, rather than have them limited to the government options....
SCHULTZ: Well, the discussion is to get everybody covered. Now if the people of Arizona—I‘m sure there‘s millions there that don‘t have insurance—what are they going to do to get it if there‘s not a public option, if they can‘t afford it?
BARTO: Well, like I said, Ed, we are interested in many options. When people have the freedom to choose their own health care, and the right, which this act will guarantee, to have that health care provided in the state, there will be options.
SCHULTZ: What‘s so dangerous about a public option? What‘s so dangerous about offering up something that people don‘t have right now?
BARTO: Well, Americans are too smart to accept another huge government program, because they have seen what we have already had and how it doesn‘t work and how it does ration care. They have seen what other nations have been going through with their 900,000 people on a waiting list in Britain, waiting for care; 25,000 Swedes waiting for heart surgery.
Yes, in Arizona they prefer to have their health care rationed out by bureaucrats in insurance company offices, because corporate rationing is acceptable. I wonder if you did a survey now in America, how many people would be on a waiting list for approval for a critical procedure, crossing their fingers that they won’t have the procedure approved because a pencil-pusher in some insurance company is trying to find a pre-existing condition that will allow them to deny the surgery. You can find any number of these stories out there, and plenty of them in Arizona, lost jobs means lost insurance or out of control COBRA costs, and delayed or no treatment.
None of which seems to register on people like Nancy Barto, who is sure that some kind of other “option” for health care is going to exist for people. They don’t know what those options are, and don’t have to try to design them, but are certain that they’re out there and we’ll get to them eventually.
Meantime, I’m not sure that the Arizona legislature has completely thought through what happens when their initiative goes to the voters, a very large number of whom actually happen to be receiving care through a federal health plan. That would be Medicare, and Arizona retirees would likely be loathe to give it up and maybe even a little hostile to the idea of their elected state officials trying to take it away. That would probably also be true of Arizona’s veterans who receive their care through the VA. Should Arizona decide to opt out of federal health care plans, does that mean the federal government couldn’t pay Arizona providers under Medicare, under the VA? Or pediatricians seeing children under SCHIP. Maybe Barto and her colleagues didn’t think that one all the way through. It could help ease Arizona’s water crisis, maybe. All those retirees living there now might just have to find a new home if their Medicare won’t be allowed in Arizona any more.
Which is a ridiculous scenario for Arizona, or Wyoming, or New Mexico, or any other state tempted to declare health care sovereignty. People in these state who have to live every day with the fear that losing their health insurance could happen at any time aren’t likely to vote to limit their options. But they’re missing another key fact, that health insurance is interstate commerce, and regulated by the federal government. Despite their Tenth Amendment bleating, opting out of a federal health program would be unconstitutional.
[End of article]Excellent editorial. Not everyone in Arizona, or even the state legislature, has lost their capacity to reason. Gerrymandering and term limits have permitted an extreme right wing group to take over the state and put propositions, such as this, on the ballot. And that is the REAL reason for the proposition - to bring the extremist base out to the polls. However, the Democrats are now within 3 points of being the majority party in voter registration. Every time ideas like this surface, our registrations increase. The political system is - yes - evolving. Ted Downing, former State Legislator.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 7-05-09Who do you trust least? Big Government or Big Business? Big Business is spending billions lobbying for its survival just like the last time it shot down universal health care and apparently its working. "Health Care Sovereignty" my ass.
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 7-05-09I suggest we set up a pool, betting on the spread of the percentage points between Arizonans who vote against and for this amendment. I'll bet it fails by at least 10 percentage points. I'd bet the same for here in Wyoming.
The Republicans didn't get the message last November. Maybe they'll never get it. That's fine. That's why they're going the way of the Whig and No-Nothing Parties, among others.
