Support the National Health Insurance Act (HR 676)!
By Jamie York
When Bill Clinton was in his first term as president in 1992, he vowed to revamp the health care system in the United States. He held up a single insurance card and said that under his plan every American would have one of those cards. It was to be the only insurance card a person would need because Clinton was advocating a single payer health care system and every American was to be covered. In addition, that card was to be imbedded with a memory chip that would hold all of one's medical records, including medical history, test results, digital XRAYs, Pet Scans, MRIs, dental and optometrist records -- anything that pertains to one's well being. Present your card to a health care provider and you will be taken care of. No other insurance needed.
Clinton's plan immediately drew intense fire from the multi-billion-dollar insurance industry, so, rather than stick up for single payer as rational and viable, he backed down with his tail between his legs and asked Hillary to work with the insurance industry and come up with a new plan. Of course, this secret new plan, conceived behind closed doors in consultation with insurance industry tycoons, soon became known as "managed care." Hillary's managed care plan is really nothing more than an ineffective cost-containment plan and has nothing to do with providing quality health care coverage for every American. There are still more than 33 million Americans without any coverage whatsoever and the quality of health care in 2009 is even worse than it was when Clinton first became president.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and Al Gore talked about the cost of prescription drugs for seniors, but neither candidate dared to mention a single payer health care system and no reporters stepped up to challenge them about it. Clinton made a lot of enemies when he held up that single payer card and his administration never fully recovered from it. Similarly, in 2008, as Barack Obama was running for president, he initially said he supported single payer health care, then began talking about health care “reform,” which is a code word for same-old same-old. In a March 26, 2009, town hall meeting, Obama said that he wanted to reform the system that is already in place. Like Bill Clinton, Obama cried “uncle” on single payer.
When I think of the insurance industry, I think about a Mafioso requiring small business owners to pay them protection money in order to gain immunity from violence. What is the difference between paying the Mafia for protection from violence and paying an insurance company for protection from illness? The only difference I can see is that the Mafia are regarded as criminals and their activities are illegal while insurance companies operate freely as legitimate businesses and their activities have become accepted.
Today, we are expected to pay for protection against illness, motor vehicle accidents, fire, flood, theft -- you name it and some insurance Mafioso will accept your money for protection against it. If, after buying food and paying our bills and taxes, we cannot afford to pay for such protection, then we could be denied emergency health care services or we could be left literally with nothing but the clothes on our backs. To me, the idea of paying the insurance mafia for health care protection is particularly unnerving because I believe that food, shelter, health care and education are essential for human survival and should be considered birthrights, not simple privileges for those who can afford them. For most people, there is little left after we pay our monthly bills, yet insurance premiums keep going up. The premiums I paid to my former health care HMO -- Kaiser Permanente -- doubled during the Clinton administration, so I then dropped Kaiser for a Prudential plan that had cheaper premiums but required more out-of-pocket payments in case of illness. As long as I didn't get sick and have to pay high out-of-pocket expenses, I could pay the monthly premiums. After changing jobs, however, I was without insurance coverage for nearly a year, then I enrolled in an employer's Blue Cross plan with a very high deductible, but I soon received a letter informing me that because I hadn't had continuous insurance coverage they would not pay for any pre-existing conditions until I had been enrolled in their plan for one year. It was an important reminder to me that insurance companies are in business to maximize their profits.
While I am in favor of a health care system that is free from the cradle to the grave, I also realize that in a capitalist economy, health care is not a birthright but is a privilege under the terms of the free market. Pay the insurance mafia or do without. Proponents of the current health care marketplace argue that a "socialized" health care system will somehow take away their freedom of choice regarding which doctors they see and which treatments are offered. But under managed care, as more physician practices are gobbled up by corporate chains, it is nearly impossible for many patients to see the doctor of their choice and the treatment options for most standard procedures are often dictated by the chain, not by the doctor. How many of us have heard the familiar mantra: "I'm sorry, Dr. Jones is not available on those days, but I can get you in to see Dr. Smith in two weeks." Under single payer, the doctor-patient relationship will come first, as it should. Hospitals are also hiring their own staff of doctors -- called "hospitalists" -- and are excluding many local family doctors from having hospital privileges. If you have to be admitted to the hospital, your own doctor may not be able to see you there and the hospitalist may not order the tests you need in order to save money for the hospital.
