http://www.truthout.org/1028095

Jim Hightower sums up the stunning hypocrisy of Congress over what they themselves enjoy and what they withhold from the rest of us in terms of healh care:

Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who have risen up on their hind legs in recent weeks to snarl and howl at any mention of a government role in meeting America’s health care needs. "Socialism," they bark — we won’t allow Barack Obama and the liberals to create a Washington-run, big-government intrusion into the hallowed private market. Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, even pledged to fight so ferociously that the health care battle would be Obama’s "Waterloo."

[snip]

What these bellicose market-purists hope you don’t discover is that they are closet socialists. As members of the congressional elite, they and their families are governmentally blessed with their very own gold-plated, taxpayer-financed, Washington-run health care system. And, they loooove it. Theirs is such an effective system that not a single member of the hypocongress has been willing to give it up — even though they surely realize the political peril of being exposed as rank hypocrites for enjoying the very program they so adamantly reject for you.

Actually, they happily take a double dip in the soothing waters of public health care. First, they enroll their entire families in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program — and you probably would, too, if it were available to you, for it’s the Rolls Royce of health plans.

So millions of our a dollars annually are subsidizing this “Rolls Royce” plan. Right now, as Congresspeople are turning their backs on or inadequately reforming or lessening current benefit coverage for millions of Americans, they will ferociously protect for themselves their golden taxpayer-paid deal and are horrified at the idea of having to join in a more modest public plan that would be shared with the citizenry. Another reason to consider why Congress people are allergic to the idea of a universal system.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/13/cbsnews_investigates/main5382699.shtml

According to Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News Correspondent, 75% of their premiums are paid for by us, the taxpayers. They spend only a flat fee of $503 a YEAR for everything, specialists, operations, rehabiliation, therapy, etc.

For them, there’s no coverage limit – a major factor for the American families bankrupted or thrown into poverty by health care costs. Pre-existing conditions? No problem for congressmen and women. The rest of us are out of luck. And the elected officials get still more perks most Americans can only dream of.

[snip]

"We’re able to access that health care 24 hours a day when we’re in Washington," Graham said, leading us to the Attending Physician’s Office, a clinic inside the U.S. Capitol. They don’t even have to leave the office. About half of the members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, use the Attending Physician benefit. For $42 a month, they can get all the primary care they need – physical therapy, X-rays, minor surgery, specialists and a pharmacy for emergencies – no appointment needed.

They also get VIP hospital treatment from the best doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital. And they have a reserved spot at the elite Ward 72 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where the late Sen. Strom Thurmond spent a lot of time. Outpatient care is free. Well, free for them. Your tax dollars pick up the cost.

[snip[

Even if you're mad enough to vote out your representatives, they still won't have to stress over health care. Their plan is portable. Until Medicare kicks in, they can keep the generous coverage for themselves and their families at the same low cost, still subsidized by your tax dollars.

Senator Lindsay Graham of S.C. deserves credit for disclosing many of the details of this luxury plan to the CBS reporter.

Hightower gives credit where it is due within Congress to two members going much farther in their concern:

For a model of integrity, they might look to Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis. -- both of whom have rejected taking congressional coverage until everyone in America has coverage of equal quality. I don't think the noisy naysayers are looking for integrity, however -- not as long as they can get away with their abominable hypocrisy.

Now lets travel from the dream coverage of the Congress, to the plight of the rest of the country. How about the most vulnerable of all groups, new born babies? Holly Dressel writes in Yes magazine:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/health-care-for-all/1503

Infant mortality rates, which reflect the health of the mother and her access to prenatal and postnatal care, are considered one of the most reliable measures of the general health of a population. Today, U.S. government statistics rank Canada's infant mortality rate of 4.7 per thousand 23rd out of 225 countries, in the company of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Australia, and Denmark. The U.S. is 43rd--in the company of Croatia and Lithuania, below Taiwan and Cuba.

[snip]

There are no major industrialized countries near the United States in the rankings. The closest is Italy, at 5.83 infants dying per thousand, but it is still ranked five places higher.

In the United States, infant mortality rates are 7.1 per 1,000, the highest in the industrialized world — much higher than some of the poorer states in India, for example, which have public health systems in place, at least for mothers and infants. Among the inner-city poor in the United States, more than 8 percent of mothers receive no prenatal care at all before giving birth.

