This excerpt is from an article published at Truthout.
Protecting the Shield: Why ESPN Can't Be Trusted to Cover the NFL
Sunday, 27 September 2015
By Michael Corcoran, Truthout | News Analysis
The National Football League (NFL) is not merely a sports league that helps entertain the US public. While football is just a game, the NFL is a major institutional power that uses billions of tax dollars to subsidize its owners, tries to weaken unions in courts and is potentially complicit in an increasingly disturbing mental health crisis among its workforce. In light of this, the league warrants close scrutiny and investigation from the media.
The organization that should be the most important watchdog of the league is ESPN, which as the largest sports media company in the world has the resources and reach to truly serve as a check on the league's power. Unfortunately, ESPN is too compromised to be trusted in this role. Its NFL broadcasts are worth billions, and an examination of its coverage shows that ESPN's priorities are not investigating the league, but protecting it.
In early September, Judge Richard Berman nullified the NFL's four-game suspension of famed quarterback Tom Brady. The suspension, affirmed by the league's commissioner, Roger Goodell, was for Brady's alleged role in the "Deflategate" scandal - arguably one of the most ridiculous cases in the history of US jurisprudence.
The judge ruled against the NFL on September 3 for not giving Brady a fair hearing in his appeal, and for punishing him for a rule that doesn't exist: alleged "general awareness" of an alleged equipment violation (deflating air out of a football). In two brutal hearings in open court (August 12 and August 19), Berman ripped the NFL's lack of due process and its "independent" report, aimed at rubber-stamping Goodell's "own brand of industrial justice," as Berman called it.
Read the rest at Truthout
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
8/2/10
Single Payer Isn't Dead: How States Are Keeping the Movement Alive
Originally published at Truthout.
The grassroots single-payer movement in Vermont reflects the growing belief that the fight to make healthcare a human right must come from the states. But will the passage of federal reform get in the way?
Burlington, VT – When Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March, many thought the long and tedious stretch of legislative wrangling and endless debates about healthcare reform had come to an end and the prospects for further meaningful reform would be shelved for years or decades.
But while the country was consumed with the incredibly narrow debate in D.C., dictated largely by drug and insurance lobbyists, anti-abortion politicians, and a collection of conservative Democratic senators with close ties to the insurance and drug industries, another significant healthcare battle was taking place hundreds of miles to the north, in the tiny little state of Vermont, population, 600,000. By the time Obama signed a federal healthcare bill into law, the Vermont Workers' Center was almost two years into its “Healthcare is a Human Rights campaign,” which had the unambiguous goal of abolishing for-profit healthcare in the state and passing a state-wide, single-payer healthcare system that guarantees healthcare as a right to all Vermonters. In May, the Vermont Legislature, under constant pressure from this growing people's movement, passed a bill that could possibly lead to Vermont being the first state to pass a single-payer healthcare system, setting up what could be a crucial phase of the fight for healthcare justice.
If Vermont is able to break this ground, the implications could reverberate well past the borders of the Green Mountain State. The fight for state-wide single-payer here reflects a growing belief among healthcare activists that the path to a universal public system, will not take place in Washington D.C, where moneyed interests have a death grip on the legislative process, but through state houses across the country. Further, the effort in Vermont may prove to be the first test case of the “state innovation” language in the federal reform bill, and could indicate if Obamacare will ultimately serve to enable state-wide single-payer systems or if it will kill them. Finally, the movement in Vermont also highlights a fascinating debate over the rhetoric of healthcare reform. Should advocates point to the significant savings associated with single-payer healthcare and the unsustainability of the current system? Or, should the primary emphasis view the fight for public healthcare as a matter of basic human rights?
Read the rest here.
The grassroots single-payer movement in Vermont reflects the growing belief that the fight to make healthcare a human right must come from the states. But will the passage of federal reform get in the way?
Burlington, VT – When Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March, many thought the long and tedious stretch of legislative wrangling and endless debates about healthcare reform had come to an end and the prospects for further meaningful reform would be shelved for years or decades.
But while the country was consumed with the incredibly narrow debate in D.C., dictated largely by drug and insurance lobbyists, anti-abortion politicians, and a collection of conservative Democratic senators with close ties to the insurance and drug industries, another significant healthcare battle was taking place hundreds of miles to the north, in the tiny little state of Vermont, population, 600,000. By the time Obama signed a federal healthcare bill into law, the Vermont Workers' Center was almost two years into its “Healthcare is a Human Rights campaign,” which had the unambiguous goal of abolishing for-profit healthcare in the state and passing a state-wide, single-payer healthcare system that guarantees healthcare as a right to all Vermonters. In May, the Vermont Legislature, under constant pressure from this growing people's movement, passed a bill that could possibly lead to Vermont being the first state to pass a single-payer healthcare system, setting up what could be a crucial phase of the fight for healthcare justice.
If Vermont is able to break this ground, the implications could reverberate well past the borders of the Green Mountain State. The fight for state-wide single-payer here reflects a growing belief among healthcare activists that the path to a universal public system, will not take place in Washington D.C, where moneyed interests have a death grip on the legislative process, but through state houses across the country. Further, the effort in Vermont may prove to be the first test case of the “state innovation” language in the federal reform bill, and could indicate if Obamacare will ultimately serve to enable state-wide single-payer systems or if it will kill them. Finally, the movement in Vermont also highlights a fascinating debate over the rhetoric of healthcare reform. Should advocates point to the significant savings associated with single-payer healthcare and the unsustainability of the current system? Or, should the primary emphasis view the fight for public healthcare as a matter of basic human rights?
Read the rest here.
5/5/10
Book Argues 'Obama Zombies' Will Destroy America
Originally published at Campus Progress
It appears I must have missed the portions of President Barack Obama's inaugural speech where he announced he would emancipate the workers from their ruthless capitalist overlords.
Lucky for us, many conservative commentators have been able to warn us against Obama's plan to make a rapid transformation to a Stalinist-style planned economy. Jason Mattera, the recently hired editor of Human Events, adds another book, Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed my Generation, which warns of Obama sinister plans to destroy America.
Mattera's offering differs from other books from conservatives since Obama's election, as it takes a specific look at young voters and activists—dubbed the "Obama Zombies"—who, he argues, have become unknowing minions in Obama's socialist army, having been lobotomized by the media and Obama's aggressive youth outreach efforts during the 2008 campaign.
