Where is the Democrats' Alternative Healthcare Bill, the So-Called 'Fix' for the ACA?
The healthcare bill presented by the Republicans, AHCP, is a monstrosity. The facts in this article by the AARP should be enough to make it DOA:
Healthcare Bill would increase premiums for people over 50
How can a 64-year-old making $26,500 a year afford to have his health care premiums jump from $1,700 to $14,600 a year (a whopping 758 percent increase)? He can’t.
Yeah, paying more than half your gross income for premiums seems like a bit of a stretch, no?
So shooting down this bill should be the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel for the Democrats. Yes, I have heard them pontificate about the lack of heart, common decency, compassion, and morality that permeates this sickening piece of legislation, but what I haven't heard is what they would propose as an alternative.
Let me help them out:
1. Start with re-instating the 4 key pieces of the healthcare plan that President Obama won the Presidency with before the bait and switch of the ACA:
*Provide a public option to install a true competitive check on the for-profit murder by spreadsheet insurance bean counters who would gladly invoke rescission on a breast cancer victim for an unreported bunion 20 years earlier if they thought they could still get away with it. All that mispent cancer treatment money could be going into the pockets of the executive top tier. It gives them a sad to actually spend premium money on its putative purpose, actual healthcare.
*Negotiate prices in Medicare The fact that we don't negotiate prices in a publicly run and funded healthcare program as always been prima facie evidence to me of blatant corruption and lack of fiduciary responsibility by our legislators. Why wouldn't any ethical and responsible legislator see this as one of their duties as a steward of public dollars?
* Allow re-importation of drugs from Canada at least until we can get a handle on the outrageous pharmaceutical costs in our own country. And no, Cory Booker, no Canadians are dropping dead in the streets from their prescriptions, so you're protecting us from an issue that doesn't exist when you vote against initiatives like this.
*Fast track generics This brings up the general failure of the ACA to address the issue of spiraling drug prices at all period and not just in Medicare. The pols basically abrogated their regulation authority as a result of bowing to the strong arming of the industry and in return for some financial supports that would have been dwarfed over the long-term by some actual price controls in the ACA. SeeThe one that got away: Obamacare and the drug industry Not to say that generics themselves are a catch-all panacea, because generics are just as susceptible to market manipulation and price gouging as brand name drugs under patent. See: Generic Drug and Brand Name Drug Prices Increase
2. Forget #1. Get in line with the rest of the world, call healthcare a right and provide the most efficient and effective method of delivery - a universal single payer healthcare system for all Americans.
Do I expect Democrats to follow my advice and build a consensus for a specific and better game plan than that being offered by the Republicans? Um, no, not really. They're too busy having workshops trying to figure out who they are and what they stand for since they now realize that lack of such self knowledge creates "poor messaging" and lost elections.
Unlike Bernie, they haven't realized that it's actually easier to win elections by providing legislative initiatives whose innate benefits speak for themselves.
Comments
Let us join together in not holding our collective breath.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Where are the progressives?
You make a good point.
This is an opportunity to define why to vote for the Dems, and once again they are failing.
Competition is the last thing Big Insurance wants. They
have seen Medicare be well run on a 3% overhead when they - the for-profit insurers - run their businesses on a 15% to 18% overhead. Insurance would rather bribe their way into staying in the health care arena - where they have proven to be inadequate - rather the eliminate the waste in their system(waste in the form of bloated pay; advertising; profits).
It has been recently reported at CEPR that the Hepatitis C treatment costs $84,000 per year because of the exclusive patent. If a generic could be manufactured, the cost would be $200 per year. The Big Pharm is also robbing the people and the government blind. There are much better ways to invent and bring a drug to market then this patent system.
