SWIFTBOATING NATIONAL HEALTH CARE
CROOKED REPUBLICAN MILLIONAIRE LAWYER USES OWN MONEY, STOLEN FROM YOU, TO KEEP YOU FROM GETTING HEALTH CARE
NEW MEDIA FIRM
"Health Care For America Now Ad: Rick Scott"
What a DIRT BAG!
DISGRACED HEALTHCO CEO WANTS TO KEEP HIS HANDS IN YOUR POCKETS - FOREVER
His Television Commercials Start The Lies Rolling, Trying To Scare "Harry & Louise" With "Foreign Socialism" And "Government Rationing"
The funny thing is, this scumbag made all the money for these lying horsesh*t ads by rationing health care himself. Companies like his make money by milking the healthy people and killing the sick ones by denying treatment. They routinely deny patients coverage and refuse to cover millions who are too poor to pay their outrageous premiums, but not poor enough for Medicare. As a result, thousands of hard-working Americans die every year due to lack of medical care. All because some greedy rich people and the corporations they hide behind want to keep getting richer and richer and richer, no matter who it hurts.
This is the kind of person that gets a seat at the table in deciding whether we get universal single-payer national health care or some taxpayer-funded corporate healthco boondoggle. This is the sort of corporatist greed-head that now surrounds the President, and pulls the strings of Congress. This is the type of thief and liar we want kept out of the decision-making process.
The healthco's have come forward with a pathetic little proposal that might -might- save a family of five up to -up to- five hundred dollars a year -a year, not a month- after five years -five years. That will only happen if all the healthco's agree on streamlined paperwork, and then implement a whole new system. So, the healthco's big offer is, maybe we can save some chump change if you let us keep ripping you off for trillions of dollars.
Obama seems to be going for it, even though it won't make a dent in the price of his health care plan, which aims to keep feeding the rich by milking the middle classes. Instead of providing government health coverage, or requiring employer health coverage, Obama is going to require you to buy your own private health coverage, just like you are required to buy no-fault car insurance now. How's THAT workin' out for ya? Or are you one of the up to 50% of American drivers who can't afford any car insurance? Or maybe you're one of their victims, still paying extra out of your own pocket.
OK, America, it's time to put a stop to this. Sign the petition below and then click on the links provided to write Obama and your representatives in Congress. If you don't, you or your loved ones may die some day for lack of medical care in the richest country in the history of the world, the one you helped build but got shut out of by these corporations. Do it now. This is happening right now, and you can have an impact if you speak out against it.
SIGN THE PETITION FOR UNIVERSAL SINGLE-PAYER NATIONAL HEALTH CARE IN 2009
LINKS TO EMAIL THE WHITE HOUSE & CONGRESS
THE WASHINGTON POST
"Ex-Hospital CEO Battles Reform Effort"
Money is speech. Thank you, US Supreme Court!
' The television ads that began airing last week feature horror stories from Canada and the United Kingdom: Patients who allegedly suffered long waits for surgeries, couldn't get the drugs they needed, or had to come to the United States for treatment. The effort has alarmed many Democrats and liberal health-care advocates, who are pushing back with attacks highlighting Scott's ouster as head of the Columbia/HCA health-care company amid a fraud investigation in the 1990s. The firm eventually pleaded guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans, paying a record $1.7 billion in fines. In an ad broadcast in the Washington area and in Scott's home town of Naples, Fla., last week, a group called Health Care for America Now says of Scott: "He and his insurance-company friends make millions from the broken system we have now." The group's national campaign manager, Richard Kirsch, said: "Those attacking reform are really looking to protect their own profits, and he's a perfect messenger for that. His history of making a fortune by destroying quality in the health-care system and ripping off the government is a great example of what's really going on." One senior Democratic staffer involved in the health-care debate said the arguments by Luntz, Scott and others are "distractions" that rely on distortions of the actual debate taking place in the House and Senate. Reform advocates note that many of the problems highlighted by Scott, such as long waits and shoddy care, are already major problems in the United States under the private insurance system. '
"3 options mulled for gov't health plan"
The more public, the more people covered. The more private, the less people covered.