For those who are not familiar with Mattera, he is a rising star among young conservatives who worked as communications director for the Young America's Foundation, a conservative youth organization, for several years before landing his latest gig as the editor of Human Events, a long-running far-right magazine. He is often seen on cable news or YouTube aggressively confronting progressives and Democratic politicians on film. He is a sharp-tongued commentator and satirist who loves to use exclamation points. And in case there was ever any doubt, he doesn't like progressives or liberalism orCampus Progress very much.
Read the rest at Campus Progress.
4/24/10
The Flawed Media Narrative of the Healthcare Debate When ignoring constituents is 'pragmatic'
Through all the twists and turns of the healthcare reform debate, one thing has remained constant: Progressive ideas with majority popular support are falsely portrayed as radical, ideological fantasies, while those who oppose them are praised as pragmatic and reasonable.
This trend began when Washington insiders excluded the idea of a single-payer public health insurance program at the beginning of the reform process (Extra!, 6/09). It culminated when the Senate finally passed a bill that, as a result of a few obstructionist senators and the acquiescence of Democratic leaders, was stripped of its most progressive remaining reforms—including the “public option,” a government-run plan that would be offered as an alternative to private insurance (Extra!, 10/09).
The public option had the support of 72 percent of the public (CBS News, 6/19/09) and would save the country billions, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Washington Post, 9/25/09). But when Obama stood by as the provision was dropped from the Senate bill, in an unambiguous victory for health insurance companies (Politico, 12/7/09), the New York Times (12/17/09) had a strange take on the rift it caused between outraged progressive Democrats and Obama: “Now ideology—an uprising on the Democratic left—is smacking the pragmatic president in the face.”
“Pragmatic” is a curious way to describe letting the public option die; how practical is it to make a bill more expensive and less popular? But this framing has been commonplace throughout the debate (FAIR blog,11/11/09).
This trend began when Washington insiders excluded the idea of a single-payer public health insurance program at the beginning of the reform process (Extra!, 6/09). It culminated when the Senate finally passed a bill that, as a result of a few obstructionist senators and the acquiescence of Democratic leaders, was stripped of its most progressive remaining reforms—including the “public option,” a government-run plan that would be offered as an alternative to private insurance (Extra!, 10/09).
The public option had the support of 72 percent of the public (CBS News, 6/19/09) and would save the country billions, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Washington Post, 9/25/09). But when Obama stood by as the provision was dropped from the Senate bill, in an unambiguous victory for health insurance companies (Politico, 12/7/09), the New York Times (12/17/09) had a strange take on the rift it caused between outraged progressive Democrats and Obama: “Now ideology—an uprising on the Democratic left—is smacking the pragmatic president in the face.”
“Pragmatic” is a curious way to describe letting the public option die; how practical is it to make a bill more expensive and less popular? But this framing has been commonplace throughout the debate (FAIR blog,11/11/09).
Read the rest at Extra!
9/17/09
How Obama fooled the left: rhetorical manipulation and its consequences
1) It threw a huge bone to private insurance companies by providing a mandate, forcing uninsured people to buy policies, thus guaranteeing tens of millions of new customers to buy thier products or face tax penalties. Insurance companies love this idea, and having donated large piles of money to both political parties, this position has the support of both sides of the isle in Washington. Small wonder Business Week recently declared that the "Health Insurers have Already Won."
2) His plan drew a line on the sand on the deficit, in an effort to appeal to budget hawks. Obama declared he will not sign a bill that adds even "one dime" to the deficit, showing no flexibility on the matter.
3) The President, for all practical purposes, killed prospects for a public option, by saying it was only a "means" to an end, and unessential. There will be no veto threats or legislative arm-twisting on this issue. Instead the left gets lectured for using the public option as a "handy excuse" to have the "usual Washington ideological battles" (as if standing up for something the public wants and voted for is some kind of egregious sin).
The third point is critical. Going into the speech, many liberals, most notably among House Democrats, were demanding a public option. Some of them, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were insisting that the legislation include a public healthcare plan that uninsured Americans could buy into (most constructs of the plan would not allow someone currently enrolled in an employer-based plan to buy in -- already a huge concession from the left), lest they vote against the bill.
Obama could have used his speech to fight for such a reform, if he so chose. A whopping 72 percent of the public support a public option of some sort, while 59 percent support a sweeping national healthcare plan (ie, Medicare for All, or single-payer healthcare.) Further, due to progressive domination of the last two elections, Obama is blessed with mammoth majorities in both chambers of Congress. While it is true the GOP will not support a public option, it is a moot point -- the GOP, save perhaps one lone Senator, won't support a bill without a public option either. And the Democrats have the ability to pass through a bill with only 51 votes, as Republicans did with the Bush tax cuts in 2001.
But while Obama drew a line in the sand on the deficit, refusing to budge with one dime, he wavered on the public option -- saying that while he likes the idea, he is not married to it. The end result: the insurance companies get what they want -- no public competition and a mandate; Republicans, though irrelevant in practice, manage to help kill such a plan with their militant opposition to government-funded healthcare; and progressives, despite having the public behind them, get nothing except brilliantly worded and passionate oratory. Obama may not be able to (or truly want to) deliver a public option, but no one can doubt his ability to deliver a damn good speech.
But special interests often win battles in Washington, that is no surprise. What is so startling about Obama's repudiation of the major progressive aspect of the bill (single-payer, the choice of progressives, was ceded at the start), was the progressive reaction to the speech. Rather than show disgust and dismay at being slighted, progressives declared the speech a victory. At the Huffington Post, a popular liberal political blog, at least six glowing responses to the speech were posted within hour of its conclusion.
Paul Begala explained "Why I Loved Obama's Health Care Speech," in one post. Jacob Heilbrun claimed Obama "came out swinging" and made the "single most persuasive case for government intervention in decades," in another. From Bill Cunningham: "Tonight, we saw a leader, unafraid to stand and deliver...not a political document, but a platform that all who care about real reform, can support and amend and work for."
This jubilant tone stretched further into the liberal stratosphere. Katrina vanden Huevel, an unabashed supporter of single-payer healthcare and editor of the Nation -- often described as the flagship of the American left -- said Obama showed his "progressive spine" with his speech.
On MSNBC, Steve Hilderberg, a former Obama campaign staffer who has been organizing with others former staffers to demand a public option, seemed unperturbed that Obama, for all practical purposes, caved to the conservative Democratic Blue Dog Caucus, who oppose the idea, and not the progressives who elected him.
