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.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
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
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
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
God!--these RWC are so predictable..!
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
Am I the only person who believes in capitalism?
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.
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?
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.
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.
You are pretty naive if you really think the government will give you a really good deal money wise.
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.
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.
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.