A single-payer health care bill now before Congress is HR 676. This bill, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), would give every American expanded Medicare coverage that would also include eye care, dental and long-term health care. A federally-regulated single payer health care system will not be a free system -- we will be taxed for it -- but it will provide efficient, streamlined health care for all Americans by eliminating the profit-taking and high administrative costs of the mafia system. It will save billions of dollars. Of course, the insurance mafia and their supporters in Congress and in the media will go to great lengths to scare the public away from single payer. They will scream “socialism!” They will wave the flag and argue that privatization equals free choice while single payer equals a return to "big government." The truth, however, is that in the current private system -- the mafia system -- 35 percent of health care costs are administrative. These administrative costs include marketing, insurance company profits, CEO salaries, pre-authorization panels and billing clerks. When a doctor orders a test on a patient -- a CT or PET scan, for example -- the cost of the procedure is inflated to pay these high administrative costs. Single payer will help to streamline the health care system by eliminating the administrative "middle man" from the doctor-patient relationship; as a result, the cost of exams will be lower and doctors will be free to practice medicine without bureaucratic interference from the insurance mafia.
It is time to end the reign of the insurance mafia and put single payer on the national agenda. The mainstream politicians and the collaborative "lapdog" media are not going to bring up the issue of single payer, so it's up to the public to support HR 676 and tell their representatives to back it also.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Holding Obama's feet to the fire
By Jamie York
Before 9/11, George W. Bush was not a popular president and he received much criticism early in his presidency. After 9/11, when the nation was trying to rebound emotionally from this tragedy, Bush’s approval rating went up. Why? After 9/11, the mass media did not challenge him on his facts and allowed him free range to pursue his agenda -- a permanent “war on terrorism,” the occupation of Iraq, approving torture, secret CIA prisons, an end to habeas corpus, and widespread spying on Americans. Criticism of Bush was viewed by the media brass as being unpatriotic and dissenting opinions thus received little air time. Red, white and blue banners decorated the screens of the 24-hour cable news networks and the news anchors wore their shiny new American flag lapel pins. The only “debate” on the news was between the right and the far-right.
Today, President Obama has reversed some Bush policies. Obama has issued executive orders to close the Guantanamo gulag, ban torture, grant more access to federal documents under the Freedom of Information Act, freeze pay for White House staff, provide for more openness in government, and to end the abortion “gag rule.” Most of the debate today centers around Obama’s economic stimulus plan and bank bailouts. Although a central theme in the Obama campaign was to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, the economy is the main focus right now, yet Obama also announced a troop increase in Afghanistan.
Writing directly to our representatives and to the president is one way to make our views known, but that does not hold the president’s feet to the fire. To do that, we must hold the electronic media’s feet to the fire and demand that they present a wide range of views. Write to the cable news networks that set the tone for national and international news. Try blogging and micro-blogging on social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace to help bring democracy to the media. We can even -- if we are bold enough -- record a video editorial from our home computers and post it on YouTube. Remember, the Executive Branch is supposed to be equal to the Legislative and Judicial branches. Bush basically turned the presidency into a kingdom and we can take some solace in that fact that Obama has at least dealt with some of the more troubling dirty deeds of the Bush administration. But there is much more work to be done….
Before 9/11, George W. Bush was not a popular president and he received much criticism early in his presidency. After 9/11, when the nation was trying to rebound emotionally from this tragedy, Bush’s approval rating went up. Why? After 9/11, the mass media did not challenge him on his facts and allowed him free range to pursue his agenda -- a permanent “war on terrorism,” the occupation of Iraq, approving torture, secret CIA prisons, an end to habeas corpus, and widespread spying on Americans. Criticism of Bush was viewed by the media brass as being unpatriotic and dissenting opinions thus received little air time. Red, white and blue banners decorated the screens of the 24-hour cable news networks and the news anchors wore their shiny new American flag lapel pins. The only “debate” on the news was between the right and the far-right.
