In short, the prevailing zeitgeist seems to be one of diminishing legitimacy for many of the institutions that dominate our society.
Congratulations to President Barack Obama in honor of the Nobel Peace Prize...at his acceptance speech, he humbly stated he was undeserving of the honor, but I beg to differ...the prize of accomplishing the office of Presidency in America by a man of Black African heritage, is a testament to his life, all Americans of vision and African Americans in particular. The Prize is the paramount national and global vision that our President embodies.....and if anyone is concerned about the economy, with all the speculation, lies and projection of ideologies, the President's presence has undoubtedly spurred talk show hosts, pundits, and any other "wish i knew what the hell i was talking about"opportunists, to generate monies from the paymaster.........the election of President Barack Obama was achieved through a peaceful and bloodless process that some still try to invoke the ugliness of the base of human nature.....but, global life of peace, justice and happiness is the Prize of the Prize.
After the storm over health care reform in August, it is clear that the Obama Administration is no longer leading public opinion. In fact, the Administration and the Democratic Congress very clearly misread their mandate. Holman Jenkins recent column in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748704471504574442772173150440.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook) very accurately describes what went wrong.
The question is: how does the Administration get back on track?
1) The Congressional Budget Office dealt Blue Dogs a blow Thursday by notifying House Democrats that tethering a public option to Medicare reimbursement rates would save the government $110 billion more than a public option in which the government has to negotiate rates with doctors and other health care providers.
The initial projections showed the difference between the two was $65 billion. But this shows it would cost the government a lot more money to heed moderate demands. House Democrats need to trim as much as $200 billion from a bill that most estimates peg at $1.1 trillion in order to meet President Obama's $900 billion target.
An actual robust public option saves money, and it's what the majority of constituents in districts like Rep. Mike Ross's district supports. Will Rep. Mike Ross actually listen to what the CBO says, or act like Senator Kent Conrad in dismissing the CBO's projections about the public option?
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON — One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class is that it would quash competition — just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S.
Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.
For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers. Republicans see that as a government power grab. President Barack Obama looks to be trapped in the middle of an argument that could sink his effort to overhaul the health care system.
Even lawmakers opposed to a government plan have problems with the growing clout of the big private companies. "There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers," said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the highest-cost states. "The impact on the consumer is significant."
Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association.
Proponents of a government plan say it could restore a competitive balance and lead to lower costs. For one thing, it wouldn't have to turn a profit.
A study by the Urban Institute public policy center estimated that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private coverage for most people.
"Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass higher payments on through premiums," said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report.
"A public plan would have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates."
"The private plans would come back to the providers and say, 'If you don't negotiate with me, you're going to be left with only the public plan.'" Blumberg continued. "Suddenly, you have a very strong economic incentive for them to negotiate."
Insurers contend their industry is extremely competitive, and a public plan is unnecessary. About 1,300 carriers operate across the country, although many only have a small share of the market in their states.
"You can have a very competitive market and still have companies with a high market share," said Alissa Fox, a top Washington lobbyist for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Fox points to the federal employee health program, which also covers members of Congress. It offers a total of more than 260 options and 10 nationwide plans. Despite all the choices, about 60 percent of federal workers pick a Blue Cross plan. "Insurers need to be of a significant size to best serve their customers and make sure that people get the best value," Fox said.
Nonetheless, lawmakers are concerned. Big insurers are getting bigger. Small businesses in particular have fewer and fewer options for getting coverage.
Congressional investigators this year looked at insurers catering to small employers around the country. The Government Accountability Office found that the median _or midpoint — market share of largest carrier increased to 47 percent in 2008 from 33 percent in 2002.
There's widespread recognition among lawmakers that a health care overhaul should foster more competition among insurers. The debate is over how far to go.
The basic framework lawmakers are looking at would encourage competition, even without a government plan. It calls for setting up a big insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. It would be open, at least initially, to individuals and small businesses. The government would offer subsidies to make premiums more affordable.
Consumers would find it much easier to shop for a plan through the exchange. For one thing, they would be able to readily compare benefits and premiums in different plans. Also, participating insurers would have to take all applicants and not charge higher premiums to those in poor health.