When asked by Kieth Olberman if Obama's speech was strong enough, he said "For sure. I never had any doubt, his favor is on the side of the American people and not in bed with special interests ... he hit it out of the ballpark."
But progressives have got to get past the glowing rhetoric, and notice something very important: Obama is going to pass a weak bill. And worse, the slight improvements, in most instances, will not occur for four years.
Surely there is an understandable desire to defend Obama, given that he has been subject to absurd lies and distortions from a right-wing base that has become more delusional and vitriolic by the day. And no doubt, Obama was right to call out the "death panel" fanatics for their pathetic "games" and often racist tirades. Moreover, Obama did articulate a liberal vision of sorts with his soaring explanation of the need for the government to step in when times warrant; and his channeling of the recent passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy, who viewed healthcare reform as the great unfinished business of his life, was emotional and effective.
But the rhetoric was window dressing; the plan itself is a gift to the powerful, sold as a gift to the masses. Paul Street, writing in Znet, wisely quoted the left-wing version of Christopher Hitchens, who in 1999 said the "the essence of American politics" is the "the manipulation of populism by elitism." Obama has proven to more effective at this manipulation than even Bill Clinton, who Hitchens was referring to with that astute comment.
Sure enough, as the week went on, key congressional supporters of a public option, including Speaker Pelosi, began to, in the words of a New York Times reporter, "drop their insistence," on it. By Sunday, the New York Times -- which, more than any publication in the world sets the news agenda -- ran a front-page story, The Fading Public Option, highlighting this trend. Obama's staff surely must have marveled at how easily they were able to kill the plan, while at the exact same time touting its value. If lives were not at stake -- and if was not such a grotesque reminder of the flawed nature of the US political system -- one could almost take joy in the political spectacle that was Obama's speech and the week that followed.
It should be noted that not everybody on the left drank Obama's brew. Matt Rothschild, editor of the Progressive, rightly chastised the weak direction Obama had taken the bill ("ingenious and disingenuous, naïve and nobody's fool"), as did John Nichols at the Nation ("Obama Speaks Loudly But Carries a Small Stick"). Wendell Potter, a former CIGNA executive, called a spade a spade, saying if the legislation coming out of the Senate Finance Committee (which does not include a public option) becomes law, it should be renamed the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act. Rep. Weiner called it a "gift to corporations." Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films, also continued to make the case, with the help of President Clinton's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, in a persuasive short film that has been widely circulated online.
But as single-payer supporter, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, noted at Dailykos, the dreary path of healthcare reform seems pretty well laid out.
He writes:
"Let me share with you some insight about health care legislation which may not be good for your health:
- House will make a big deal about keeping/putting a public option in HR3200 because it competes with insurance companies and will keep insurance rates low.
- The White House will refer to the President's speech last week where he spoke favorably of the public option.
- The Senate will kill the competitive public option in favor of non-competitive "co-ops". Senate leaders like Kent Conrad have said the votes to pass a public option were never there in the Senate.
- The bill will come to a House-Senate Conference Committee without the public option.
- House Democrats will be told to support the conference report on the legislation to support the President.
- The bill will pass, not with a "public option" but with a private mandate requiring 30 million uninsured to buy private health insurance (if one doesn't already have it). If you are broke, you may get a subsidy. If you are not broke, you will get a fine if you do not purchase insurance.
This legislative sausage will be celebrated as a new breakthrough and will be packaged as health insurance reform."
Only time will tell if Kucinich's projections are accurate, but it is hard to envision a different script, is it not?
The consequences of Obama's attitude towards his progressive base go beyond on healthcare reform. If progressives continue to cave in the name of supporting their beloved new president, Emperor Hope, they will continued to be viewed as a non-entity in Washington D.C. on all matters of importance. The mindset of Democratic leaders, and their willingness to walk all over progressives in Congress was described well by blogger Jed Lewison, in a post titled, "Why the Public Option Matters."
"So you sacrifice the progressives, and you don't think twice about it. It's nothing personal. You might not even think it's the best policy," he wrote. "But it's just the way it works, and you've got to get something done. So do you it, knowing that it will work. And whether or not you like it, you know that as long as progressives let themselves get steamrolled, that's always the way it will work."
Liberal columnist Paul Krugman also put it succinctly. "And sooner or later Democrats have to take a stand against Reaganism — against the presumption that if the government does it, it's bad."
Obama has already shunned his base many times: on cabinet appointments, on Afghanistan, on detention policy, on repealing Bush's tax cuts, on gay rights and so on. Now he is allowing private insurance companies to dictate healthcare policy. This needs to stop. Because at this rate, progressives insistence on supporting Obama at all costs has become a liability to our democracy and our health.
Michael Corcoran is a journalist who focuses on business, media, and public affairs. He has written for The Nation, The Boston Globe, Extra!, Alternet, Campus Progress, and other publications. His work can be read at: michaelcorcoran.blogspot.com
9/10/09
Single-payer health care: dead in Washington, but alive in the states
Originally published in the Christian Science Monitor.
By Michael Corcoran
Boston - President Obama delivered a stirring address to Congress last night, but the federal government's inability to truly overhaul our broken healthcare system – which now leaves more than 46 million uninsured – is becoming all the more apparent.
Speaking before a joint session of Congress, Obama declared that a public option to compete with private insurers, considered vital by many liberals, was merely a "means to an end," and not essential to healthcare reform. Earlier this summer, a New York Times/CBS poll showed that 72 percent of Americans support a government-run healthcare plan. But Obama's speech last night indicates that while a bill will probably pass, prospects for comprehensive reform – the kind millions of Americans voted for – have dimmed rapidly. Insurance companies, which have given large donations to both political parties, are winning the fight in Washington.
The inability of a popular president with substantial majorities in Congress to pass a progressive health bill is immensely frustrating to healthcare activists, and to all who gave Obama a mandate for change.
But their cause is not lost – they just need a new strategy.
Read the rest here:
7/30/09
The Limits of Healthcare Debate
Published at Znet
New York Times' columnists Gail Collins and David Brooks did something that almost never happens: they discussed why single-payer is never even considered by mainstream media and Washington politicians. The absence of even occasional debate over the merits of single-payer is especially disheartening given the fact that is the most obvious cure for what Republicans and Democrats alike agree at the two most fundamental problems with US healthcare today: the skyrocketing costs and the fact that so many are left without insurance at all.
