Healthcare: Associated Press Lies by Omission
EconomicDemocracy Coop
Health care issues: A single-payer system?
By The Associated Press (AP) – Dec 17, 2009
A look at key issues in the health care debate:
THE ISSUE: Should there be a government-run, single-payer national
health care system?
THE POLITICS: A government-run health care system is attractive to
many Democrats, who want access to health insurance for all Americans,
including about 45 million uninsured.
[Comment: Do we ever speak of a "government run police system"? How
about a "government-run fire department system"? Do we speak of a
"govenrment run postal delivery system"? How about "government run
school system"?
No, we speak of the public school system, etc...'government-run' is
already a cave-in to right-wing rhetoric at best, or deliberate
negative spin at worst -ED]
One proposal in Congress would establish a program to provide all
people in the United States with free health care through a publicly
financed but privately delivered system. It would be paid for by
raising taxes on the top 5 percent of income earners; instituting a
progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income; and
taxing stock and bond transactions, among other revenue sources.
[Correction: not "it would be paid for by" but "it could be paid for
by" There is a difference between single payer, on the one hand, and a
particular bill in Congress to implement it, on the other hand. There
are many variations that are possible. It could be from a tax on the
top 1% only but a heavier tax. There are many ways to make it
progressive: break-even or even coming out financially ahead for the
middle class, who would pay less than they currently pay to private
insurance companies, so the middle class comes out ahead, and lower-
income come even further ahead. Those making $250,000 per year or more
or some other, higher ceiling, would be expected to show some
gratitude, and patriotism, for the opportunities of this country,
which they wouldn't be wealthy without (they didn't get this wealthy
living on a deserted island) and pay their higher, fair share -ED]
A doctors' group, Physicians for a National Health Program, says
streamlining payment through a single non-profit payer would save more
than $400 billion a year — enough to provide coverage for all
Americans.
[This is not just something they "say", Ms. Kerr, this is a *finding*
of a *study* published in peer reviewed journal by PNHP, and also you
forgot to tell your readers: it's also what study, after study, after
study has shown: the exact numbers differ, but every careful study
shows hundreds of billions of dollars saved per year -- going back to
the General Accounting Office in the 1990s (now called Government
Accountability Office) which found this. Readers of your story don't
know this, don't know that *studies* carefully analyzing found this,
don't know the independent government agencies found this, they think
it's only what one group of physicians "says". It would not have taken
many words to inform readers of the truth, but either Ms. Kerr or her
editor(s) decided to leave out this critical information]
Republicans oppose the single-payer approach, like those in Canada and
many European countries, warning it would lead to a system where
choice of care, treatments, and a patient's doctor would be mandated
by Washington bureaucrats. They say quality care would be delayed and
rationed, and a government takeover would curtail new treatments,
drugs and innovation.
[Plenty of space given to the usual scare tactics of the Republicans,
while space was 'not found' above for basic facts about cost savings
of Single Payer. Not mentioned: quality care is delays and rationed
*right* *now* by insureres who deny, delay, play games, twist the
words in the fine print, and this causees misery and death on a
massive scale. See the short "Death by HMO: The Case of C Edwards" the
woman who worked at the hospital and saw this first hand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3so7EdKpCY
Also not mentioned is that as far as "quality care" and "innovation"
plenty of other countries that have single payer have equal, or even
higher health care outcomes, than the U.S. How could this not be
mentioned?
Also not mentioned: it's not just Europe and Canada, it's also
Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and even Taiwan has its system put in
place in 1995 based, according to the Taiwan official responsible,
based on the U.S. Medicare model, but made into "Medicare for All" is
how Taiwan implementted it. If Americans have the (false) impression
that "only" Canada and a few European countries have it, they are
getting a distorted picture. If they knew about Japan and Taiwan they
know not to fall for it, when the same old "watch out! socialism!"
lines get used again.
Don't bother with the tired line that some of those systems are
"mixed". They are "mixed" in ways like, extras one can via a private
insurer, but the basic care is public; or they are 'mixed' by having a
very tightly regulated limit that sets how much profit is allowed to
be made, in some cases. When you look at the details, most of these so
called 'mixed' systems are fundamentally single payer for basic,
guaranteed health care, with variations on that theme, but none have
this model of "investor owned healthcare and "healthcare as a market
commodity" as the dominant paradigm for the life and death issue of
access to basic health care -ED]
WHAT IT MEANS: While it has some support in Congress, the idea of a
single-payer system doesn't have much traction. President Barack Obama
has distanced himself from the idea, saying it works well in some
countries but wouldn't be practical in the United States because so
many people get private insurance through their employers. Sen. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt., offered an amendment to the Senate health care bill
Wednesday to create a single-payer system while acknowledging that it
wouldn't pass. He later withdrew the measure. Yale University
political science professor Jacob Hacker summed it up this way:
"Threatening (employer) coverage is a political nonstarter, and moving
all health care spending onto the public budget is virtually
impossible in the current fiscal climate."
_ Jennifer C. Kerr
[More self-fulfilling prophesies of doom and negativity about the
prospects of Single Payer. Guess what? That used to be true about gay
rights, and civil rights, and women's rights, and the right to strike
and ending child labor and every other reform you can name, it used to
be a political nonstarter.
These things also used to be opposed by the majority of the
population, before enough people were won over.
On this second point, we have a huge contrast: Single payer is no
longer in this second situation; the majority of Americns in poll
after poll, favor single payer. Repeat: The majority of Americans
favor single payer; it's only Washington, which again is as usual to
the right of the American public, only Washington that is not ready;
Americans are ready.
This is perhaps the most biased of all the omissions of the article:
Not telling your readers that in survey after survey (even if you toss
out the few you don't consider clear us enough etc) show time after
time, that much higher than 50% of Americans (59% or even higher in
some polls) support Single payer. How could you not mention this Ms.
Kerr? Or was it pressure from your editors? Whoever made the decision:
shame on you. -ED]
One good source of information to protect yourself and your family,
and know the facts:
Facts vs Myths about Single Payer:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_myths_singlepayer_facts.php
Escape_the_Cult_Now
out sources on the internet or name themselves as an "association,
organization, etc.," and fail to provide any other source. Instead, using
themselves as the soul source.
"EconomicDemocracy Coop" <econde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9bf0f49-43da-4703...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com...