RH
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
Well, I guess we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. As usual, Joan argues for complete statism. So I guess no Medicare in Arizona is worse than federally rationed care for the elderly which will be in the end, lethal. Then again, the elderly are as expendable for the public good as a fetus in utero. But nobody is suggesting, as Shakespeare did, that we kill the lawyers. We need the lawyers to administer all the bureaucratic miseries. But who cares about politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers? Apples ansd oranges. What do America's doctors actually want? All those thousands and thousands of doctors --some even young now--who won't, by choice, even be practicing medicine in a few years. I know this sounds simplistic to such GOP-bashing intellectual luminaries like Joan and Bob (and Jackass-smith above), but welcome to Canada, Germany, Sweden, etc. Gosh: The National Health Service works wonderfully in Great Britain, where their major cancer death rates (prostate, colon, breast, etc.) are some 10-20% higher than here. Hey, I bet that culls a lot of oldtimers in London and Liverpool.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 7-05-09O.K. Mr. Stats, Do you know how many people die in the U.S. compared to those "Socialist" countries who are afraid to seek health care because they can't afford to go to a doctor or a hospital?
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 7-05-09Well gee Bill, no one says you have to use the public option. The COMPETITION might even lower your monthly premiums on private insurance--unless someone is paying your premiums for you so it doesn't matter ... Fess up.
I myself am on VA--socialized medicine. When I was on active duty in the Army, that was socialized medicine too. No complaints. The Army did a great job of fracture reduction when I shattered my ankle in 1986 in a parachute jump, and the Army paid the entire bill for the birth of my daughter in 1989.
Congress gets socialized medicine--including the Republicans. Any particular reason you don't want the hoi polloi to have it too, being compassionately conservative and all?
I lived in Germany four years. Their system seemed to work OK for the Germans, although they did drink and smoke too much. I've lived in Great Britain and Canada too. They drink too much as well; Britons are horrible smokers. You think that might have a medical impact on cancer rates apart from the economics and structure of the health care system?
RH
And further, How many people in those awful "Socialist" democracies are forced into bankruptcy by medical bills compared to the uber free, uber capitalist U.S.?
Comment By Bill Croke, 7-05-09Bob, Nice try. Sorry, no info. Plaster yours all over the Net, if you like. I will say that those aforementioned countries have higher cancer death rates due to long waiting lists for surgery, chemo, etc. Americans smoke as much as Brits and Germans do, with the same results, of course. The Chinese smoke more than anybody, literally hundreds of millions of them, and have lower lung and esophageal cancer rates than us. Seems to be because they drink green tea en masse, like we drink coffee. Green tea has anti-oxidant properties. I read that about Chinese smokers somewhere. Thank you for your service. Belated Happy 4th of July.
Comment By horst, 7-06-09Croak is no doubt right. It is green tea--and other such naturopathic preventatives we should seek--not certainly the socialized medicine which is provided by the Communist Government in China.
God!--these RWC are so predictable..!
I think the point is that my personal experience with "socialized" medicine hasn't been the horror that the right wing claims it is. On the other hand, there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of horror stories about the failure of the "free-market" in health care. Bankruptcy is not a valid alternative to health care.
The problem with "free-markets" is that they move toward monopoly, and thus are no longer free. Unfettered capital always moves toward power, not freedom. Rule number one of political oeconomy.
I find it interesting that the opposition to a public option is based in the demand for profits by the health insurance industry, not the ideology of competition. These contradictions on the part of conservatives are noticeable.
RH
The real question is this: should anyone be forced to pay for some other person's health care? Why don't we reform health care to be less expensive? Change the legal system so that it is cheaper for doctors and hospitals to provide health care. At the end of the day who has the incentive to keep costs down, numerous insurance companies competing against each other or the government? The government has no incentive to be efficient.
Am I the only person who believes in capitalism?
Bob, My point is that anything runs better without a bureaucracy. And your notion of free market "monopolies" is nothing more the Leftwing scaremongering. Anything less regulated and bureaucratized will be cheaper to provide and therefore more available. That's my argument. And, Bob, if holding up the VA as an example of a medical services system run right just because your own care has been satisfactory is lunacy. I grew up around family and friends of family, etc who were World War 2 veterans, and they hated it, and only used it when necessary. Horst: I would imagine Chinese hospitals are rather primitive, as are Cuban one's (maybe another example of nationalized healthcare done right from your point of view). My advice to you, Horst, is keeping using green tea. It's good for you. But drink it; don't smoke it.