The inability of Medicare to negotiate drug prices is very clear in that Congress and the president(s) have been bought & owned by Big Pharm. It's an obvious sellout of the American people for massive private gain.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
The patent problem is murky. Patents should be encouraged for
new discoveries, give some clear time to market before the copycats swoop in. I can't recall how long pharma patents last, think there was just some diddling. However, new patent-holder should have no right as far as coming up with market price, that should always be negotiated leaning toward the users, not the providers. See, Medicare? It's so easy. Insurance companies negotiate everything, and threaten to keep drugs off their formularies because of cost.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Patents
create a monopoly. Without government intervention the holder of the patent can charge the price that maximizes profit. How much is your life worth? Your spouses or your child's? Also, the pharmaceutical companies have all sorts of special features in their patents. After they expire for a period of time only one generic company can compete and they are often "incentivized" not to. And the company can make any small improvement or alleged improvement and get a new patent.
Especially since the government funds much of the preliminary research there are better ways to reward innovation in this industry. For example, the government could provide a substantial reward to the company that first produces the drug. The government could also assume a larger role in testing. This policy would save pharmaceutical companies significant money and remove opportunities to inflate results.
We can also demand that
Congress forgo their Cadillac plans (not that that would ever happen).
dfarrah
Everyone should have a cadillac plan
Not just the rich.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Every article about healthcare
should begin with this sentence:
Congress has full coverage for healthcare that is paid for entirely by taxpayers.
dfarrah
That is not accurate dfarrah
According to Snopes since 2014 Members of Congress have gotten gold plans off of the Health Insurance Exchange, specifically the DC Small Business exchange known as SHOP and they pay about 28% of their premiums out of pocket.
If anything, I find the fact that Members of Congress personally experience the exchange healthcare somewhat annoying, since it means that they know from their own experience how outrageous the co-pays and deductibles are for these plans. The ACA made premiums affordable through subsidies, but subsidies have no bearing on the other out of pocket expenses incurred which means that while purported coverage is available, actual healthcare is not, since the coverage doesn't kick in until the deductible has been exhausted.
The reason this doesn't seem to have made impact on them is because the majority of members of Congress are wealthy and they probably see the co-pays and deductibles as the equivalent of chump change they could vacuum out of their waiting room sofas, while it is far from chump change to the majority of average Americans covered through the exchanges.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
This issue about the high cost of co-pays and deductibles
was evident from the very beginning of the launch of the ACA and was covered and blogged about extensively. These expenses are what probably hold down the numbers of people who were expected to apply for exchange coverage.
It turns out many people could do the basic math and realized that even with subsidies they could be paying up to 17- 18% of their gross incomes on premiums, deductibles and co-pays and if they didn't have those funds socked away, paying for premiums when the coverage itself would not appear before they were bankrupted caused them to say 'no thanks' and take their chances going naked without any coverage.
This also explains why younger people never bought in, it has nothing to do with them being stupid or thinking they are 'invincible' which is some sort of bizarre mythology ACA apologists have come up with to explain their absence - it has to do with them adding up the costs and making the most sensible decision on the face of it.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
A health insurance plan with a $10,000 deductible
makes no sense for most people who are barely scraping byand/or are under 35. In my view, these "bronze plans" aren't worthy of the term "health insurance."
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
The big question is
why in the world do we need to have a for profit middle man (insurance companies) in the delivery of our health care?
Until the for profit motive is removed from what should be a basic human right, all these cobbled together so call health care plans are doomed to failure, resulting in millions of unnecessary deaths each year. For health care, like everything else in this country, the profit motive is the underlying basic problem.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
agree 100% gulfgal
There is no place for profit in healthcare. When we HAD a free market in healthcare, the insurance companies figured out the parameters that worked for them : lifetime caps, rescission, pre-existing condition exclusions, and insane age rating, exactly all the items that make the system untenable for anyone who actually needs healthcare and not just illusory coverage that comes with having an insurance card. Insurers only make money if they retain premiums and DENY healthcare. Why is that concept so hard to grasp by those in charge?
So we all know what the exact issues are and that insurance companies will continue to implode if they are forced to provide healthcare and not just serve as a Potemkin construct of a gateway to healthcare.
