Obama says single-payer health care not practical http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hITfom2rwHxvzXH9fMrN4pOUGrqQD98652CG1
RIO RANCHO, N.M. (AP) - President Barack Obama says if he were building the health care system from scratch, a single-payer system would be the best approach. But he says his goal is to improve the current system. Responding to a question at a town hall-style meeting in New Mexico on Thursday, Obama said he expects a plan from Congress by the August recess that will be a "vast improvement" over the current system. Obama was asked why a "single payer" plan--where the government makes payments directly to medical care providers--isn't on the table. He said the nation has a tradition of employer-based health care using private insurance companies, and that a lot of people [i.e., some mammoth corporate interests--MCM] are satisfied with it. Congressional leaders have said a single-payer plan is politically impractical. Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. <http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hITfom2rwHxvzXH9fMrN4pOUGrqQD98652CG1> >From Jerry Policoff: The video of the following exchange is on-line at <http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/politicaltruths/2009/05/president-obama-on-single-paye.php?ref=reccafe>http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/politicaltruths/2009/05/president-obama-on-single-paye.php?ref=reccafe), and I took the time to transcribe it: May 14, 2009 Town Hall meeting at Rio Rancho New Mexico Question: My name is Linda Allyson... My question is, so many people go bankrupt using their credit cards to pay for healthcare. Why have they taken single-payer off the plate (applause), and why is Senator Baucus on the Finance Committee discussing health care when he has received so much money from the pharmaceutical companies? Isn't it a conflict of interest? (more applause) Barack Obama: Healthcare is one-sixth of our economy, so it is a complicated and difficult task. Congress is going to have to work hard, and everybody is going to have to come at this with a practical perspective as opposed to being ideologically pure in getting it done... Why not do a single-payer system? ... A single-payer system is like, medicare is sort of a single-payer system, but it's only for people over 65, and the way it works is, uh, the idea is you don't have insurance companies as middle men. The government goes directly and pays doctors or nurses. If I were starting a system from scratch then I think that the idea of moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer-based healthcare. And, although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is that the vast majority of people currently get health care from their employers, and you've got this system that's already in place. We don't want a huge disruption as we go into healthcare reform where suddenly we're trying to completely re-invent one-sixth of the economy. So what I've said is, let's set up a system where, uh, if you already have healthcare through your employer and you're happy with it, you don't have to change doctors. You don't have to change plans. Nothing changes. If you don't have healthcare, or you're highly unsatisfied with your healthcare, then Let's give you choices. Let's give you options, including a public plan that you can enroll in and sign up for. That's been my proposal. Now, obviously as president I've got to work with Congress to get this done. And, ha ha ha. There are folks in Congress who are doing terrific work. They're working hard. They've been having a series of hearings. Uh, I'm confident that both the House and the Senate are going to produce a bill before the August recess. And, it may not have everything I want in there or everything you want in there, but it will be a vast improvement over what we currently have. We'll then have to reconcile the two bills, but I'm confident that we are going to get healthcare reform this year, and start putting us on a path that's sustainable over the long term. That's a commitment I made during the campaign, and I intend to keep it. I have multiple problems with Obama's response to this question. First of all, it is clear that he understands what single-payer is, and given his assertion that it would be the way to go if we were starting from scratch, clearly he realizes that it is the best system, otherwise why choose it over other systems if one were starting from scratch. Given this information the rest of his response is rather disingenuous on several levels. He suggests that it would be too disruptive to dismantle the "employer-based healthcare" system, yet this system is a total failure. The fact that employers bear much of the cost of healthcare in this country puts us at a major disadvantage in international trade because employers in other countries do not bear this substantial cost. The cost of healthcare to U.S. business is responsible for much of the out-sourcing that has cost our economy millions of jobs, and has resulted in much of our car manufacturing fleeing across the border to factories in Canada. More and more businesses are cutting back healthcare benefits or dropping them entirely, or passing on more of the cost burden to employees because the cost is getting more and more difficult for them to bear. The current world financial crisis is also costing millions of Americans to lose their health insurance when they lose their jobs. This is a uniquely American phenomenon because the rest of the industrialized