New York Times' columnists Gail Collins and David Brooks did something that almost never happens: they discussed why single-payer is never even considered by mainstream media and Washington politicians. The absence of even occasional debate over the merits of single-payer is especially disheartening given the fact that is the most obvious cure for what Republicans and Democrats alike agree at the two most fundamental problems with US healthcare today: the skyrocketing costs and the fact that so many are left without insurance at all.
But the debate, held in a recurring online feature, was incredibly problematic. While Collins rightfully acknowledges that since "a third of the cost of health care is in administration, and the problem with reorganizing health care has to do with all the multitudinous plans and policies, a single-payer system would be far and away the most cost effective answer."
"We don’t talk much about it because it isn’t politically possible. But it isn’t politically possible because we don’t talk about it," she said.
Brooks response, however, is very short-sighted.
"Democratic politicians throw around statistics claiming that Medicare has much, much lower administrative costs than private insurers. I’ve been told by various economists that this claim is three-quarters trickery. It’s a lot cheaper to administer a targeted population that uses a lot of care than it is to administer a large population that uses little care per capita. Plus you can save a lot of administrative costs if you don’t actually regulate treatments that much," he said.
But what about every other industrialized nation in the world? Many of them -- Canada, the UK, Tawain (which is based on the Medicare)-- have a single-payer system, while all other developed countries essentially share the basic idea of single-payer: a centralized funding mechanism that guarantees coverage to all while controlling costs.
In each of these instances the countries pay significantly less than the United States on healthcare as a percentage of GDP and on administrative costs. The United States spends now about 16 percent of GDP on healthcare, while the average expenditure for a country in the countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, is about half of that.
Brooks claims that the sheer size of the US makes single-payer non-viable, but he doesn't explain why, only claiming that, "There is no way something that big and complex and dynamic can be run out of Washington."
Why not? He does not say. Having a large population is a factor in healthcare spending, and healthcare needs -- although when pooled together it also provides leverage that smaller countries do not have -- and it obviously isn't working by having for-profit private insurers run the show. But he seems not only willing, but adamant that this system must be preserved. This is despite the fact that government -run systems within the US - Medicare and the Military healthcare system -- are the most efficient and have the highest satisfaction levels.
A national Commonwealth Fund survey, for example, found "Medicare beneficiaries reported greater overall satisfaction with their health coverage, better access to care, and fewer problems paying medical bills than people covered by employer-sponsored plans. The findings bolster the argument that offering a public insurance plan similar to Medicare to the under-65 population has the potential to improve access and reduce costs."
It is sad that Brooks is perpetuating this myth that preserving for-profit private insurance companies -- bound by law to put the bottom line for shareholders above all else, including the public good -- to be the primary vehicle for health insurance is vital, without providing any evidence. Given how infrequently this topic is discussed in the US media, even though the public supports single-payer in virtually every public poll taken on the subject, that the concept was dismissed so fallaciously by a columnist for an elite national papers is rather troubling.
As a report done by Fairness and Accuracy Reporting showed in a survey of articles about healthcare for a week in March:
As a report done by Fairness and Accuracy Reporting showed in a survey of articles about healthcare for a week in March:
Over the past week, hundreds of stories in major newspapers and on NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer mentioned healthcare reform, according to a search of the Nexis database (2/25/09-3/4/09). Yet all but 18 of these stories made no mention of "single-payer" (or synonyms commonly used by its proponents, such as "Medicare for all," or the proposed single-payer bill, H.R. 676), and only five included the views of advocates of single-payer--none of which appeared on television.Why the media is so complicit in narrowing the debate so it favors the interest of insurance companies is worthy of examination. The fact that the public supports single-payer -- even in the face of this media blackout -- is also rather telling of how persuasive the argument for single-payer truly is.
Of a total of 10 newspaper columns FAIR found that mentioned single-payer, Krauthammer's syndicated column critical of the concept, published in the Washington Post (2/27/09) and reprinted in four other daily newspapers, accounted for five instances. Only three columns in the study period advocated for a single-payer system (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/26/09; Boston Globe, 3/1/09; St. Petersburg Times, 3/3/09)."
7/15/09
The Left's Public Option Problem
(Published at Blast Magazine and on Znet's front page.)
Given the failure of similar programs in states, single-payer should not be thrown aside for this battle.
For advocates of guaranteed truly universal healthcare the debate over Obama's reform efforts have been rather disappointing.
Despite the fact that a clear majority of Americans prefer joining the rest of the developed world and having a comprehensive government plan that will cover everybody, President Obama and most of Congress, all of whom have received large sums of campaign donations from the drug and insurance industries, have made a government run plan that would not sell healthcare as a commodity to make profit, a non-starter. As a result, single-payer healthcare advocates, despite having overwhelming grassroots support, have been dismissed in Washington.
Now, with few other options, liberal members of congress and advocacy groups have largely focused their advocacy and money behind what appears to be the most heated battle over possible healthcare reform this summer: the fight to include a "public option" to compete with private plans in the healthcare package.
Predictably, ideologues opposed to any kind of government involvement in healthcare are fighting tooth-and-nail to oppose this option, ridiculously, calling it a step towards socialism. But as much of the left rallies to counter these shameful distortions, they may want to consider a very important question. What exactly are they fighting for?
By taking single-payer off the table at the start, Obama and his supporters may have put all of their fuel into a sputtering vehicle. To date, two state governments Massachusetts and Vermont have attempted to implement "hybrid" pseudo-public solutions to major healthcare problem. Both of these plans have been floated as possible templates for national reform; the Mass plan is often cited as a possible angle, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, has introduced legislation for a public option that is somewhat similar to Vermont's state-wide plan. Sadly, in both cases the results of these efforts have not been promising.
Those of us living with the new and once-highly touted Massachusetts plan, which aims to cover everyone by requiring that everyone buy insurance (and providing subsidies for those who cannot afford it), have become all-too familiar with the problems of this arrangement, which was worked out in 2006 between Mitt Romney and the Legislature.
The Boston Globe's recent front-page article highlighting how Boston Medical Center, which provides more healthcare to the poor than any other hospital in Massachusetts, is facing major deficits largely because the 2006 healthcare legislation has bled money from the "free care pool," is only one example of how this legislation, well-intended it may be, is not sustainable.
By June 2011 enrollment in the plan is projected to be 342,000 people at an annual expense of $1.35 billion up considerably from the original projections of covering 215,000 people at a cost of $725 million.