Why does no other country rely on for-profit gatekeepers? And let's not even begin on the other industry, Pharma, that is happy to jack up costs to astronomical levels without any ethical questions or remorse if there's a dollar to be made to be put in their pockets, even if death or bankruptcy is the result for the people dependent on the medicines.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
It is the ones not in charge
who don't understand this. Those in charge know damned good and well what they're doing. Voters have been propagandized for decades about the "horrors of socialized medicine" and even the more "liberal" ones will still say that it is bad, bad, bad. If more people really understood that even Medicare cannot bargain for prices with Pharma I imagine more people would see that as a huge "tell" that a public option would be best and of course government should have the ability to bargain for better prices. But I do not think many even realize that is a problem. I did not know that myself until I hit blogs like this and read about it from the ones who do know. And I know you know all this very well!
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Agreed
The same principle applies to other basic quality of life services such as education, police and fire protection, etc. I'd go so far as to say that utilities should be treated as a public good, not profit centers.
Okay - I wasn't
sure how much their out-of-pocket expenses were.
But there is still good reason to highlight how favorable their plans are and demand cuts in their coverage just like taxpayers experience.
We provide for them, why can't they provide for us?
(I'm not saying there would be any impact on their legislation, but I'm just tired of their unquestioned royalty)
dfarrah
It's worse than that--Congress and SCOTUS have equivalent
healthcare of Britain's NHS. I've posted about this previously at DKos, and (I think) once at EB.
If you Google Bernie's letter of health status from his Presidential run, you'll see that his physician is a Rear Admiral Brian Monahan, and that Bernie had received health care from the Naval medical system for 26 years. Not to pick on Bernie, it's just that he's the lawmaker with a letter about this medical care due to his recent Presidential run. I imagine that most, if not all, lawmakers take advantage of this medical service. I would.
BTW, 'family members' of lawmakers and SCOTUS are not eligible for care by this Agency. So, some members of Congress may also carry insurance on themselves--since they've have to, in order to insure their families--through the ACA. Unless, of course, their spouses insure themselves, and their dependents, through their employer-sponsored insurance plan--certainly, an option in some circumstances, I would think.
I was quickly able to bring up Bernie's letter from his old campaign website--here's the link.
Gotta cut out for a while, but gotta couple thoughts about the AARP--most notably, it's CEO--that I'd like to share.
Thanks for posting about health care. Personally, as long as lawmakers have access to a medical system which doesn't even require the filing of claims, the paying of deductibles, or co-pays, etc.--just a nominal annual fee of barely $500--I don't expect that we'll soon see a single-payer system proposed for the masses. But, good on you for advocating for single-payer--it can't hurt to try!
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
[my boldface]
Taro
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I didn't know that.
Thanks Phoebe. Because of your comment, I googled it a bit. They do receive a subsidy, but they are in ACA. Now if we could get their pensions.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-laz-congress-members-health-insura...
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Build up, don't tear down.
I don't want to see ANYONE without a pension or health insurance. No race to the bottom.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I'm not for taking away lawmakers' pensions,
but, considering the fairly recent pension cuts they've enacted for (future) federal civilian employees (per the Ryan-Murray budget bill), not to mention O's setting up of a Military Commission which practically destroyed the military pension system (by enacting reform which moves service members from a defined benefit pension, to a so-called 'hybrid' system), I'm firmly against them having pension 'rules' that the rest of us (i.e., federal employees) don't enjoy.
I'm one of the lucky ones--I was grandfathered under CSRS. Frankly, I don't know of a single person who switched to FERS, in spite of all the PR efforts--glossy brochures, and so-called 'retirement facilitators' who descended upon us after the law was enacted. Still, millions of folks have been ripped off under FERS (in comparison).
