2008 Democrats on Health Care

Neither of the two front runners–Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton–offer anything but platitudes and tepid fixes of the current private insurance scheme.  Do they forget that private insurance companies are in it for the dough? That they are profit-making entities? The market may work for automobile companies, but thus far it hasn’t worked for health care.  Only dear Dennis Kucinich has mentioned the words, “single payer,” like the heroic Physicians for a National Health Program.

“Sicko”: Michael Moore does US Health Care

The Internet Movie Data Base describes Moore’s latest succinctly: “This film will focus on the American healthcare system …. “  Even with a noncommittal statement like that, you know this docu is not going to be laudatory.   I, a film buff to the bone, would not hazard a review in advance of the completion of the film, but just let’s say, I hope Michael has done himself proud.  You know his POV from the request he sent out to viewers of his website earlier this year: “Send Me Your Health Care Horror Stories… ” I’m sure he got even more than he expected.

Cheers for the VA/Tears for Massachusetts

Paul Krugman’s Sunday column extols the elegance of the VA health system as I have so extolled in the past. The benefits are decent, the record system fantastic. Once you’re in the system, you can get sick anywhere in the country, go to any VA doc, and all your records are at his or her fingertips. It’s single payer and single provider which is probably way too much to ask for us non-military citizens of the USA. But I still have probably unrealistic hope that the US will see its way into some kind of single payer plan like Medicare for everyone: old, young, rich, poor, employed or not. Meanwhile, Massachusetts’s feeble attempt to at least get insurance for all–even though it was a hodgepodge of many insurance plans and variegated benefits–seems to be foundering according to this week’s Nation. Imperfect as it was, it’s still too much for the special health interests.

PGD – Survival of the Richest

A New York Times story today reports on a procedure to insure that an in vitro fertilized embryo does not carry a known defective gene of either parent. Embryos are culled, the defective ones tossed, and a healthy one implanted. I really have no comment on that.  It’s all to the good if a baby is saved from having a life-threatening or debilitating disease later in life.  The culling is part of Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis–PGD. It is, of course, only available only to people rich enough to shell out tens of thousands of dollars.  So, now the rich get not only richer but healthier too.  Nothing new there.  The irony is that the rich would be more able to take care of a diseased or handicapped child than the poor citizens of our health-insurance-for-some land.

Poverty, static; Uninsured, climbing

The poor among us Americans–the wealthiest nation in the world–was 12.7 % in 2005, no change over the previous year. But it’s a pretty steady rise in the poverty rate since Bush took office in 2001. This is a fine contrast with the percent of the nation’s millionaires which gained 21 percent in 2004. And those making 5 million or more per year rose a whopping 38%.

Meanwhile, the number of people without health insurance continues to climb, up over a million in 2005 from the year before.

Walmart & the Single-Payer Health Plan

Walmart.  We know that the shopping warehouse has been getting bad press about the Medicaid enrollment of its workforce. What we don’t know–but what some are suspecting–is that the bargains behemoth might be moving (inching) towards supporting some kind of national health insurance–the single payer kind.  Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I would love to see the fight between Walmart and the insurance companies:  The Big Bad Wolf against Harry & Louise?

Connecticut down, New York to go?

The Ned Lamont primary victory over Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, filled me with glee. Lamont, the anti-war mouse, bravely took on the pro-war lion and won, amazing all. Now dare I consider that another upstart, Jonathan Tasini–running against Sen. Hillary Clinton in the New York Democratic primary–has a chance? Aside from Hillary’s weasling on the war–she hasn’t repudiated it to date–a reason for me to love her opponent is his stance on health care. He’s for extending Medicare to all while she is increasingly in the pockets of a health care industry which is currently filling her campaign coffers.

Drug prices, profits up

A number of NYTimes business articles in the last 10 days have a central motif: the drug companies are profiting mightily at the expense of (1) the Federal Government (2) the elderly and (3) you ‘n me.

“Drug Prices up Sharply this Year” tells how prices spiked soon after Medicare Part D came into effect. Pharma started charging lots more for its drugs: “four times the general inflation rate during the first three months of this year and the largest quarterly price increase in six years.”
Not only that, gentle reader, a windfall in sales came from the switchover of Medicaid drug payments to the new Medicare Part D. With Medicaid, the government could negotiate drug prices with drug companies. With the new Part D, the government is prevented from doing so by law–a gift of the Prez and his Republican Congress.
Today’s headlines were the icing on the cake: “Big Drug Makers Post Profits That Beat Forecasts.” Well, I think any of us could have predicted this.
A somewhat related headline also piques my interest: “Once an Enemy Health Care Industry Warms to Clinton.” Hmmmm. What the drugs companies do for Bush’s coffers will be done by the health care industry for Sen. Clinton. Caveat voter.

Language, language …

Hitting the liberal blogs today, I notice the indiscriminate use of the designation, “Intelligent Design.”  I feel that this term should never be capitalized nor given the status of a real theory.  It belongs in lower case, always (like alien abduction, an equally plausible hypothesis).    And while I’m at it, what the hell is “faith-based?’”  It’s just a right-wing, obfuscating synonym for “religious.”  The right has also given us “partial birth” abortion when “late term” is perfectly adequate and more descriptive.   And there’s the hypocritical, PR expression, “pro-life.”  Yeah, sure, they’re pro-life, exept maybe for death by lethal injection or by mortar fire.  These guys are pro-death, plain and simple.

Even abortion rights activists have resorted to this euphemizing with “pro-choice.”  Call it pro-abortion and be proud of it.

Health insurance dough to Hillary Clinton–what’s it buying?

According to today’s Times, Hillary Clinton is raking in money from the health care industry including insurance companies.  It’s probably their insurance against Hillary doing anything rash in case she becomes president in 2008.  In Clinton’s last foray into health care, she managed to inflame the insurance industry–remember Harry and Louise? Now insurance money is filling her coffers.  Does that mean we  can reasonably assure that Hillary’s plans for Universal Health Care, if any,  will be firmly centered in health insurance–like the Massachusetts plan? It’s something, but not enough and damned inefficient.  It’s 100 or 1000 payers rather than one.