Moreover, because so much of the funding for the plan has come from the state's free care pool, many low-income residents who were once able to get care, now face unaffordable co-pays, premiums and deductibles (which have already risen 9.4 percent since passage of the reform.) According to a study done by the Physicians for a National Health Program, if a middle-income person on the cheapest available state plan got sick, he or she could end up paying $9,872 in premiums, deductibles and co-insurance for the year.
"The Massachusetts reform law is not providing universal access to care even in a state with highyl favorable circumstances including previously high levels of spending on health care for the poor, high personal incomes, and low rates of uninsurance," the report said. "It is not a model for the nation."
A recent New York Times article, aptly titled "Massachusetts Takes a Step Back from Health Care for All," reported problems as well. The July 14 article states (emphasis is mine), "The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system."
Vermont's Catamount Health, public-private hybrid effort to cover the state's uninsured population now at 11 percent is also failing. Passed in 2006 as a compromise after Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed single-payer legislation, the bill, unlike the Massachusetts plan, does not mandate residents buy insurance. Instead it offers residents a chance to purchase healthcare from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont with help of government subsidies based on income. But the plan, even according to its own advocates, does little to solve the problem.
One reason: the plan is unaffordable for many working Vermonters. Even those with no income must pay a monthly premium, and someone earning $30,000 a year still must pay $160 a month for coverage, plus monthly deductibles and co-pays for prescription drugs and doctor visits. Accordingly, less than a quarter of those eligible have signed up for the plan. Catamount can also deny coverage for pre-existing condition and the recently unemployed must wait a year before they are eligible for the program.
Since Vermont, like Massachusetts and so many other states, is facing dreadful revenue forecasts, the co-pays and premiums may well be raised in the near future, or services cut. A Democratically-controled Legisalture was able to avoid cuts in the most recent state budget, but more cuts may well be needed during the year, according to Tom Kavet, Vermont's Legislative economist.
As Peter Sterling, Catamount Health's outreach director told Seven Days, Vermont's largest weekly paper, "It doesn't solve the big problem, and we know that."
Sterling's words, and the failure of both of these reform efforts, could serve as a warning for healthcare activists as the national debate over a public plan reaches critical mass. Putting all of our muscle and money into a potentially doomed public option something that "doesn't solve the big problem" may yield little benefit in the fight for universal healthcare. Worse, if Congress pushes through a failed public option, neutered by congressional Republicans, it could give the concept of public healthcare an undeserved black eye in the eyes of many Americans.
In fact, a more intriguing consolation prize in Obama's health reform bill could come from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) who has a plan to fund pilot programs for universal healthcare in five states -- one of which would be a single-payer plan. This could prove to be a sterling example of the cost-effectiveness of such a program. If Sanders' home state, Vermont, were to implement state-wide single-payer, it would save the tiny state a sizable $51 million a year, according to a study commissioned by the Vermont Legislature in 2006. Predictably, however, the Senate has not been very open to this idea, moderate as it may be, and voted it down in committee. One can only hope this idea will resurface as the debate rages on.
Despite such unceasing opposition from Washington, giving up on single-payer healthcare is not a wise move. As healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, the likelihood of a single-payer plan becoming reality in the US will only increase. The United States currently spends about 16 percent of its GDP (and rising fast) on healthcare more than any other country in the world and still has embarrassing rankings on infant mortality, life expectancy and overall healthcare rankings, according to the World Health Organization and BMJ, a peer-reviewed international medical journal. 46 million are left uninsured with many more underinsured, and an estimated 18,000 people die each year from lack of insurance.
Since nearly half of healthcare costs go towards corporate profits and administrative waste, two expenses that are virtually eliminated by implementing a single-payer system, in time some kind of not-for-profit government-run system is the only option that will make any fiscal sense. This reality should not be lost in the battle for a doomed-to-fail half measure that may or may not be attached to healthcare reform in the coming months.
Further Reading:
*PNHP Report on Massachusetts Reform Plan
*Vermont Workers' Center: Health Care is a Human Right Report (Features information on Catamount)
*Study commissioned by VT Legislature on economic impacts of a single-payer system
*Hasta la vista single-payer movement? (Article I wrote in 2007 on a hybrid plans vs. single-payer)
UPDATE: 6:22 p.m., July 16)
A Blast reader commented on my post. Since the internet is all about open debate, I thought I would post his comments here, and my response. I will update you if he responds again.
He wrote:
My response:
Hey Lucas,
For the record, this article was not meant to be a full fledged defense of single-payer, but rather a critique of the half-measures liberals and Obama are now advocating for hence - so, indeed, much is left unsaid.
Still you raise interesting points, avoided attacks and presented evidence. I appreciate your comments, though as you might expect disagree with most of them, and I will address some of them here. I will use footnotes, rather than hyperlinks, as comments sections are shaky sometimes.
You have three paragraphs mainly. The first is mostly introductory, so I won't respond to it, other than to say I don't think all opponents of single-payer are ideologues. In fact, the major point of the article was to attack liberals for backing away from the idea, despite the fact that the majority of the public supports it. I did note that there are hyperbolic ads, paid for by ideologues (which, is not a pejorative term, in my view) comparing the possibility of a quasi public plans to socialism. An absurd argument, I think, and can elaborate if you like.
Also, before I delve further, allow me to provide some evidence to the above statement regarding public opinion. There are many polls, framed in many different ways, but all of them indicate that the majority of the public (floating around 55-65 percent) believes the gov has the responsibility to make sure everyone has care.
An ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey found that 56 percent of Americans preferred a government-run universal health system "like Medicare" to our current employment-based system run by private insurers. (1) This one is apt, because it bluntly compares our system to Medicare -- a single-payer system for the elderly.(2) Interestingly, the elderly are the most satisfied healthcare consumers in the US. (3) Further a majority of Americans said they are willing to pay higher taxes and give up future tax cuts to accomplish this. (4)
Perhaps I should have highlighted all of these arguments, but i was already over a 1,200 word limit and , again, was critiquing two complicated state plans, not making the case for single-payer in details (which, I have done, and will do again, if you care to continue the debate. Glad to have you as a guest blogger on my blog, or maybe Blast can work something out.)
The second graph raised great points, and I would like to address them.
You write:
This is true. Even countries that cover everyone, via singlepayer (like Canada, UK) or otherways (France, Australia) etc ... have room for improvement, for sure. Healthcare systems -- good or not -- are complicated and there are always problems.
For example, the UK only spend 8 percent of GDP on healthcare - way less than other single-payer countries. It is bled dry to an extent, even though everyone is covered, no small point.
