If a REPUBLICAN summited with special interests & hired an advisor who wants to PRIVATIZE MEDICARE--

Faryn Balyncd

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Mar-03-09 11:37 PM
Original message

If a REPUBLICAN summited with special interests & hired an advisor who wants to PRIVATIZE MEDICARE--

If a REPUBLICAN administration had announced a “Healthcare Reform Summit”, inviting representatives of healthcare corporate interests, but simultaneously

(1)snubbing physician and nursing advocates of Single Payer healthcare-for-all, and

(2) hiring a well connected White House adviser who advocates PRIVATIZING MEDICARE

how would we react?

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Do we believe that our Democratic administration is immune to corporate influence?

Where is the outrage over the exclusion of Single Payer advocates from the health summit?

Are Democrats actually aware of the specifics, and consequences, of the well-intentioned, but misguided, voucher plan advocated by “White House advisor” Zeke Emanuel (Rahm’s brother) which would privatize Medicare? (Is there any other honest term for a proposal to eliminate Medicare for future retirees for a private insurance voucher scheme with no "public option"?)

Consequences of Corporate-Friendly “Privatized Medicare”:

Would not a voucher system, in which citizens must purchase private insurance with NO PUBLIC OPTION (no choice to buy-in to Medicare and/or Medicaid), using their own funds in addition to the voucher to purchase “upgraded options”, be the mother of all bailouts FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY?

Have we not learn from our previous experiences with corporate welfare?

. . . When the drug companies were allowed to write a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit that allowed them to markedly increase sales volume, and profits, did we then see drug prices (reflecting economies of scale) come down? )

. . . When we bailed out failed banks, did executives stop giving themselves bonuses? )

. . . When we caved in to the credit card companies, & made bankruptcy more difficult for the non-creditworthy customers (who had been deluged with unsolicited credit card propositions), did the credit card companies then lower their usurious rates?

What do we think will happen to the price of insurance policies once vouchers have been decreed & insurance purchase mandated?

. . . . . . . . . .

We spend twice the % of GDP on Medicine, and 2-3 times the “administrative costs” as other industrial nations, while simultaneously leaving millions uninsured even as we hobble American industry with medical insurance costs which make them non-competitive.

Our insurance industry has utterly failed to control costs, all the while extracting a 31% “administrative” cut. (And this is what private insurers have done while attempting to avoiding insuring those with pre-existing & other high risk condition.)

Despite the federal government’s struggles with Medicare & Medicaid costs, these federal programs have been our single greatest RESTRAINING force on excessive medical prices, all-the-while (over 4 decades & counting) delivering care to previously underserved populations.

(This restraining effect is illustrated by insurance companies use if the “allowable Medicare price” as the BASIS FOR THEIR NEGOTIATIONS with hospitals & other providers.)

. . . . . . . . . .

Do we not now need a SINGLE PAYER system which preserves & expands Medicare, and which taps the wasteful 31% "administrative" cut now going to insurance companies, & re-directs those funds into actual healthcare services?

The Response of Future (perhaps right wing) Administrations to Insurance Price Increases (in a Post-Medicare World} :

As proposed, the well intentioned & misguided Emanuel/Fuchs GHAP (Guaranteed HealthCare Access Plan) is envisioned as involving voucher which would cover basic defined services with the option of additionally purchasing various (more expensive) options.

How will a private voucher differ from Medicare?

Under Medicare, the retiree’s financial obligations are limited to his deductibles, which are known. The political hazards associated to politicians considering reneging on Medicare obligations affords retirees a measure of stability.

In contrast is the utter ease with which such a privatized, voucher based system could be transformed by a future Republican administration into a system in which the voucher only covered a portion (or even a small portion) of the price of even the most basic insurance coverage.

Once Medicare is privatized, all that would be required for such a transformation would be for a right wing administration (or Congress) to keep the vouched funds constant in the face of rising insurance prices.

Once Medicare is privatized, and replaced with a (well meaning) voucher system (in which the retiree must purchase a private policy using the voucher supplemented by his own funds {for “upgrades”, etc}, how would a hypothetical future right wing administration/Congress respond to higher prices by insurance companies?

Would a right wing Congress and/or the administration readily adjust voucher funds to meet higher prices?

. . . . . . . . . .

Today, under Medicare (or any Single Payer system), the federal government must deal with increased medical prices through negotiations, politics and/or regulations.

In a post-Medicare world, by writing vouchers the government would pass the burden of negotiation to individual retirees.

Could there be a greater power mismatch than retirees negotiating with insurance corporations (corporations that will then possess the ultimate trump card - - - the fact that consumers are ultimately required to purchase one of their policies, regardless of price)?

If a future Congress/administration does not increase voucher funding to meet rising insurance prices, what will prevent insurance prices from consuming a major portion (or more) of a retiree’s Social Security (or other) pension?

. . . . . . . . . .

How ironic is it that a right wing Republican administration would have NEVER have had the political capital to privatize Medicare, but if Democrats actually privatize/"voucherize" Medicare for them, a future Republican majority could easily destroy the value of those vouchers incrementally through inflation and inaction.

. . . . . . . . . .

Do we really want to build such a post-Medicare world?

Is a plan containing NO PUBLIC OPTION (as proposed by White House advisor Zeke Emanuel, Rahm’s brother) your idea of healthcare “reform”?

There are many intelligent voices proposing real healthcare reform.

The Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), and the California Nurses Association(CNA) are strong advocates within the house of medicine for Single Payer Healthcare-for-All (sometimes called “Medicare for All”)

But unlike the insurance corporations, PNCP and CNA are NOT EVEN INVITED to the health summit.

And Howard Dean has spoken unequivocally regarding the necessity for PRESERVING a PUBLIC OPTION:

Howard Dean: Real Health Reform ‘Rises And Falls On Whether The Public Is Allowed To Choose Medicare’

"If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform. If they’re not, we will be back fighting about it for another 20 years before somebody tries again."

- Dr. Howard Dean

But instead of heeding Howard Dean, we now have a “summit” packed with special interests, and a “White House advisor” (who happens to be the brother of the White House Chief-of-Staff) whose idea of healthcare “reform” is to PRIVATIZE MEDICARE.

Is it time our President heard from us?

Did we send him to the White House to take or the special interests, or to remake the healthcare system to their liking?

Does not America now need Single Payer Healthcare-for-All?

Will we stand for a mandated voucher-based insurance scheme that excludes public options?

:kick: