By Stan Gold
December 18, 2009
In response to Howard Dean’s Washington Post article condemning the Senate healthcare bill
Alas, Howard Dean’s observations, analysis, and righteous indignation come too late. Dean, himself, must shoulder some of the responsibility for the dreadful fiasco that is being played out by Democrats in the U.S. Senate. About a year ago Howard Dean turned his back on an opportunity to voice support for Congressman John Conyers’ bill, HR-676, single payer healthcare. Standing with Dean in opposition to HR-676 were MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, other “progressive” organizations, and President Barack Obama.
Never mind that HR-676 already had close to 90 co-sponsors in the House. Never mind that all polls showed that Americans were overwhelmingly ready to support a government health program. Never mind that every major labor union (AFL-CIO, Steelworkers, etc), Progressive Democrats of America, Physicians for a National Health Plan, the California Nurses Association, and thousands of faith based and community groups supported HR-676. These people were Obama’s “core”!
Because of the nature of the Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, the dismal lack of Democratic political leadership in both Houses of Congress, and the massive leadership failure of the most articulate President ever elected, — here we are. It did not have to be this way!
HR-676 would not have passed. BUT, leading a hard fight for HR-676 would have allowed Democrats the space to fall back to a “compromise” position, — a “robust” public option. Instead, Barack Obama did what Hillary Clinton did. He led with a flawed compromise. The fall-back position (Plan B) didn’t exist. He went from opposing single payer healthcare to a Senate bill that guarantees insurance rate increases. The current Senate bill should be aptly titled, the “Insurance Corporations Guaranteed Profits Act of 2009”.
Democrats?? Ya gotta be kidding.
For a better tomorrow,
— Stan Gold
Stan Gold is a long-time activist for Single Payer universal healthcare and is on the Steering Committee of Progressive Democrats Sonoma County
__________
Health-care bill needs major improvement to be worth passing
By Governor Howard Dean, M.D. for the Washington Post – December 17, 2009
If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers’ monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.
Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries — in the range of $20 million a year — and on return on equity for the company’s shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.
From the very beginning of this debate, progressives have argued that a public option or a Medicare buy-in would restore competition and hold the private health insurance industry accountable. Progressives understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend their money. Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. Your money goes to insurers, whether or not you want it to.
To be clear, I’m not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government’s contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents’ health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.
Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers’ salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.
In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.
I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont we have accomplished universal health care for children under 18 and real insurance reform — which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people.
I know health reform when I see it, and there isn’t much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.