What about how the US government treats its own veterans in terms of health care? That grouping surely would reflect a generous bestowal of benefits, if any group would.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/november/study_over_2200_us.php

Amy Goodman interviewed Steffie Woolhandler on Nov. 11, 2009 about vets and insurance coverage:

AMY GOODMAN: We begin with a new study that estimates four times as many US Army veterans died last year because they lacked health insurance than the total number of US soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same period. A research team at Harvard Medical School says 2,266 veterans under the age of 65 died in 2008 because they were uninsured. Their estimates are based on their recently published findings in the American Journal of Public Health that shows how being uninsured raises a person’s odds of dying prematurely by 40 percent.

The researchers also found that nearly one-and-a-half million veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 were uninsured last year. While most veterans are eligible to receive care from the Veterans Administration, those who were not injured in combat and whose income is above a certain threshold are often ineligible.

[snip]

AMY GOODMAN: I think people would be very surprised to know that once you’re a vet, no matter what your income level, you’re not covered by VA healthcare system for the rest of your life.

DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Oh, well, that’s been true for a long time. The VA will cover you if you have a service-connected injury, like you get your leg shot off. They do provide a safety net for people with very low incomes, eligible for Medicaid, or slightly higher incomes. However, many middle-income vets are not eligible for VA care, and that’s who these uninsured veterans are. And sadly, many of them will continue to be uninsured under the House or Senate bills, which, even if they work as planned, will leave somewhere between a third and a half of all uninsured people still uninsured in the year 2020.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study claims that from 1999 to 2009, the average family premium has at the very least more than doubled. With extenuating health conditions, premiums even quadrupled.

So, you risk your life for your country. You survive. You come home. And your life is at risk from a premature death because you lack health care. You come home to what Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association calls “killing fields”. Domestic killing fields.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/17-0

These are our killing fields. In America. In October 2009. In Barack Obama’s America. That land full of hope and promise for those who can afford that hope and promise.

[snip]

So, what is our Congress waiting for? And our President? Have they so detached themselves … that they think this debate is about excise taxes and re-election prospects? This is no political contest. This is very real life and death. Mothers and babies. Young and old. The profit-takers know no boundaries for their greed, and our killing fields are filling with the innocents.

Our Congresspeople with their reckless wars and “suck it up, America, we need to economize” empathy-less take on citizen health care needs are so lost to the lobby campaign financing bribes that they focus on serving the needs of the medical industrial complex and sacrifice citizens, to the point of their deaths.

So these same Congress people and their families will enjoy for their lifetimes Cadillac health care on our dimes. There are presently 47 million uninsured Americans, and millions underinsured, many destined to go bankrupt from a health care crisis. 750,000 people go bankrupt each year from medical costs, and 62% of that number it has been estimated were insured before the bankruptcy.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23942.htm

Ralph Nader has taken a hard look at the deficiencies in the newly passed HR 3962. He declares it has no cost containment or preventive measures. He cites that every year 100,000 people die from medical malpractice. This is not seriously addressed by the bill.

He also speaks of medical fraud within and without Medicare costing as estimated by the GAO, between $250 and $500 billion dollars each year (10% of heath care expenditures). Nader cites an article in AARP this month, that reveals how incredibly the FBI reports that in California and Florida, cocaine dealers are finding Medicare fraud far more lucrative as a criminal career.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-letter-to-harry-reid.html

Robert Reich’s expresses concern over the new health care bill:

In addition to the House’s weak public option, the deals the White House and Max Baucus made with the drug companies and the AMA will force Americans to pay even more. If, on the other hand, Medicare were allowed to negotiate lower drug prices, biotech drugs weren’t granted a twelve-years monopoly, and doctors had to accept Medicare reimbursements in line with legislation enacted years ago, Americans would save billions.

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/articles/2009/09/Health-care-The-uncivil-rights-movement/

According to Prof. Ted Brown of Rochester University was interviewed by Tim Macaluso, most of the money drug companies claim to use for drug research and development is “trivial” in comparison to what it brings in as profit, also a considerable amount of drug research and development funding comes from the National Institute of Health, paid for by the taxpayers. And many innovations for health care have come from Europe and Japan (that have national health systems). The CAT scan was invented in England, for example.

Prof. Brown also points out that the employer-based health care system being continued is out of step with economic reality:

Toyota is moving its US manufacturing plant overseas. It turns out overseas is really Ontario, Canada, where they don’t have to cover health insurance for their workers. Is there any way to separate the discussion of health-care coverage from the economy? No, absolutely not. America has dug itself into a major hole. It’s made itself much less competitive because it has added health care to the cost of production. It’s part of our labor costs.

We’ve known for years that the economy and employment are being driven by small businesses, and now we’re entering the age of the independent contractor and telecommuter. How can health care coverage remain linked to the employer?