Today, President Obama has reversed some Bush policies. Obama has issued executive orders to close the Guantanamo gulag, ban torture, grant more access to federal documents under the Freedom of Information Act, freeze pay for White House staff, provide for more openness in government, and to end the abortion “gag rule.” Most of the debate today centers around Obama’s economic stimulus plan and bank bailouts. Although a central theme in the Obama campaign was to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, the economy is the main focus right now, yet Obama also announced a troop increase in Afghanistan.
Writing directly to our representatives and to the president is one way to make our views known, but that does not hold the president’s feet to the fire. To do that, we must hold the electronic media’s feet to the fire and demand that they present a wide range of views. Write to the cable news networks that set the tone for national and international news. Try blogging and micro-blogging on social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace to help bring democracy to the media. We can even -- if we are bold enough -- record a video editorial from our home computers and post it on YouTube. Remember, the Executive Branch is supposed to be equal to the Legislative and Judicial branches. Bush basically turned the presidency into a kingdom and we can take some solace in that fact that Obama has at least dealt with some of the more troubling dirty deeds of the Bush administration. But there is much more work to be done….
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
What would Joe the Plumber say?
Satire by Jamie York
[Reporter interviews southern senator]
Reporter: What would Joe the Plumber say about President Obama's stimulus plan?
Senator: Well, obviously, Joe the Plumber would say that reducing the amount of federal withholding from everyone’s paycheck is socialism.
Reporter: Socialism? Isn’t the goal to put more cash in people's pockets, to encourage spending and thus help the ailing economy?
Senator: Republicans would have the economy running smoothly if we were in charge, if it were not for the Democrats and their obstructionist ways. They are the ones distracting us right now with their talk about Rush Limbaugh running the Republican Party. They are slowing down any hope of economic recovery. I’m stuffing all of my extra cash into my mattress for the day when Obama’s stimulus plan fails and the economy tanks.
Reporter: Senator, aren’t you over-reacting? Joe the Plumber won’t get hisplumbing, country music star, reporting, book writing, union busting career started if the economy tanks. Wouldn’t he want Obama’s plan to succeed?
Senator: Of course Joe wants the economy to succeed. He knows we are the greatest nation in the world. But Joe would not want the Democratic stimulus to work if it means giving away free money to everyone. He would say we need to increase the Bush tax cuts. If businesses have more money, they will expand and hire more workers.
Reporter: That is classic Reaganomics, but how will the benefits trickle-down fast enough to help people right now? Remember, the economy was in shambles when Obama became president. Besides, the big banks, automakers, and insurance companies are also failing from many years of bad lending practices, inefficient operations, and greed.
Senator: I hate to say it, but we may need to nationalize the banks.
Reporter: Isn’t that socialism?
Senator: Not when we do it; only when other nations do it.
Reporter: What would Joe the Plumber say about that?
[Reporter interviews southern senator]
Reporter: What would Joe the Plumber say about President Obama's stimulus plan?
Senator: Well, obviously, Joe the Plumber would say that reducing the amount of federal withholding from everyone’s paycheck is socialism.
Reporter: Socialism? Isn’t the goal to put more cash in people's pockets, to encourage spending and thus help the ailing economy?
Senator: Republicans would have the economy running smoothly if we were in charge, if it were not for the Democrats and their obstructionist ways. They are the ones distracting us right now with their talk about Rush Limbaugh running the Republican Party. They are slowing down any hope of economic recovery. I’m stuffing all of my extra cash into my mattress for the day when Obama’s stimulus plan fails and the economy tanks.