But even with their faults, public opinion polls consistently show that other countries are more satisfied with their systems than our's.
According to MArket Watch, hardly a marxist rag, "A third of Americans said they believe the U.S. system 'has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it,"' while only 9% in the Netherlands hold such a sentiment about their health-care system. Twelve percent of Spaniards favored a complete overhaul, compared with 15% in France, 17% in New Zealand, 18% in Australia and 20% in Italy." (5)
The article continues, "What's more, Americans' personal share of medical expenses is the highest in the industrialized world, Davis said. In 2007, 30% of Americans reported having out-of-pocket medical expenses of more than $1,000 in the last year compared with 19% of Australians, 12% of Canadians, 10% of Germans and New Zealanders, 5% of Dutch and 4% of Britons. "
These stats are backed up elsewhere. The US pays the most in the world for health care, yet is ranked 37th by the WHO, has 46 million uninsured, and low satisfaction rates. We pay double what most countries pay.
You are right that they want improvement. Market Watch reports, "Majorities in France (70%) and Britain (59%) said their health systems are the envy of the world. Still, nearly as many in France as in the U.S. said fundamental changes are needed to make the system work better. Half of American adults said so compared with 47% of French adults."
But overall, costs are lower, people are healthier and more satisfied, and everyone -- everyone - is insured. And only the United States has a system where healthcare is not guaranteed to everyone. That is quite radical.
Now, why do spend so much, yet cover so few?
You make this point:
Allow me to give the evidence. There are two major reasons, as I mentioned, why single-payer is more fiscally conservative. 1) There are no corporate profits, which make up about a quarter of overall costs. This, obviously, is eliminated if you eliminate private insurers. the other reasons is administrative waste. Having so many payers, leads to expensive overhead -- another 25 percent of health care spending is this administrative waste. (6)This is about ten times as much as single-payer options. According to the New England Journal of Medicine Canada's national health insurance system spends just 1.3% on overhead, and the US's Medicare and Medicaid programs have administrative costs of between 2-5%. (7)
The International Journal of Health Services estimates the US would save 75 percent of its administrative costs by switching to single-payer. (8) (Note, because peer-reviewed journals are behind pay walls, I am linking to studies citing them.)
To conclude, you are right I did not make a full-blown case for the economics of single-payer, because my article was a critique of state plans. But I am happy to make a full-blown case for it, if you would like to have a formal exchange (say, we pose the question "Would Single-Payer Improve Health care in the United States, I in the affirmative, you in the negative.)
Still, you raised questions about the merits of single-payer -- why it is cheaper and so forth, and I tried to address them here. Anxious for a response and all the best.
1 as quoted in http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/31/silent_majority_for_single_payer/
2) http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2009/May/Elderly-Medicare-Beneficiaries-Give-Their-Coverage-Higher-Ratings.aspx
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ex=1330405200&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (see complete poll results to the left of article.
4) ibid
5.) http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-rate-us-health-care-system-lowest-among-10-nations
6) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768
7) iBid
8) http://www.pnhp.org/news/IJHS_State_Paper.pdf
Given the failure of similar programs in states, single-payer should not be thrown aside for this battle.
For advocates of guaranteed truly universal healthcare the debate over Obama's reform efforts have been rather disappointing.
Despite the fact that a clear majority of Americans prefer joining the rest of the developed world and having a comprehensive government plan that will cover everybody, President Obama and most of Congress, all of whom have received large sums of campaign donations from the drug and insurance industries, have made a government run plan that would not sell healthcare as a commodity to make profit, a non-starter. As a result, single-payer healthcare advocates, despite having overwhelming grassroots support, have been dismissed in Washington.
Now, with few other options, liberal members of congress and advocacy groups have largely focused their advocacy and money behind what appears to be the most heated battle over possible healthcare reform this summer: the fight to include a "public option" to compete with private plans in the healthcare package.
Predictably, ideologues opposed to any kind of government involvement in healthcare are fighting tooth-and-nail to oppose this option, ridiculously, calling it a step towards socialism. But as much of the left rallies to counter these shameful distortions, they may want to consider a very important question. What exactly are they fighting for?
By taking single-payer off the table at the start, Obama and his supporters may have put all of their fuel into a sputtering vehicle. To date, two state governments Massachusetts and Vermont have attempted to implement "hybrid" pseudo-public solutions to major healthcare problem. Both of these plans have been floated as possible templates for national reform; the Mass plan is often cited as a possible angle, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, has introduced legislation for a public option that is somewhat similar to Vermont's state-wide plan. Sadly, in both cases the results of these efforts have not been promising.
Those of us living with the new and once-highly touted Massachusetts plan, which aims to cover everyone by requiring that everyone buy insurance (and providing subsidies for those who cannot afford it), have become all-too familiar with the problems of this arrangement, which was worked out in 2006 between Mitt Romney and the Legislature.
The Boston Globe's recent front-page article highlighting how Boston Medical Center, which provides more healthcare to the poor than any other hospital in Massachusetts, is facing major deficits largely because the 2006 healthcare legislation has bled money from the "free care pool," is only one example of how this legislation, well-intended it may be, is not sustainable.
By June 2011 enrollment in the plan is projected to be 342,000 people at an annual expense of $1.35 billion up considerably from the original projections of covering 215,000 people at a cost of $725 million.
Moreover, because so much of the funding for the plan has come from the state's free care pool, many low-income residents who were once able to get care, now face unaffordable co-pays, premiums and deductibles (which have already risen 9.4 percent since passage of the reform.) According to a study done by the Physicians for a National Health Program, if a middle-income person on the cheapest available state plan got sick, he or she could end up paying $9,872 in premiums, deductibles and co-insurance for the year.
"The Massachusetts reform law is not providing universal access to care even in a state with highyl favorable circumstances including previously high levels of spending on health care for the poor, high personal incomes, and low rates of uninsurance," the report said. "It is not a model for the nation."
A recent New York Times article, aptly titled "Massachusetts Takes a Step Back from Health Care for All," reported problems as well. The July 14 article states (emphasis is mine), "The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system."
Vermont's Catamount Health, public-private hybrid effort to cover the state's uninsured population now at 11 percent is also failing. Passed in 2006 as a compromise after Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed single-payer legislation, the bill, unlike the Massachusetts plan, does not mandate residents buy insurance. Instead it offers residents a chance to purchase healthcare from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont with help of government subsidies based on income. But the plan, even according to its own advocates, does little to solve the problem.