The country began to notice that this uninsured population really increased in the 1980′s. One journal described how it went from a dilemma to a crisis in the years that followed.

Fundamental changes in the American economy – moving jobs offshore, moving manufacturing from Democratic states like Michigan and New York to Southern states where there is no support for unions – all of these moves to increase profitability served to reduce the employment base for health insurance. And it has made this link between coverage and the employer base even crazier.

What is additionally troubling, is that the pharmaceutical companies have promised President Obama to sponsor a massive positive advertising campaign after whatever health care (but pro-corporation) bill is passed. It has been speculated that such a massive, corporate media campaign would cost as much as $150 million. So our president has arranged to get some seriously professional “spinning” of his health care reform success by the benefiting corporatists who can seduce the victims of an unfriendly bill (to them) into denial.

I feel sorry for Obama for the assaults of irrational right wingnuts who accuse him of insanely undeserved attributes. I see his need to combat such alarming disinformation. But to “con” the citizenry the health care bill offers more help and security than it actually does, is unethical.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/november/three_frequently_ask.php

Another manipulation being pulled on the citizenry revealed on the PNHP website:

The main provisions of the AHCAA [Affordable Health Care for America Act] wouldn’t go into effect until 2013. This was done because the President promised to keep the bill under $1 trillion over 10 years, and this is only possible by delaying implementation until the 4th year, making a 6 year budget look like a 10 year budget. If reform passes through the Senate and is signed into law by President Obama, we are likely to see no change whatsoever in Massachusetts for the next three years.

As for the poison pill of the Stupak abortion amendment, Dr. Woolhandler commented:,

Well, that is a horrendous provision in the House bill, which would essentially extend a ban on abortion to private health insurance. In the past, the Hyde Amendment applied only to people who were getting publicly funded care. But in the new bill, any insurance product that’s offered through the exchange has to—

[snip]

… any insurance plan purchased through the exchange would have to exclude coverage of abortion. So, for the first time, Congress has stepped in and said that even with your own money, with private money, it’s illegal for insurance to cover abortion. It’s a tremendous step backwards for women’s rights.

So, not only is it discriminatory to women, it is discriminatory to poor women as opposed to wealthier women who are not dependent on public subsidizing and could afford an out of pocket abortion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_public_plan

As for the public option Richardo Alonso-Zaldivar of AP reports:

"The public option is a significant issue, but its place in the debate is completely out of proportion to its actual importance to consumers," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "It has sucked all the oxygen out of the room and diverted attention from bread-and-butter consumer issues, such as affordable coverage and comprehensive benefits."

[snip]

The latest look at the public option comes from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan economic analysts for lawmakers. It found that the scaled back government plan in the House bill wouldn’t overtake private health insurance. To the contrary, it might help the insurers a little.

[snip]

"The concern was that the public option would destabilize the bulk of private insurance, but in fact what Congress has fashioned is very targeted," said economist Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "It’s not going to be taking away the insurance industry’s core business."

Steffie Woolhandler discusses the downside of the mandatory purchase of health care that will be instituted and create even more massive profits for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

OK. Well, the Massachusetts plan is considered the model for the national legislation. There’s a mandate that makes it illegal to refuse to purchase private health insurance. The fine is up to $1,068. The good thing with the Massachusetts plan was there was a big Medicaid expansion, but you didn’t need to do the mandates in order to do the Medicaid expansion.

Much of the Massachusetts plan has been wildly expensive. According to the state’s report to its bondholders, it’s cost $1.3 billion this year. The state has opted to pay for that by stealing money from safety net clinics and hospitals, so that safety net providers that care for immigrants, the mentally ill, people with substance abuse, that provide primary care, they’ve seen their funds shrunken, so that money could be handed over to purchase insurance policies. Massachusetts now has the highest healthcare costs in the history of the world.

As for the behavior of the Congress persons, they seem to have clearly lost even emotional perspective, both Democrats and Republicans.

After the majority of Democrats compromised so extremely on so much, especially authorizing the Stupak amendment, the positive excitement of the final official “passing” of the bill had an exuberance brought on from the adrenalin high of game playing, not responsible and realistic statesmanship about a sadly flawed and over-compromising bill.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143812/house_of_representatives_passes_health-care_reform_bill_in_historic_vote/

Adele Stan writes, “As the time allotted for voting drew to a close, Democrats, shouting in unison, counted down the final seconds like it was New Year’s Eve.”

As for the undignified “floor shows” provided by the Republicans, Ralph Nader describes it well, especially when Rep. Bruce Braley, D-IA, stood up to speak on medical malpractice:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23942.htm

The House of Representatives debate on the health insurance "reform" is over with the Democrats failing the people and the Republicans disgracing themselves as having left their minds back in the third grade (with apologies to third graders).