Offering the option of a public plan would supercharge the competition, supporters say.
Blumberg envisions a plan that pays medical providers more than Medicare, but less than private insurance. Her study estimated it could grow to 47 million members, leaving 161 million with private insurance. Even so, that would make the new public plan one of the largest insurers in the country, rivaling Medicare, Medicaid and big private companies such as Wellpoint and UnitedHealthcare.
It's a scenario that gives pause even to traditional adversaries of the insurance companies.
"The fear and concern is that the public plan could become the market-dominant plan," said Dr. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association. "When you've got the federal government involved, it can infuse money into a plan to keep it solvent even if the premiums are lower than its actual costs."
Snowe, among the few Republican senators still trying to come up with a bipartisan compromise, wants to hold back on creating a public plan for now and give insurers one last chance to show if they can keep costs in check.
That's doesn't go far enough for liberals, who are loath to give the insurance industry tens of millions of new customers supported by taxpayer subsidies.
"It would give the industry a windfall without any countervailing force to require them to lower their costs," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for the advocacy group Health Care for America Now. "The insurance companies could continue to jack up premiums while getting a whole new market."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press.
ref (1) http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/24/cbo-tells-blue-dogs-that-the-public-option-will-save/
ref( 2) http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/3148749.aspx
I cannot rest for the cry of these great agonies. ~ E.A.P.
Caring is the Key to Life - Healthcare for All ... Rob [bob-pol]
Our gracious leader is truly a Man of Peace who turns the other cheek, or he would have a few reasons to get angry.
A few examples over the past year -
Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3489/towersa.jpg
SACRED LAND AND SACRED SOULS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snFyt4Kdhl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdSJFHnbls0
GOD BLESS AMERICA'S BELOVED AND THEIR FAMILIES
Some small, random things:
As Medicaid, Medicare, VA health care, and CHIP are already in place, why are Republicans opposing a type of government program that has already been otherwise implemented in multiple areas? What are they achieving by opposing the public option? They achieve nothing. They are spinning their wheels. Not news, but I'm still mystified by it. Also still waiting for conservatives to produce some viable alternatives. >:-/
I still think it would really help forge bipartisan support to include medical malpractice reform, let alone the cost-reduction benefits.
Also, I see no reason not to split up the bill into more politically managable/palatable chunks to ensure meaningful reform actually occurs.
Last, I'm a fan of progressive consumption tax. They also have 401(k) funds that adjust themselves as one ages and comes closer to retirement age. Can this concept be applied to health care coverage??
Thoughts??
My views on this issue are shaped by my experiences, as with most people. Particularly, they have been shaped by working as a lawyer, and before that a law clerk and low-level functionary in the health care industry, beginning in the late 1990s, which was a time of great change.
Here are some things I saw and the conclusions I draw from those things.
Ted Kennedy- Everyone's Senator.
"We shared about the exciting work the NJ Library for the Blind and Handicapped is doing to help support the independent business owners. Highlights of the day included a visit from NJ Congressman Rush Holt and an impromptu reading by Senator Edward Kennedy." (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thewordblog/650915336/)
Ted Kennedy on HEALTHCARE, "We are going to make healthcare what it should be - a fundamental right for all, rather than an expensive privilege for the few".
Who are the uninsured? http://www.truthout.org/082309Z
Up to 46 million Americans are uninsured, because they are unemployed, or their employer does not provide cover, or because they do not qualify for existing government-funded healthcare. People 65 and older can qualify for Medicare, the poor can qualify for Medicaid, veterans and members of the military can qualify for Veterans Health Administration and Tricare and children can be covered under a programme called SCHIP. Those left out by the system include the young just entering the workforce, the self-employed, the unemployed and people who work for small businesses.
Comparison of Canada's Health Care Plan http://www.truthout.org/082709A
It might be helpful for Americans to know about Canada's program. Here are some essential facts.
1. It is a single-payer system, meaning that the government - federal and provincial - pays the bills. But many providers - clinics, hospitals, diagnostic services, etc. - are privately owned. They are reimbursed for services just as doctors - who are mostly incorporated - submit for fees.