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I'm CSRS offset service myself.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Nader suggest now is the time to push single payer
He told this story in a nice interview on Democracy Now on Friday -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l868Ibzu79o (25 min interview)
Here's his health care comments;
In a recent letter to HR 676 lead sponsor John Conyers (D-Michigan), Ralph Nader wondered out loud “why the 64 members of the House who have signed on to HR 676 – the single payer/full Medicare for all legislation – have not individually or collectively put this proposal on the table.”
“Since the media is all over the drive by the Republicans to replace or repair or revoke Obamacare, there is an obvious opening to make HR 676 part of the national and Washington dialogue. After all, this proposal is more comprehensive, more humane, more efficient and greatly simpler for the millions of Americans who are fed up with complexity and trap door fine-print. Your 64 or more cosigners come from around the country, where they can make news locally on a health insurance policy that is supported by about 60 percent of the American people, according to a recent Pew survey. When 60 percent of the American people can support single payer without a major effort to publicize and support it by the Democratic Party, that’s a pretty good start wouldn’t you say?”
“In today’s Wall Street Journal, no friend of single payer, the lengthy lead editorial closes with these words: ‘The healthcare market is at a crossroads. Either it heads in a more market-based direction step by step or it moves toward single-payer step by step. If Republicans blow this chance and default to Democrats, they might as well endorse single-payer because that is where the politics will end up.’”
“Do the Wall Street Journal corporatist editorial writers have more faith in the energy and initiative of the cosigners of your bill than the cosigners of your bill do?” Nader asked. “At long last, let’s get going on HR 676 besides nominal support by its cosigners.”
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/2017/03/13/single-payer-bernie-sanders-...
In the interview he also criticizes Bernie for not introducing single-payer, and suggest the corporate overlords through their minions Chucky and Nancy just say no
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
i looked up the bill HR 676...it is from 2011
Medicare for all
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/february/summary-hr-676-the-expanded-impro...
Evidently 60 something reps have signed on, but it hasn't (won't) be introduced. Ralph suggest now is the time. Trying seems better than dying.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Conyers introduces it every year.
Legislation for “improved Medicare for all,” H.R. 676, was introduced in the Congress last month by Rep. John Conyers (1/24/17). Polls have shown that 58 percent of Americans favor replacing the ACA with a single-payer system, as do 59 percent of physicians, 81 percent of Democrats, and a rapidly growing share of Republicans.
This is from the PNHP open letter to Trump.
Well, yes, of course trying is better
but NOT for Democrats, if they do not even try they never have to suffer defeat! But for them to try might give them a victory and we know their sponsors do not want that. This is a huge tell from them and the sad fact that it isn't well known just emphasizes it.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Thank you, lizzyh7--you nailed it! If it weren't 'Kabuki,'
the Dem Leadership would allow more than a couple of lawmakers (mostly Bernie, and at times, Warren) to advocate for a single-payer system.
I'll give Conyers credit for sponsoring the bill--but, where is he when it comes to actually trying to sell it? (Or, the other 59=60 sponsors, aside from the the couple named above?)
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
[my italics]
Taro
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I cannot understand...
why a group of progressive Dems start screaming at every possibility for an honest evaluation of single payer/Medicare for all. This is a perfect opportunity! And it could take the wind right out of Paul Ryan's sails.
While he's running around bragging about how much his plan is going to reduce the deficit while literally murdering American citizens, someone needs to get a single payer plan with sufficient detail that would allow the CBO to score it's cost. If Paul Ryan actually cared about the right of American's to have a choice in their healthcare, then he should welcome the opportunity to let the American people compare the costs and benefits of a single payer plan against his plan and what we currently have with the ACA. Let's have an honest open discussion and see which plan provides the best healthcare and how it affects the deficit.
This is also a great opportunity to coerce a group of progressive democrats to get on board with a third party and leave the Dems behind. Oh how I wish Bernie would stand up and say he is a forming the "Progressive" party (or whatever you want to call it) and then push progressive Dems to join the new party with him. At the same time, a grassroots effort could take place to pressure those progressive Dems to either join the new party or lose our support. I suspect a number of them might be inclined to drop the "D" behind their name and replace it with a "P" if they thought they might not be reelected. Bernie proved we can raise the money to support our candidates.