[snip]

Rising on the House floor he [Bruce Braley] delivered a factual plea for patient safety. Hardly had he started to speak with Republicans started shouting "trial lawyer, trial lawyer" referring to his previous profession of representing wrongfully injured people before local juries in Iowa. This rare display of shouting by opponents was punctuated by one of their unleashed members rushing down the aisle shouting "You’ll pay for this."

During this overall debate on the bill, Republicans stood up one by one, as prevaricatory dittoheads, to often scream and howl (like coyotes) that this is "a government takeover of one sixth of the economy," "would destroy the economy," "put 5.5 million people out of work," "destroy the doctor-patient relationship," "be a steamroller of socialism," "force millions of seniors to lose their current health coverage" (meaning, Medicare?) and, in a passionate appeal to the Almighty, Congressman John Fleming (R-LA) declared "God help us as the government takes over your day-to-day life."

This seems like a horrifying re-enactment of the Red Scare tactics of McCarthyism so long ago.

Now the bill will have positives that deserve acknowledgement. The pre-existing condition deterrent will be gone. I was stunned to read that pregnancy and domestic abuse were sometimes labeled “pre-existing conditions” (euphemistically buried under another label, “gender-specific” conditions). Thank God, those outrages will be outlawed.

Health care costs make up 16% of the GDP going up to 20% many speculate. Health care with the weak but “kabuki” touted reforms going on now will make health care unsustainable. This is the best the “change” President and Congress can do?

News of the sensitivity, creativity, efficiency and all-inclusiveness of other countries puts the U.S. to shame.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1014/p25s05-usgn.html

Alexandra Marks of Christian Science Monitor reveals:

In Singapore, hospitals publish the cost of every treatment, from hip replacement to dengue fever, so consumers can choose medical options as if they’re buying jeans.

In Germany, people suffering from fatigue or back pain can get a three-week stay at a "wellness" retreat in the mountains – all paid for by health insurance.

In Taiwan, people who go to the hospital swipe a card that gives doctors their basic medical information – one reason the country has among the lowest healthcare administrative costs in the world.

[snip]

One thing that all of the countries with the most successful systems seem to have in common is ensuring that everyone who needs or wants healthcare can get it without going bankrupt. That has proved to be important in not only improving the physical well-being of a country, but also in keeping costs down.

Our Congress and President, lost to the corporate matrix, gridlocked by greed and animosity, sadly have no time for nurturing creative health care reform for us, their apparent CINOs, "constituents in name only".

I believe the new health care bill can be regarded as the proverbial "exiting the frying pan and entering the fire". I believe that we all deserve affordable and humane health care as a human and civil right. I believe and will work to reject the corporate Trojan horse presently being patched together, or, as I say above, a lip-sticked pig of a bill. I will continue to encourage Congress, the President, my fellow citizens to settle for nothing less than a Single Payer Expanded Medicare for All system.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/november/simple_fair_and_af.php

Dr. John A. Day, Jr., explains the sanity, efficiency and justice of a single payer health care system well.

Health insurance would be uncoupled from employment, so that individuals who lost or changed jobs would keep the same coverage, regardless of age, preexisting conditions, or state of residence. No one would be without health insurance, accomplishing in the simplest way possible the overall goal of health reform—improving access to health care for all Americans.

Funding for a single-payer health care system would come from a combination of payroll tax for employers (about 7% of payroll, or less than the amount typically paid for employee health care coverage) and an increase in the federal tax on income (an increment of about 2%, or less than most people currently pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses). Patients would be free to choose any physician or hospital in the country, as opposed to the current system, in which patient choice is frequently limited to providers within the various health plan networks.

Because, under the current system, most employers offer only one or two health plans, it is frequently the case that employers, not patients, in effect determine our choice of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers. Providers of patient care would see significant reductions in paperwork, having to interact with only one health plan instead of the seemingly endless number of plans and subplans with which we now deal.

A single-payer system would also facilitate comprehensive health planning, which could include regional disease management programs, strategies aimed at solving physician shortage issues, collective adoption of a unified electronic medical record, and a cohesive approach to the distribution of innovative health care technologies.

Given the social, clinical, and economic benefits of single-payer health care, the only barrier would seem to be that of political feasibility. Indeed, adoption of a single-payer health care system will be challenging in today’s economic climate and in a country seemingly dedicated to a free-market ideology. Yet many current social programs faced similar political obstacles at the time of adoption, including Social Security and Medicare.