Reporter: Senator, aren’t you over-reacting? Joe the Plumber won’t get his
Senator: Of course Joe wants the economy to succeed. He knows we are the greatest nation in the world. But Joe would not want the Democratic stimulus to work if it means giving away free money to everyone. He would say we need to increase the Bush tax cuts. If businesses have more money, they will expand and hire more workers.
Reporter: That is classic Reaganomics, but how will the benefits trickle-down fast enough to help people right now? Remember, the economy was in shambles when Obama became president. Besides, the big banks, automakers, and insurance companies are also failing from many years of bad lending practices, inefficient operations, and greed.
Senator: I hate to say it, but we may need to nationalize the banks.
Reporter: Isn’t that socialism?
Senator: Not when we do it; only when other nations do it.
Reporter: What would Joe the Plumber say about that?
What is low-power radio?
By Jamie York
Sadly, we have become a nation where all the news, information and music we get is controlled by a handful of giant monopoly media corporations. The owners want to give us advertising, crime shows, sports, sitcoms and game shows on television, not substantive news. Not U.S. news that shows the reality of how our homeless, our unemployed, our low-paid laborers, our service workers, and our migrant farm workers are really living. Not in-depth international news that helps us understand how the citizens of other cultures and nations are really living. No, the first we hear of conflicts is when there has been an infrequent terrorist attack or someone, somewhere infringes upon U.S. business interests.
From corporate FM and AM radio, we often get formatted cookie-cutter music and news headlines, but nothing more unless it is conservative-dominated talk-radio shows or sports. Very little news from our local communities and neighborhoods is on the radio anymore. There might be a local weather forecast, a national and local news story update, sports scores, and maybe a headline about an accident or death.
And satellite radio equally sucks, but it doesn’t have to. It sucks right now because it is totally market-driven for private profit, not community-driven and not need-driven. Satellite radio has the same compartmentalized format music designed to capture the interest of specific audiences and does not venture beyond this. There is no local content and our neighborhoods and communities are not part of satellite radio, so the news is nothing more than the usual suspects — Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and a host of talk-radio entertainers. I am all for new technologies and open internet, but these technologies must address the needs of all citizens and diverse socio-economic groups in a very real way. Remember, more than half of U.S. citizens do not even vote and the reason for this is that they are systematically disenfranchised by the media.
We all get plenty of sensationalized news – like OJ, Princess Di, Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, and octo-mom Nadya Suleman — that actually dominate all other national and international news for weeks and months. We all receive a constant barrage of content repetition and sameness from the media, which makes it very easy to manipulate public opinion. For example, when the the media leave out anti-war views and marginalize protesters as unpatriotic “wackos,” “fringe groups” and “anarchists,” it is easy for the media to to fall in line with the views of military contractors, oil companies and government officials without fairly representing other views. It is easy for them to launch a PR campaign to discredit the Dixie Chicks for speaking out; it is easy for Clear Channel to get a few country music fans all riled up over an issue of free expression and have the TV cameras there to show the record-burning. Many people, including the so-called “NASCAR dads” that they think they have so much control over, were against Bush’s Iraq war at the beginning, but when you are told over and over that you are supposed to think a certain way, then that is the way you will begin thinking. But the airwaves belong to the public and we have every right to take them back and use them in ways that improve our lives. Beware though, because they want to begin carving up and controlling the internet, which is probably all we have left of the dream of democracy.
Low-power FM stations, which are regulated by the FCC, can help democratize radio and return us to the days of radio diversity. With low-power FM, community groups, churches and others would be able to provide content to listeners in a limited area — from about one to five miles. There would be more local stations to choose from for local news, community information, local music, event coverage, call-ins, and so on — content that the corporate cookie-cutters do not provide.
One bill now before Congress is the Free Radio Act, HR1147, which would permit more licensing of low-power FM radio stations. It would bring thousands of new stations into communities all over the country, thereby helping to stimulate the economy. Sign a letter to your congressperson at Free Press.