' The three approaches being discussed are: _Create a plan that resembles Medicare, administered by the Health and Human Services department. _Adopt a Medicare-like plan, but pick an outside party to run it. That way government officials would not directly control the day-to-day operations. _Leave it up to individual states to set up a public insurance plan for their residents. But many key details would still have to be fleshed out. Among them is whether the public plan would be open to everyone, or be limited to small businesses and individuals purchasing coverage on their own. Senators on the Finance Committee will consider the proposals during a closed-door session scheduled for late next week. Committee leaders want to bring a bill to the Senate floor this summer. It's unclear whether a public plan in any form will emerge from Congress. If the public plan were open to all employers and individuals — and if it paid doctors and hospitals the same as Medicare — it would quickly grow to 131 million members, while enrollment in private insurance plans would plummet, the study found. By paying Medicare rates the government plan would be able to set premiums well below what private plans charge. Employers and individuals would rush to sign up. But the results would be far different if the government plan was limited to small employers, individuals and the self-employed. In that smaller-scale scenario, the public plan would get from 17 million to 43 million members, the study said. It found that a government plan could be effective in reducing number of uninsured. '
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
"Republicans and the 'Public Option' "
Even the piggies admit that universal single-payer national health can can work, and is inevitable.
' This new entitlement -- like Medicare but open to all ages and all incomes -- would quickly crowd out private insurance as people gravitated to heavily subsidized policies, eventually leading to a single-payer system. So Democrats are trying to seduce diffident Republicans with a Potemkin compromise. A "soft" public option would limit enrollment only to the uninsured or those employed by small businesses, or include promises that the plan will pay market rates. As recently proposed by Chuck Schumer, it would pay claims entirely with premiums and co-pays. But if the plan can't force down reimbursement rates through brute force, and doesn't get taxpayer dollars, why bother to "compete" with private plans? Medicaid was intended as a last resort for the poor but now covers one-third of all long-term care expenses in the U.S. -- that is, it has become a middle-class subsidy for aging parents of the Baby Boomers. Schip was pitched a decade ago as a safety net for poor kids, and some Republicans helped sell it as a free-market reform. But Schip is now open to families that earn up to 300% of the poverty level, or $63,081 for a family of four. In New York, you can qualify at 400% of poverty. Any new federal health plan will inevitably follow the same trajectory, no matter how much Republican Senators might claim they've guaranteed otherwise. The Lewin Group consultants estimate that 119 million people who now have private insurance could potentially be captured by the government under the Obama public option. This is on top of the 90 million already in Medicare or Medicaid. '
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
"A single-payer plan would take greed out of the health-care business"
Here's why we can't continue to feed the healthco's.
' All profit immensely from the present system, which has ratcheted up costs to the point where the United States now spends twice as much on health care as other industrialized countries — $7,129 for every man, woman and child. While the other advanced nations provide excellent medical coverage for all of their citizens, our nation falls shamefully short. More than 47 million Americans — including 9 million children — have no health-care insurance. The two major reasons for this gaping disparity between consumer spending and actual services are the inefficiencies inherent in a system that involves thousands of delivery agents and, sadly, outright greed. The vast private insurance bureaucracy and the forests of paperwork they produce vociferously consume 31 cents of every health-care dollar consumers shell out, according to the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program. Funneling that money into a single system run by the federal government would save more than $350 billion per year — more than enough to provide comprehensive health care of the highest quality for all Americans. Some experts believe that the savings from eliminating the pervasive greed in the current system might double that amount although they acknowledge there's no way to calculate that. Ironically, it appears that President Obama and congressional health-care leader Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., may be about to give the insurers the type of reform they have spent millions of dollars lobbying for — despite their posturing as champions of rational change. The proposal by America's Health Insurance Plans would mandate that the federal government force everyone to purchase private health insurance. All Americans would be covered under this scheme, but the feds would step in and subsidize those with health risks that are extremely costly to treat. The idea is to continue to let private health insurers reap obscene profits and continue to make large campaign contributions to compliant candidates. '
"Health care cost cuts could kick-start reform"
Here's who's bought a seat at the table. And they're trying to stop us from getting "cost-effective" health care, i.e., medicine that works and doesn't kill us, financially.