world has universal healthcare, so the loss of a job in those countries does not carry with it the additional burden of the loss of healthcare (and recent studies suggest that the stress that accompanies the loss of a job can often bring on additional health problems). Barack Obama knows all of this, so when he suggests that it would be disruptive to dismantle our employer-based system, he surely realizes that most employers would gladly be relieved of this burden, as would many Americans trapped in a job they hate but are unable to leave for fear of losing their insurance. President Obama makes a point to say that healthcare costs represent one-sixth of our economy. What he does not say, but surely knows is that this is about double what other countries with universal not-for-profit healthcare and bulk-purchasing of pharmaceuticals pay for their healthcare systems. What possible justification is there to preserve a system that costs so much and leaves tens of millions of people without coverage? The reason is that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions, and greedy politicians like Max Baucus have become quite comfortable feeding off of that cash cow. Max Baucus, of course, has wonderful health coverage thanks to the generous benefits bestowed upon him for life by the United States Senate. This doubtless explains why he can smugly laugh while calling for police to arrest healthcare professionals advocating single-payer healthcare, but whom he has denied a seat at his "reform" table (a table we all pay for through our taxes). Also consider how much all of this lobbying and legal bribery in the form of campaign contributions adds to your insurance premiums, because ultimately that is where this money comes from. Finally, President Obama suggests that it would be unfair to deprive people of their current healthcare if they are satisfied with it, and he suggests that moving to a single-payer system might force people to "change plans" and/or "change doctors." Let's unmask this rhetoric for what it is: pure disinformation and fear-mongering using talking points developed by the PR agents of the for-profit healthcare industry. It is that industry that rations healthcare by denying medical procedures, and it is that industry that comes between the doctor-patient relationship when they block doctors from using their own best judgment regarding what treatments to recommend or what medications to prescribe. It is also the insurance companies and HMO's that restrict free choice by limiting members to restricted networks and denying or restricting compensation to people who are treated outside that network. (I am reminded of the daughter of an acquaintance who was in a serious car accident. Her car went through a guard rail and slid into a ravine where she lay untreated for several days before being discovered. She was transported, unconscious, to a hospital by an emergency medi-vac helicopter and was billed about $200,000 - which the insurance company refused to pay because they had not approved that out-of-network transport in advance. This is not uncommon. A similar occurrence was documented in "SiCKO."). The new talking point we are hearing from Barack Obama and others who want to preserve our dysfunctional healthcare system is that people who are happy with their current insurance coverage should be allowed to keep it. The only problem with this seemingly common sense approach is that most people are happy with their current coverage because they have never had a situation that tested it. Michael Moore's "SiCKO" was all about people who were happy with their insurance coverage until they got sick and were hung out to dry by their insurance company. How many people who are currently "happy" with their health insurance would balk at dropping it if they knew they could go to the doctor of their choice, would no longer have to deal with co-pays or deductibles, or the cost of pharmaceuticals, and would, in all likelihood, end up paying less for their new, improved coverage which would also restore the exclusive doctor-patient relationship that their for-profit insurance company had previously interfered with? Why should we consider that we are doing people a favor by letting them keep the coverage they are "happy" with, if down the road that decision may lead to losing their homes or forcing them into bankruptcy when their insurance fails to cover the cost of catastrophic illness in their family? Let's face it, Max Baucus is intent upon letting the AHIP (American Health Insurance Providers, the PR arm of the health insurance industry) foxes continue to guard the chicken coop, in all likelihood further enriching them by forcing all Americans to buy insurance policies while extracting precious little from the insurance companies in return. Barack Obama, unfortunately, is enabling Max Baucus in this endeavor, and it is high time that we let him know that we are onto him. This President has approval ratings in the mid-60's. With a bully pulpit like that he could force Congress to enact meaningful healthcare reform. He could mobilize the nation to demand it. Obviously he will not do that unless we make him realize that his present course could mar his legacy and limit him to a one-term presidency. It would seem that the ball is in our court. Jerry Policoff --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's "News From Underground" newsgroup. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [email protected] OR go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