Sadly, we have become a nation where all the news, information and music we get is controlled by a handful of giant monopoly media corporations. The owners want to give us advertising, crime shows, sports, sitcoms and game shows on television, not substantive news. Not U.S. news that shows the reality of how our homeless, our unemployed, our low-paid laborers, our service workers, and our migrant farm workers are really living. Not in-depth international news that helps us understand how the citizens of other cultures and nations are really living. No, the first we hear of conflicts is when there has been an infrequent terrorist attack or someone, somewhere infringes upon U.S. business interests.
From corporate FM and AM radio, we often get formatted cookie-cutter music and news headlines, but nothing more unless it is conservative-dominated talk-radio shows or sports. Very little news from our local communities and neighborhoods is on the radio anymore. There might be a local weather forecast, a national and local news story update, sports scores, and maybe a headline about an accident or death.
And satellite radio equally sucks, but it doesn’t have to. It sucks right now because it is totally market-driven for private profit, not community-driven and not need-driven. Satellite radio has the same compartmentalized format music designed to capture the interest of specific audiences and does not venture beyond this. There is no local content and our neighborhoods and communities are not part of satellite radio, so the news is nothing more than the usual suspects — Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and a host of talk-radio entertainers. I am all for new technologies and open internet, but these technologies must address the needs of all citizens and diverse socio-economic groups in a very real way. Remember, more than half of U.S. citizens do not even vote and the reason for this is that they are systematically disenfranchised by the media.
We all get plenty of sensationalized news – like OJ, Princess Di, Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, and octo-mom Nadya Suleman — that actually dominate all other national and international news for weeks and months. We all receive a constant barrage of content repetition and sameness from the media, which makes it very easy to manipulate public opinion. For example, when the the media leave out anti-war views and marginalize protesters as unpatriotic “wackos,” “fringe groups” and “anarchists,” it is easy for the media to to fall in line with the views of military contractors, oil companies and government officials without fairly representing other views. It is easy for them to launch a PR campaign to discredit the Dixie Chicks for speaking out; it is easy for Clear Channel to get a few country music fans all riled up over an issue of free expression and have the TV cameras there to show the record-burning. Many people, including the so-called “NASCAR dads” that they think they have so much control over, were against Bush’s Iraq war at the beginning, but when you are told over and over that you are supposed to think a certain way, then that is the way you will begin thinking. But the airwaves belong to the public and we have every right to take them back and use them in ways that improve our lives. Beware though, because they want to begin carving up and controlling the internet, which is probably all we have left of the dream of democracy.
Low-power FM stations, which are regulated by the FCC, can help democratize radio and return us to the days of radio diversity. With low-power FM, community groups, churches and others would be able to provide content to listeners in a limited area — from about one to five miles. There would be more local stations to choose from for local news, community information, local music, event coverage, call-ins, and so on — content that the corporate cookie-cutters do not provide.
One bill now before Congress is the Free Radio Act, HR1147, which would permit more licensing of low-power FM radio stations. It would bring thousands of new stations into communities all over the country, thereby helping to stimulate the economy. Sign a letter to your congressperson at Free Press.
For Hope
By Jamie York
A man shot himself at the Shell station yesterday,
trading his blood for oil,
for a helicopter ride to the hospital,
for hope.
“Were there any warning signs?” a reporter asked,
and I remembered a Vietnam veteran
sleeping on a steam grate in front of the FBI building,
too tired to pull the trigger.
Some do and some don’t,
yet gas prices and hopelessness are rising daily.
“The warning signs are everywhere,” a witness answered.
“Why don’t you report on the world as it REALLY is?”
And all I could hope for was that someone would miss him.
A man shot himself at the Shell station yesterday,
trading his blood for oil,
for a helicopter ride to the hospital,
for hope.
“Were there any warning signs?” a reporter asked,
and I remembered a Vietnam veteran
sleeping on a steam grate in front of the FBI building,
too tired to pull the trigger.
Some do and some don’t,
yet gas prices and hopelessness are rising daily.
“The warning signs are everywhere,” a witness answered.
“Why don’t you report on the world as it REALLY is?”
And all I could hope for was that someone would miss him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)