Tag Archives: Tricare

Disaster Averted

Yesterday’s crushing defeat of the so-called “American Health Care Act” or AHCA, signals the end of the seven-year long attempt by the Republican Party to legislatively kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Yet, as was pointed out on one cable news network last night, it won’t stop the health insurance industry from getting the Republicans in Congress to kill parts of the law slowly by eliminating the taxes that go to pay for the coverage.

Call it “genocide by stealth”, since millions of Americans will die, as per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO’s) scoring of AHCA. If they can’t kill the law outright, the so-called “Freedom Caucus”, actually the Congressional version of the Tea Party, will kill it slowly.

Why do you think they keep saying it is a disaster and it is crumbling? It’s because they are dead set against anyone getting health care unless someone else can make a profit from selling a policy.

Then there is the other question, the one usually raised by liberals and progressives, especially those who supported Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders last year in the primaries, as to why we are the only Western country without universal coverage.

The answer is complex, but not complicated (“who knew health care was so complicated?). First, everything the government of the US has ever implemented for the benefit of people has had to pass muster with the Constitution. It either has to be covered by the Constitution directly, or implied through the taxing mechanism.

Second, the Founding Fathers never mentioned or promoted the right to health care, as the prevailing political and social philosophy of the day was concerned with freedom, liberty, and private property. It has been unclear what, if anything, was meant by the phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, let alone, the phrase, “promote the general welfare.”

Why they never mentioned health care and why other nations have it, is due to the fact that the US was founded during the first half of the period historians call, “the Enlightenment”, when the right to private property, liberty, and freedom were the topics of discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Basically, the difference between Classical Liberalism (Conservatism) and Modern Liberalism (Liberalism) is between negative rights (the right not to be killed) versus positive rights (the right to a job, education, housing, health care, etc.)

Canada gained its limited independence from Britain nearly a hundred years after we did, and therefore was influenced by the philosophy of the second half of the Enlightenment, which stressed involvement by government in the economy.

The only time the Founders cared about providing some kind of health care plan was directed towards a particular group of citizens in the late eighteenth century, as I wrote about in this post.

What is now called the Public Health Service began as a government-sponsored, health plan for merchant sailors on ships entering and leaving US ports and on inland waterways. It was never challenged in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, nor was it ever attacked by members of the opposition party. In fact, it was supported by both Federalists and Anti-Federalist politicians of the day.

The third reason why we don’t have universal, single-payer is because the government allowed employers to provide coverage during WWII to attract women into the workplace when the men went overseas. The UK is often cited as an example for single-payer, but what most supporters of this type of plan do not realize is that because of the devastation the UK suffered at the hands of German bombs, their health care system needed to be re-built from scratch, so the government stepped in with the NHS. Even Churchill supported it.

Fourth, we have always provided health care to certain at risk groups like the poor (Medicaid), the elderly (Medicare), and to children (CHIP), as well as to former service persons and their families (Tricare), etc. Perhaps the way to begin to get universal coverage is to merge all of these programs into one, then expand it to cover everyone else.

But for the time being, a major disaster was averted, but we should not think this is the end of the debate, nor is there victory. The battle lines are drawn, and the enemy is not surrendering. This is not a time for congratulation, but for vigilance and resolve.

 

Colorado “Single Payer” in Health Care Industry’s Sights

Earlier this month, I wrote that Colorado was introducing a ballot initiative for single payer.

As reported today by Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Plan, and published on Friday in The Intercept, business interests in Colorado and many of the largest lobbying groups around the country and in the state are raising funds to defeat Amendment 69, the single-payer ballot question going before voters this November.

One organization leading the move to defeat this amendment is the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, a national trade group.

As quoted in the article by the author, Lee Fang, “The council urges Coloradans to protect employer-provided insurance and oppose Proposition 69.

The group has dispatched Steptoe & Johnson, a lobbying firm to analyze the bill.

Other lobbying groups that represent major for-profit health care interests in Colorado, including hospitals and insurance brokers, Fang writes, are similarly mobilizing against Amendment 69.

The Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry, a trade group led in part by HCA HealthOne, a subsidiary of HCA, one of the largest private hospital chains in the country is soliciting funds to defeat single payer. The business coalition to defeat the measure also includes the state’s largest association of health insurance brokers, Fang reported.

Dr. McCanne wrote in response to the Fang article that, “In the meantime, the opponents know that their task does not involve educating the public on the facts. They do not have to engage the other side in a information battle over the truth. They merely have to appeal to the passion of the voters. Simple rhetorical soundbites are usually enough to convince the voters that they do not have to waste their time studying some complicated government scheme in order to know how to vote on it. Just look at some of the rhetoric of the opposition group, Coloradans for Coloradans: “doubling the state budget,” “diminishing accessibility and quality,” and “creating an unaccountable, massive bureaucracy.” Who would support that? No need to try to find out the truth.”

What does this really mean?

It means this: that until the whole US health care system collapses of its own weight, inefficiencies, complexities, absurdities, bureaucracy, and stupidity, that no matter who runs for president promising free health care for all, it won’t happen.

Talking in generalities, wishing and hoping that a mass movement (or political revolution) will change things, is only magical thinking and pixie dust. Given the political polarization of the US electorate, and the lack of thinking on the part of those who are supporting the GOP candidates for president and for Congress, single payer nationwide or statewide will not happen until every single American cannot get any health care coverage.

How did the UK get single payer? Thank the Luftwaffe for destroying the British health care system before WWII. Don’t believe me? Just read what Winston Churchill said (Conservative Party – like our Republicans, only smarter):

Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”

How did Germany get a kind of single payer system? Otto von Bismarck. And sixty years later, when the most conservative government Germany ever had came to power, not even a paperhanging, SOB with a Charlie Chaplin moustache could undo it.

Why can’t we have single payer? Read Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Any mention of health care or health insurance? No, because they were more concerned with “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” however they defined that in the eighteenth century.

Freedom was another thing they were concerned with, such as the freedom to have what is yours remain yours, so that the government can’t take it to spend on such extravagant luxuries as health care and education for all.

But as I wrote back in 2013, the founders did create a tax-based health plan for merchant sailors because it was affecting our national economy and trade. But it was only for a select population group, as was Medicare and Medicaid and SHIP, and Tricare last century.

But the health plan for sailors was never challenged in the courts, nor was it ever a part of any political campaign for the Presidency to be repealed; however, that is not stopping the GOP and their allies from doing the same thing to the ACA, or to any proposal for single payer.

The US is, as that paperhanging SOB is quoted as saying before he took cyanide and shot himself, “the ultra-capitalists”, and therefore, the free market and the profit motive wins out.

You want single payer, Bernie? Start learning the words to “The Internationale”.