One reason: the plan is unaffordable for many working Vermonters. Even those with no income must pay a monthly premium, and someone earning $30,000 a year still must pay $160 a month for coverage, plus monthly deductibles and co-pays for prescription drugs and doctor visits. Accordingly, less than a quarter of those eligible have signed up for the plan. Catamount can also deny coverage for pre-existing condition and the recently unemployed must wait a year before they are eligible for the program.
Since Vermont, like Massachusetts and so many other states, is facing dreadful revenue forecasts, the co-pays and premiums may well be raised in the near future, or services cut. A Democratically-controled Legisalture was able to avoid cuts in the most recent state budget, but more cuts may well be needed during the year, according to Tom Kavet, Vermont's Legislative economist.
As Peter Sterling, Catamount Health's outreach director told Seven Days, Vermont's largest weekly paper, "It doesn't solve the big problem, and we know that."
Sterling's words, and the failure of both of these reform efforts, could serve as a warning for healthcare activists as the national debate over a public plan reaches critical mass. Putting all of our muscle and money into a potentially doomed public option something that "doesn't solve the big problem" may yield little benefit in the fight for universal healthcare. Worse, if Congress pushes through a failed public option, neutered by congressional Republicans, it could give the concept of public healthcare an undeserved black eye in the eyes of many Americans.
In fact, a more intriguing consolation prize in Obama's health reform bill could come from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) who has a plan to fund pilot programs for universal healthcare in five states -- one of which would be a single-payer plan. This could prove to be a sterling example of the cost-effectiveness of such a program. If Sanders' home state, Vermont, were to implement state-wide single-payer, it would save the tiny state a sizable $51 million a year, according to a study commissioned by the Vermont Legislature in 2006. Predictably, however, the Senate has not been very open to this idea, moderate as it may be, and voted it down in committee. One can only hope this idea will resurface as the debate rages on.
Despite such unceasing opposition from Washington, giving up on single-payer healthcare is not a wise move. As healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, the likelihood of a single-payer plan becoming reality in the US will only increase. The United States currently spends about 16 percent of its GDP (and rising fast) on healthcare more than any other country in the world and still has embarrassing rankings on infant mortality, life expectancy and overall healthcare rankings, according to the World Health Organization and BMJ, a peer-reviewed international medical journal. 46 million are left uninsured with many more underinsured, and an estimated 18,000 people die each year from lack of insurance.
Since nearly half of healthcare costs go towards corporate profits and administrative waste, two expenses that are virtually eliminated by implementing a single-payer system, in time some kind of not-for-profit government-run system is the only option that will make any fiscal sense. This reality should not be lost in the battle for a doomed-to-fail half measure that may or may not be attached to healthcare reform in the coming months.
Further Reading:
*PNHP Report on Massachusetts Reform Plan
*Vermont Workers' Center: Health Care is a Human Right Report (Features information on Catamount)
*Study commissioned by VT Legislature on economic impacts of a single-payer system
*Hasta la vista single-payer movement? (Article I wrote in 2007 on a hybrid plans vs. single-payer)
UPDATE: 6:22 p.m., July 16)
A Blast reader commented on my post. Since the internet is all about open debate, I thought I would post his comments here, and my response. I will update you if he responds again.
He wrote:
Not everyone who opposes single payer healthcare is simply an
ideologue. There are a lot of legitimate concerns about a single payer system
and what it would do to real access to a doctor as opposed to just having a card
that says you’re insured, the actual cost of care, progress in research and
development of both drugs and medical equipment, and making certain types of
care unobtainable for patients when the government doesn’t feel like paying for
them.
The ‘rest of the developed world’ which you vaguely refer to
has had plenty of problems with their single payer systems. In one survey of
citizens 80% of Americans said that the current system needs to be reformed or
rebuilt, with only %20 saying they liked it the way it is. But when the same
question was asked of citizens of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,
which all have single payer national healthcare, the distribution of answers was
the same. Even with national coverage, patients still want massive overhaul of
their healthcare systems.
To say that a single payer option is the only that makes
sense, or that ‘not for profit’ automatically means that waste will be
eliminated is just silly, especially when no evidence is provided. Anyone who’s
ever paid any attention to how the government spends money knows
this.
For anyone interested in hearing real researched arguments
against single payer healthcare, a good place to start is: http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=80&ra_id=6
My reference to the 80/20 survey comes from their podcast
about the Massachusetts healthcare model.
Please read and consider the information there and
elsewhere before simply writing off anyone who doesn’t agree with you as an
ideologue.
My response:
Hey Lucas,
For the record, this article was not meant to be a full fledged defense of single-payer, but rather a critique of the half-measures liberals and Obama are now advocating for hence - so, indeed, much is left unsaid.
Still you raise interesting points, avoided attacks and presented evidence. I appreciate your comments, though as you might expect disagree with most of them, and I will address some of them here. I will use footnotes, rather than hyperlinks, as comments sections are shaky sometimes.
You have three paragraphs mainly. The first is mostly introductory, so I won't respond to it, other than to say I don't think all opponents of single-payer are ideologues. In fact, the major point of the article was to attack liberals for backing away from the idea, despite the fact that the majority of the public supports it. I did note that there are hyperbolic ads, paid for by ideologues (which, is not a pejorative term, in my view) comparing the possibility of a quasi public plans to socialism. An absurd argument, I think, and can elaborate if you like.
Also, before I delve further, allow me to provide some evidence to the above statement regarding public opinion. There are many polls, framed in many different ways, but all of them indicate that the majority of the public (floating around 55-65 percent) believes the gov has the responsibility to make sure everyone has care.
An ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey found that 56 percent of Americans preferred a government-run universal health system "like Medicare" to our current employment-based system run by private insurers. (1) This one is apt, because it bluntly compares our system to Medicare -- a single-payer system for the elderly.(2) Interestingly, the elderly are the most satisfied healthcare consumers in the US. (3) Further a majority of Americans said they are willing to pay higher taxes and give up future tax cuts to accomplish this. (4)
Perhaps I should have highlighted all of these arguments, but i was already over a 1,200 word limit and , again, was critiquing two complicated state plans, not making the case for single-payer in details (which, I have done, and will do again, if you care to continue the debate. Glad to have you as a guest blogger on my blog, or maybe Blast can work something out.)
The second graph raised great points, and I would like to address them.