We simply can't wait 10-20 years to form a new party. And hoping that the Dem establishment someday comes to their senses is never going to happen. We need to form the new party taking the best from Dems and build from there. Can you imagine how you would feel in November of 2018 to realize that the progressive party held 30-40 seats in the House and 10 or so in the Senate? We must do something to speed up the process of forming a new party. And we'd be doing the Democrats a favor by getting all those damn progressives out of their ranks. They don't need our votes anyway! They can continue to lose without us!
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush
It wouldn't matter, reflectionsv37, if they scream
their bloody heads off about single-payer--or, anything else.
Heard former Rep Steve Israel (on XM Radio) gloating about how the election of DT 'vindicated' the Dem Leadership (which he was a part of) that they didn't move more to the left, in order to gain more of Bernie's supporters.
Whether we like it or not, it appears the the Dem Leadership took away the exact opposite message--move to the right, to win.
This is why I believe that a strong Third Party movement is necessary. IMO, the Dem Leadership considers progressive activists to be no more than a nuisance, which is why they make a show of throwing a bone their way at election time. Otherwise, they would rather that they simply 'go away.'
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
[my italics]
Taro
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
What happens if the Rs get a clue and move left?
Not that I expect that to happen, but they've run themselves out of room on the edge of the cliff. All they have to do is sidestep and let the Ds go zooming right on over....
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I'm a typical American
a hypertensive diabetic with Parkinson's. I barely had to look at the numbers three years ago to decide that the ACA was a bad deal. For me!
On to Biden since 1973
Always advocate Medicare for all.
Then during this round, accept, as a compromise, lowering the eligible age for Medicare to 60. Then keep lowering it. The camel's nose is in the tent already.
Emmet
Dems have no improvement plan.
It was a bait and switch intended to stay that way.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Sicko
Michael Moore's film Sicko came out ~10 years ago. I can't believe we are STILL debating over whether or not health care is a basic human right in this country. *rage*
This shit is bananas.
Healthcare not a democratic party priority.
In January, the DNC created a "Trump war room" to counter Trump. It is controlled by Clintonistas. Here are is its major priority:
DNC adds former Clinton staffers for Trump ‘war room’
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/312529-dnc-adds-former-clinton-staf...
The democrats are repeating the Clinton campaign themes, with thee most important being Russia/Putin. And they have been successful at it. Lawmaker after lawmaker has through press confernces, etc, bashed Trump and equated him with Putin. Everyday there are news articles on evil Putin/Russia. TOP has followed the strategy using its front pagers to writers to spout anti-Russian hysterics.
The defense of Obamacare has been weak tea compared to anti-Russia campaign. Imagine if all the energy of the entire democratic party that is being used on Putin/Russopobia was instead put into any system of universal health care.
And the democrats can't even pass a legislative meaningless resolution to import cheaper drugs from Canada.
God, how I despise these people! (n/t)
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Yes, they all keep beating that drum
but apparently no one is buying that record. Hillary and the Dems' favorable ratings are at 35%/34%.
don't forget MAKE SHIT WORK. PERIOD.
I was 18 in 1978 when Prop 13 came out of California.
IF you've been part of the bottom 80% for too many of the last decades, there are 2 sets of problems with programs:
1. yup, they're underfunded. not enough for meals on wheels & financial aid & housing & & & ...
2. the way the programs actually operate - the actual steps you need to do to attempt to access the programs, and the vague or non existent clarity of the timelines between the steps, ... - the ways the programs operate SUCK. S.U.C.K. I remember voting for these DLC sell outs, 20+ years ago, cuz I thought they were gonna make stuff work!
People want programs which work - in MY decades, 1 of the few parts which seems to work well is the incessant excuses from the highly credentialed and highly paid about how nothing can work right.
rmm.
But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
And thus I clothe my naked villany
With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;