2. You get to choose your doctor.
In 2005, all the provincial government leaders reconfirmed their commitment to The Canada Health Act's key principles: that Canadians have the right to timely, high quality, effective and safe health services on the basis of need, not ability to pay, and regardless of where they live or move in Canada. They also committed to a system that is sustainable and affordable and that will be there for future generations.
Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan in the Unites States http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580516633344953.html
Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America's non-system of health care -- private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers -- have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.
Which is precisely why the public option has become such a lightening rod. The American Medical Association is dead-set against it, Big Pharma rejects it out of hand, and the biggest insurance companies won't consider it. No other issue in the current health-care debate is as fiercely opposed by the medical establishment and their lobbies now swarming over Capitol Hill. Of course, they don't want it. A public option would squeeze their profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That's the whole point.
Critics say the public option is really a Trojan horse for a government takeover of all of health insurance. But nothing could be further from the truth. It's an option. No one has to choose it. Individuals and families will merely be invited to compare costs and outcomes. Presumably they will choose the public plan only if it offers them and their families the best deal -- more and better health care for less.
Private insurers say a public option would have an unfair advantage in achieving this goal. Being the one public plan, it will have large economies of scale that will enable it to negotiate more favorable terms with pharmaceutical companies and other providers. But why, exactly, is this unfair? Isn't the whole point of cost containment to provide the public with health care on more favorable terms? If the public plan negotiates better terms -- thereby demonstrating that drug companies and other providers can meet them -- private plans could seek similar deals.
But, say the critics, the public plan starts off with an unfair advantage because it's likely to have lower administrative costs. That may be true -- Medicare's administrative costs per enrollee are a small fraction of typical private insurance costs -- but here again, why exactly is this unfair? Isn't one of the goals of health-care cost containment to lower administrative costs? If the public option pushes private plans to trim their bureaucracies and become more efficient, that's fine.
Critics complain that a public plan has an inherent advantage over private plans because the public won't have to show profits. But plenty of private plans are already not-for-profit. And if nonprofit plans can offer high-quality health care more cheaply than for-profit plans, why should for-profit plans be coddled? The public plan would merely force profit-making private plans to take whatever steps were necessary to become more competitive. Once again, that's a plus.
Critics charge that the public plan will be subsidized by the government. Here they have their facts wrong. Under every plan that's being discussed on Capitol Hill, subsidies go to individuals and families who need them in order to afford health care, not to a public plan. Individuals and families use the subsidies to shop for the best care they can find. They're free to choose the public plan, but that's only one option. They could take their subsidy and buy a private plan just as easily. Legislation should also make crystal clear that the public plan, for its part, may not dip into general revenues to cover its costs. It must pay for itself. And any government entity that oversees the health-insurance pool or acts as referee in setting ground rules for all plans must not favor the public plan.
Finally, critics say that because of its breadth and national reach, the public plan will be able to collect and analyze patient information on a large scale to discover the best ways to improve care. The public plan might even allow clinicians who form accountable-care organizations to keep a portion of the savings they generate. Those opposed to a public option ask how private plans can ever compete with all this. The answer is they can and should. It's the only way we have a prayer of taming health-care costs. But here's some good news for the private plans. The information gleaned by the public plan about best practices will be made available to the private plans as they try to achieve the same or better outputs.
As a practical matter, the choice people make between private plans and a public one is likely to function as a check on both. Such competition will encourage private plans to do better -- offering more value at less cost. At the same time, it will encourage the public plan to be as flexible as possible. In this way, private and public plans will offer one another benchmarks of what's possible and desirable.
Mr. Obama says he wants a public plan. But the strength of the opposition to it, along with his own commitment to making the emerging bill "bipartisan," is leading toward some oddball compromises. One would substitute nonprofit health insurance cooperatives for a public plan. But such cooperatives would lack the scale and authority to negotiate lower rates with drug companies and other providers, collect wide data on outcomes, or effect major change in the system.