Comment By les holcomb, 7-06-09In our state, much farther east, our largest private insurer just announced up to 32% premium increases in individual and small group policies in the Fall. By doing this, they are hedging their bets either way with and without the public option.
Most of our policy makers at the state and federal levels have great health insurance and taxpayers are picking up their tabs directly or indirectly, so all of our elected officials are protected, unless they aren't re-elected.
If they mess up nationally and prevent the public option, the Congressional mid-term elections are coming soon and they will be replaced by true populists (not phony private-insurer-paid-for-ideologists) regardless of party.
This bit about stopping us from having the choice of the most affordable option is about un-American as you can get.
Well Mr. Croke, things run better without a bureaucracy? Have you ever visited the "clearing house" for approval for health claims of a major insurance company? My daughter works in such a place and it is a bureaucracy. The private vs. public argument is dead. Just look what AIG and the major banks did as part of private enterprise. They were efficient thieves. At least with public control, there are opportunities to observe what goes on behind closed doors. I would also like to see references to the figures you quote about cancer deaths and waiting lists. Having relatives in Canada, there isn't such a problem.
Comment By Scott Greene, 7-08-09Health insurance provides medical coverage when needed. .
But unlike businesses that provide a product to make money, health insurance companies make money for themselves when they restrict and do not pay claims.
Read the 50 pages of a health insurance contract.
Pay attention to limitations and exclusions.
People’s health is not a product that needs to be left to the whims of money motivated CEO’s.
If that is your thinking, you might as well have your police and fire dept protection based on insurance premiums you pay.
Then you can go to the police and fire protection insurance page for ‘limitations and exclusions’ on whether or not the police or fire dept would come out to your house in the event of an emergency.
The point is, you would never think of discriminating against another citizen if he was the victim of a fire or crime.
So why would you be ok with health insurance companies discriminating against fellow citizens who have pre-existing medical conditions?
First of all when you say it will be up to the individual to participate or not, you're not paying attentionh, the Senate is planning to include a fine of $1000 on anyone who does not carry health insurance.
You sure are putting a lot of faith in 2 men who will make life and death decision, the fastest risem politician for the corrupt Chicago politcal machine who is now POTUS and his czar.
Doctors are not going to spend all of those years in school to be paid fast food wages, nor will they be able to afford malpractice insurance. The President has already said there will NO tort reform even though that is responsible for a big chunk of health care costs. Gotta protect those lawyers.
Croke, are you suggesting that the VA and TRicare (military) "government run" healthcare systems should be gotten rid of? The veterans I know would revolt.
Comment By norris hall, 7-09-09Sen. Nancy Barto and Republican legislators are trying to beat back Obama’s attempts to get the government to help pay for health care for every American….just like they do in every developed country in the world ….
what Nancy Barto and her Republican colleagues fail to reveal is that THEIR OWN health care plan is funded by ….you guessed it…the American taxpayers. In fact, their publicly funded health care plan is so sweet that a typical PPO family plan which would cost $1227 in monthly premiums ponly costs the Senator Cornyn $356.
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalffs2009.pdf
For every $1 the Senator pays in premiums, the taxpayer picks up the rest …$3.40.
Plus Nancy Barto's deductible is just $300.
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2009/brochures/71-005.pdf
My wife and I are in our 60’s and self employed. My wife has some medical conditions. So What are we paying in premiums? $900!
What is our deductible? $8000!!
It’s no wonder why Nancy Barto and her Republican cohorts love the American Health care system. They’re feeding off the taxpayer supplied gravy train.
Nancy Barto should swap her taxpayer subsidized heath care plan with me. Only then will he realize that it’s not so rosy for people stuck in the private market.
Give me the same healthcare plan Nancy Barto has…that’s all I ask.
Norris, you are not paying attention, the government sponsored health care package proposed will NOT be the same as the congress people get. You will be required to pay what the government decides you should pay, just like income taxes. I don't know about you, but I don't feel I get my money's worth from the taxes I already pay, and I imagine the high income folks who pay most of the taxes feel that way even more.
You are pretty naive if you really think the government will give you a really good deal money wise.
The public option will be lower in cost than the private ones. The cost of administration for Medicare and Medicaid run between 4-7% vs. private insurers run 25-35% (that includes their profits).
