Why the Current Bills Don't Solve Our Health Care Crisis by Rose Ann DeMoro & Michael Moore

[Better Believe It]

Why the Current Bills Don't Solve Our Health Care Crisis
by Rose Ann DeMoro & Michael Moore
Rose Ann DeMoro is executive director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.
Michael Moore is an activist, author, and filmmaker.
September 29, 2009

Now we know why they've stopped calling this health care reform, and started calling it insurance reform. The current bills advancing in Congress look more like rearranging the deck chairs on the insurance Titanic than actually ending our long health care nightmare.

Some laudable elements are in various versions of the bills, especially expanding Medicaid, cutting the private insurance-padding waste of Medicare Advantage, and limiting the ability of the insurance giants to ban and dump people who have been or who ever will be sick.

But, overall, the leading bills and the President's proposal are, like the dog that didn't bark, more notable for what is missing.

Here are 13 problems with the current health care bills (partial list):

Read the list and complete article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/29-0

[Autumn]

1. Actually it is insurance FINANCE reform

good article. That seems to be a pretty good site.

[Dawgs]

2. Agree with the article, but I still feel that CURRENT BILLS are a good start.

Many of the items in the list can be tackled later.

[ProSense]

3. The 13 problems are addressed in these PDFs

Controlling Health Care Costs

Public Health Insurance Option

Consumer Protections and Insurance Market Reforms

Delivery System Reform

Protecting Program Integrity by Preventing Waste, Fraud and Abuse

Guaranteed Benefits

Strengthening Medicare

Improving the Medicare Part D Drug Program

Maintaining and Improving Medicaid


Take the time to read them.

[eridani]

10. There is no mention of any cost control of insurance premiums whatsoever

Why not just call the mandated private insurance "Obliterating most of the discretionary income of 3/4 of Americans to feed the useless shitstain private insurers."

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Problems with that list...

It's a nice wishlist, but right off the bat I can't see why implementation in 2013 is a problem. Sure, everyone would like to see thjings changed tomorrow, but it's a 2 trillion dollar system dealing with millions of people that has to be reorganized.

And, what's this about cost cutting? Has anyone compared Medicare and commercial insurance company payment structures aside from complaining about what's not paid for? There has been no public debate about just what SHOULD be paid for-- just because it's possible to treat cancer for $50,000 a year and have less than a 5% chance of recovery, should everyone with that cancer get that treatment?

[Better Believe It]

5. The answer to your question is yes!

You wrote: " just because it's possible to treat cancer for $50,000 a year and have less than a 5% chance of recovery, should everyone with that cancer get that treatment?"

Yes!

Everyone should have access to that treatment.

Would you deny your child, spouse or other loved one that treatment even if you had the money because it costs to much?

Why should only the rich who can pay cash for their health needs have that treatment?

We have a class based and class biased health care system. Medicare for All can change that.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Wow! So, where's the money coming from for all...

this healthcare everyone needs, wants, and deserves? Would reducing the chances of recovery to 2% mean you still deserve the treatment? 1%? Would the $200,000 courses of treatment also be available to anyone who asks or is there a limit somewhere, somehow on this?

No glib answers about where we'll save the money somewhere else, please. Just a reasonable idea where the it all will come from.

We spend well over 2 trillion a year now and vastly expanding these expensive and largely nonproductive treatments could double that. Or worse.

[Better Believe It]

7. Are you rich? From you! Seriously ....

if you haven't done any research on how Medicare for All would be funded you need to visit "single payer" websites.

Do you think most people, except the rich, in other advanced capitalist nations like Canada forego cancer treatments because they cost too much?

Your claim that just making cancer treatments available to all would cost more than 2 trillion dollars a year is outrageous bull shit, to say the least.

Do you have a credible link for that statistic or are you carrying water for the insurance and health care industry?

Are your numbers on $50,000 and $200,000 cancer treatments also made up bull shit?

[TreasonousBastard]

8. I've seen them and they all say the same thing...

"No Problem."

What they don't say, and what you would know if you read something other than single-payer advocacy, is that things like childbirth, dialysis and cancer treatments don't cost nearly as much in other countries as they do here. And, no, many of the incredibly expensive heroic treatments we have here are not available in all other countries, if any.

Is this credible enough? It's only a newspaper article, but it does quote Sloan-Kettering people

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-10-cancer-costs_x.htm
Note the $10,000 a month drug in the sidebar. And that's just the one drug, not the other care, surgeries and whatever else might be involved with that cancer.

How about this?

http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=75&coid=726&mid=

In this one, Medicare payments top out at $30,000 s year, but this is only through 1994 and Medicare won't pay for some of the most expensive stuff out there.

I keep saying that this is more complicated than most people want to admit.

[eridani]

9. Just let people buy into Medicare and little reorganization is required

Waiting until 2013 is going to be an utter political nightmare for Dems.