' Hospitals, insurance companies, drug makers and doctors planned to tell Obama on Monday they'll voluntarily slow their rate increases in coming years in a move that government economists say would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now go without it. Although the offer from the industry groups doesn't resolve thorny details of a new health care system, it does offer the prospect of freeing a large chunk of money to help pay for coverage. And it puts the private-sector groups in a good position to influence the bill Congress is writing. The industry groups are trying to get on the administration bandwagon for expanded coverage now in the hope they can steer Congress away from legislation that would restrict their profitability in future years. Insurers, for example, want to avoid the creation of a government health plan that would directly compete with them to enroll middle-class workers and their families. Drug makers worry that in the future, new medications might have to pass a cost-benefit test before they can win approval. And hospitals and doctors are concerned the government could dictate what they get paid to care for any patient, not only the elderly and the poor. Obama has courted industry and provider groups, inviting their representatives to the White House. There's a sense among some of the groups that now may be the best time to act before public opinion, fueled by anger over costs, turns against them. '
NY DAILY NEWS
"President Obama to receive $2 trillion health care reform proposal"
Wow! $40 in health care savings a month! And maybe $200 a month in the very distant future! MAYBE!! That only leaves a couple thousand dollars a month to spend for the average family's health care! WHAT A F**KIN' DEAL!!!
' Medical and insurance trade groups and unions will present President Obama with a plan Monday to save families $500 a year in health care costs initially and at least $2,500 annually after five years through mostly administrative changes, senior aides say. Aides are revealing few details, but hint some savings would come from insurers adopting unifclaim forms and other documents. Annual savings to families would grow from $500 to $2,500 within five years as the plan is phased in, aides said. Among the participants at the meeting with Obama will be the American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Service Employees International Union, Greater New York Hospital Association and California Hospital Association. '
SIGN THE PETITION FOR UNIVERSAL SINGLE-PAYER NATIONAL HEALTH CARE IN 2009
"I Support HR 676"
Please take two minutes right now. Thanks.
' Whereas: We spend over $2.3 trillion, or $7,500 per capita, for healthcare in the US, yet 42 percent of people under 65 have inadequate or no insurance coverage;
Whereas: The healthcare coverage in the United States is ranked #37 in the world by the World Health Organization and yet we spend almost twice as much as any other country, enough to cover everybody with excellent comprehensive healthcare;
Whereas: A bill has been proposed in Congress, HR-676, non-profit Medicare for All, that outlines a national healthcare program that will provide guaranteed, comprehensive, and affordable quality healthcare and prescription drugs to everyone in the country;
Whereas: Over 59 percent of physicians now support a national, single-payer health insurance system for everyone;
Whereas: HR 676 has been endorsed by 463 union organizations in 49 states including 116 Central Labor Councils and Area Labor Federations and 39 state AFL-CIO’s;
Whereas: Under this proposed plan, we can pay for a comprehensive national health care program with the same money we are now spending by removing insurance companies — and cover every single person in the United States;
And Whereas: The bill provides money for retraining and giving priority to those whose jobs as administrators in the insurance industry would be lost as a result of this shift;
Be it Resolved That: We call on our members of Congress to pass HR 676, non-profit Medicare for All, so our people and our nation can have the excellent healthcare system we deserve. Healthcare is a human right, and we call on our members of Congress to recognize that right. '
click here to sign
TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!