The public option will have no deductibles and no co-pays. People can choose it or the private insurance. This is our safety net. Physicians can choose whether or not to participate. Hospitals and the most advanced health science centers already take Medicare and medicaid- so they will take this.
There are no bells and whistles. It's like garrison Keeler says: Raw Grits, but its safe and dependable and we can go directly to our local elected officials if there are any problems or requested future rate increases.
With millions losing their employer-based insurance due to disappearing jobs, jobs with no health benefits, and Obama temporarily paying 65 to 75% of newly unemployed people's COBRA premiums temporarily, the public option should be our choice if we want it. If our incomes are above a certain level, I assume that we will pay 100% of the costs, as people in Mass do with the Romney plans.
In our state Blue Cross just announced 25-32% rate increases on their individual policies trying to force middle income people out.
Sorry for all the complexity but I feel that I have paid taxes for medicare and medicaid since 1960, and if my familt is in a bind they ought to be able to buy into Medicaid and Medicare at full price. I'm not looking for a hand-out, but no one should stop me from being able to buy into them at 100%.
They did it for seriously disabled people in many states who had incomes higher than the financial eligibility levels (in 2002). They paid the full shot and got the coverage. They were happy. The states reported no more burden processing their claims. It just made sense.
Hope this is helpful.
GOD help us if this "health reform" passes. "Obama we don't want YOU or your Health reform" Go back to where you were really born and impliment it there!!!
Comment By j davis, 7-17-09Leave it to these social Darwinist right wing wackos to oppose health care for all Americans. The only thing they really seem concerned about is protecting the massive profits of an out of control insurance 'industry.' The insurance companies have priced themselves out of the economic range of working Americans. It is only going to get worse as millions more lose their jobs. The insurance companies ARE the problem and in no way should be a part of any solution. The fact that the US is the only industrialized country that refuses to guarantee health care for every citizen is a disgrace! Max Baucus has shown his true colors on this issue, he is solidly in the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. I wish he'd switch parties-he has been Republican 'lite' for years!
Comment By Todd, 7-17-09His health plan is going to be a disaster if it is implemented. He plans to cut Medicare reimbursement and make the government insurance even lower. The doctors will not be able to afford to work, and pay for offices and malpractice. The president has been very clear that there will be NO tort reform. Some specialties in some places are already 6 figures for insurance.
Last year a I saw my Dr for a minor procedure that was done in office, he is a specialist, Medicare authorized $34.50 for about 20 minutes. That had to pay for his office folks, a nurse, his office building, his malpractice. My insurance paid their 20% is all. Drs cannot afford to stay in business if the president is going to do as he says and cut that down more.
Be careful, very careful what you ask for.
Yeah, that's the ticket! Once his health plan is passed and in place, Obama's going to bring in a bunch of Castro's Cubans to replace our family doctors and run our health care system. The secret negotiations have already been concluded between Hilary and Fidel himself. I heard all about it at a prayer rally. Then, when we're fully distracted dealing with the presence of all those Cubans, Obama is going to unleash his real strategy; he's going to allow the landing of a fleet of extraterrestrial clones who will pretend to supply advanced medical treatments while really using it as an opportunity to experiment on us. It's all a plot. Be careful, very careful, who you listen to. They could be a crackpot kook!
Comment By les holcomb, 7-18-09You guys are really funny. I wish the health care proposals were more exciting, but having been written by Congress, it is a lot of business-as-usual. You can keep the insurance that you have if you like it. It won't be easy to get into the public option if you already have private coverage and want to switch to save money.
We do need reforming Medicaid and Medicare since too many Americans are doing things like hiding or transferring their assets from state government to get family members into nursing homes for free under Medicaid.
We have to rebuild primary care so a $100 office visit doesn't turn into a $1,500 ER visits (which often is a fishing expedition with no outcome except medication for pain.)
Frankly, importing Cuban physicians and extra-terrestrials who are reported to be highly intelligent, motivated and with great technology that is free-- sounds good to me.
"God Hepus" if we don't pass universal health insurance reform!!
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/just_say_no_to_heatlhcare/C37/L37/