Another emerging compromise is to hold off on a public option altogether unless or until private insurers fail to meet some targets for expanding coverage and lowering health-care costs years from now. But without a public option from the start, private insurers won't have the incentives or system-wide model they need to reach these targets. And in politics, years from now usually means never.
To get health care moving again in Congress, the president will have to be clear about how to deal with its costs and whether and how a public plan is to be included as an option. The two are intimately related. Enough talk. He should come out swinging for the public option.
Mr. Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, is the author of "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life" (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007).
A few photos I took of TV screen of Funeral services for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy Thursday, August 27.
Ted Kennedy's Final Exit from his famous Hyannis Port house.
Kennedy Family watches as Ted's coffin is loaded into hearse.
Camelot- Caroline's loving "goodbye touch" to uncle Ted.
Tribute to the best Senator who has ever served.
God Bless Ted Kennedy and his Family.
My Idea for a Town Hall Poster: KENNEDY'S DREAM.
Their mother taught them, "To whom much is given, much is required".
"We must care for those who cannot care for themselves", said Ted Kennedy.
47 MILLION AMERICANS have no health insurance. About 80% of them are working but their job provides no insurance and/or they cannot get or afford private insurance.
rob [bob-pol], Caring is the Key to Life.
racggg@gmail.com
Senator Ted Kennedy extended his life beyond his family and friends to share as a public servant for all Americans. His championed work can be manifested in the application of justice and equality for all Americans. Many of us are sadden of his passing though he was persistent to brave the challenge to mold an ideal society till his last days. JFK, onced coined: " Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." If we can remove our mentality from a self serving and vain society of individuals, we can see the profound message that those who stood and stand for a prosperous and healthy nation for all this nations citizens, is we are bound as one people. We are all Americans destined to champion humanity's imperfections or are we just another failed experiment of intellectual, social and economic governance of humanity?
Ted Kennedy, Man of Great Compassion moves on ... to his Heavenly Reward.
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3937/obama3kennedysrh7.jpg
from Boston Globe (1):
No senator in history, many now say, was able to be both his party's most forceful spokesman for its causes and the leader who cajoled colleagues of both parties into agreement.
In what once seemed like a premonition, President John F. Kennedy at his inauguration had given his youngest brother a silver cigarette box engraved with the biblical words from Matthew: "And the last shall be first."
Ted Kennedy did not succeed in following his brother's path, either in cultivating a faultless image or in wielding the powers of the presidency. But by the early 21st century, the achievements of the younger brother would be enough to rival those of many presidents.
That day on the Hyannis Port porch, his father-in-law's advice to relax and bask in his hard-won glory was also prescient. A year later, Kennedy would be diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.
But then, as always in his turbulent life, Kennedy looked to his moorings: the Senate and the sea. He would meet cancer the way he met so many challenges.
He would keep working, and he would keep sailing.
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/1248/obamakennedylaughca8.jpg
Our Ted, champion for the people, had seen great success, and had reason to Smile,
(1) from Boston Globe, A seven-part series on the Massachusetts senator ,,http://www.boston.com/news/specials/k ennedy/
May God Bless Ted and his Loved Ones,<Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com
A claim to fame as the greatest civilization on the Planet Earth, The United States of America...lined with golden rules of humanity, civility and intellect unmatched by any nation has unmasked a deep contradiction through some of its misinformed and prejudicial citizens.
You would think a great debate and outrage would be over the billion dollar child pornography business or child abuse...or the billions of dollars ripped off by likes of Madoff and Wallstreet tycoons of investors, 401K, stocks, etc... merging and dismantling of corporations (shipping jobs overseas)to avoid domestic employment, health and retirement benefits for American workers...deaths of brave American men and women troops who fight unsubstantiated wars, but fight as a duty,...pollution, crime, uneducated masses, credit gouging......no outrage on any of the above issues mentioned during these past years ...immediately after Presidential election there is a need for outrage and where is the outrage?....healthcare reform for all Americans! A political ploy, masked as a cost factor. How can the Statue of Liberty ask for the tired, poor and etc. at the gateway to America, as some American citizens show rage and disrespect towards its own elected officials and fellow Americans over HEALTH! Complete hypocrisy and utter stupidity!