You write:
The ‘rest of the developed world’ which you vaguely refer to has had plenty of problems with their single payer systems. In one survey of citizens 80% of Americans said that the current system needs to be reformed or rebuilt, with only %20 saying they liked it the way it is. But when the same question was asked of citizens of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which all have single payer national healthcare, the distribution of answers was the same. Even with national coverage, patients still want massive overhaul of their healthcare systems."
This is true. Even countries that cover everyone, via singlepayer (like Canada, UK) or otherways (France, Australia) etc ... have room for improvement, for sure. Healthcare systems -- good or not -- are complicated and there are always problems.
For example, the UK only spend 8 percent of GDP on healthcare - way less than other single-payer countries. It is bled dry to an extent, even though everyone is covered, no small point.
But even with their faults, public opinion polls consistently show that other countries are more satisfied with their systems than our's.
According to MArket Watch, hardly a marxist rag, "A third of Americans said they believe the U.S. system 'has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it,"' while only 9% in the Netherlands hold such a sentiment about their health-care system. Twelve percent of Spaniards favored a complete overhaul, compared with 15% in France, 17% in New Zealand, 18% in Australia and 20% in Italy." (5)
The article continues, "What's more, Americans' personal share of medical expenses is the highest in the industrialized world, Davis said. In 2007, 30% of Americans reported having out-of-pocket medical expenses of more than $1,000 in the last year compared with 19% of Australians, 12% of Canadians, 10% of Germans and New Zealanders, 5% of Dutch and 4% of Britons. "
These stats are backed up elsewhere. The US pays the most in the world for health care, yet is ranked 37th by the WHO, has 46 million uninsured, and low satisfaction rates. We pay double what most countries pay.
You are right that they want improvement. Market Watch reports, "Majorities in France (70%) and Britain (59%) said their health systems are the envy of the world. Still, nearly as many in France as in the U.S. said fundamental changes are needed to make the system work better. Half of American adults said so compared with 47% of French adults."
But overall, costs are lower, people are healthier and more satisfied, and everyone -- everyone - is insured. And only the United States has a system where healthcare is not guaranteed to everyone. That is quite radical.
Now, why do spend so much, yet cover so few?
You make this point:
"To say that a single payer option is the only that makes sense, or that ‘not for profit’ automatically means that waste will be eliminated is just silly, especially when no evidence is provided. Anyone who’s ever paid any attention to how the government spends money knows this.
Allow me to give the evidence. There are two major reasons, as I mentioned, why single-payer is more fiscally conservative. 1) There are no corporate profits, which make up about a quarter of overall costs. This, obviously, is eliminated if you eliminate private insurers. the other reasons is administrative waste. Having so many payers, leads to expensive overhead -- another 25 percent of health care spending is this administrative waste. (6)This is about ten times as much as single-payer options. According to the New England Journal of Medicine Canada's national health insurance system spends just 1.3% on overhead, and the US's Medicare and Medicaid programs have administrative costs of between 2-5%. (7)
The International Journal of Health Services estimates the US would save 75 percent of its administrative costs by switching to single-payer. (8) (Note, because peer-reviewed journals are behind pay walls, I am linking to studies citing them.)
To conclude, you are right I did not make a full-blown case for the economics of single-payer, because my article was a critique of state plans. But I am happy to make a full-blown case for it, if you would like to have a formal exchange (say, we pose the question "Would Single-Payer Improve Health care in the United States, I in the affirmative, you in the negative.)
Still, you raised questions about the merits of single-payer -- why it is cheaper and so forth, and I tried to address them here. Anxious for a response and all the best.
1 as quoted in http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/31/silent_majority_for_single_payer/
2) http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2009/May/Elderly-Medicare-Beneficiaries-Give-Their-Coverage-Higher-Ratings.aspx
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ex=1330405200&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (see complete poll results to the left of article.
4) ibid
5.) http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-rate-us-health-care-system-lowest-among-10-nations
6) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768
7) iBid
8) http://www.pnhp.org/news/IJHS_State_Paper.pdf
6/8/09
See Past Healthcare Misinformation
Originally published at The Burlington Free Press.
It is not often I find time to write to the local paper, but Douglas Greg's My Turn piece ("Health care your responsibility," May 11) simply cannot go without retort. His ad hominem attacks and distortions of simple facts do his readers a great disservice.
For those readers who may have missed the article, Mr. Greg argues, in response to a health care activist campaign led by the Vermont Workers' Center, that health care should not be treated as a human right.
But before he even gives readers a chance to be taken seriously, he resorts to juvenile -- and borderline shameful -- meanderings.
Mr. Greg writes that after he saw a group of pro-health care activists on the road he "figured that maybe they were fans of a local sporting event" since "half of the group were kids." But, much to his displeasure, he learns they are pro-health care activists and immediately dismisses them as crazy lefties with "blood for oil" signs.
Everyone needs a hobby," he concludes.
It is rather astounding that in one paragraph Greg manages to dismiss all health care activists, young people and anti-war activists as unworthy of being taken seriously. More astounding is that the rest of his piece proves to show that the same critique could be applied to him in a far more convincing way.
His insistence that Catamount Health, Dr. Dynosaur and the Vermont Health Access plan -- three psuedo-public programs that offer subsidized health care to needy Vermonters -- "are essentially free to those who need it" is an unambiguous falsehood.
To give just one example, Catamount Health is anything but free. Even those with no income must pay a small premium, and someone making short of $30,000 a year still must come up with $160 a month for insurance plus deductibles and co-pays. This can be rather cost-prohibitive for people just barely getting by on service-sector jobs. These plans also do nothing to control costs -- which are escalating well past the rate of inflation -- whereas a public plan would cut costs dramatically.
Further, if Vermont already had "basically free" universal insurance, how does he explain that 11 percent of Vermonters -- including, unforgivably, thousands of children -- have no insurance at all?
Now, if Greg would prefer that for-profit private insurers with virtually no accountability handle our health care system, rather than the citizens of Vermont, that is his prerogative. But he could at least refrain from misleading readers about the economic costs of a public plan, as opposed to the current private system.
Due to corporate profits and administrative waste, private insurance is actually far more expensive than a public system. According to a study commissioned by the Legislature in 2006, Vermont would save $51 million a year if it implemented a single-payer health care system. Indeed, contrary to the doctrinaire assumptions of Greg and other free-market absolutists, single-payer is far more fiscally conservative than what we currently have.
I do hope and suspect readers of the Free Press see past the misinformation put forth in that piece and at least consider a more human health care system that leaves no one behind.
Michael Corcoran lives in South Burlington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)