Jim Hightower: Health-Care Hypocrites

» DAVE wrote on 10.29.09 @ 03:40 AM

THEN THERE IS THE US House of Reps’ small business sub-committee, chaired by the same Latina who also chairs the Hispanic Caucus!  During September, 2009 ublic hearings: In testimony for its FY 2010 funding, the Obama Administration’s SBA Administrator testified that (a) although funded for FY 2009, (b) the US Small Business Administration “had not even begun PLANNING any required and legislated outreach to military veterans seeking SBA loans”!  There were no - NO(!) - discernible admonishments from the Chair! No utterances of disbelief from sub-committee members! NADA!  Just more funding for the next Fiscal Year!

» Cynder wrote on 10.29.09 @ 07:17 AM

Thanks for shining a light on this piece of cognitive dissonance, Jim. You make some good points here. I realize you aren’t really advocating for the government to provide every American w/the same healthcare plan as Congress, but rather that members of Congress should demonstrate their commitment to real healthcare reform by setting an example with their own coverage. Thanks for highlighting the two members who are doing just that!

I invite any and all members of Congress to step into the waiting room of one of our Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics to experience for themselves a shining example of high quality, affordable healthcare for every single person. I think they would be pleasantly surprised by what can be accomplished by a community that is genuinely dedicated to making sure that everyone receives healthcare with dignity and respect, regardless of their ability to pay.

» AN50 wrote on 10.29.09 @ 04:25 PM

Ktaylor, you say the good advice of RKV is too little, too late and your fix is what, creating another huge federal bureaucracy? Have you read the bills on the floor? They don’t implement a damned thing until 2015; some elements aren’t put into play until 2025! So tell me why should we pick your method if it cannot be done any faster and it is way too much to pay for?

Healthcare is a service; it does not expand our economy. For more to exist something else must go. What do you want to give up? Of course there is a better idea. Expand our economic pie. A bigger pie means more stuff we can afford, like better and more healthcare. How do you do that? Ship our lawyers off to competing economies until they obstruct them into the decline they have us in. Make our own stuff. We design it, we used to make it we can do it again. Means stop pandering global corporations with free trade and start protecting our own assets. Finally, start producing our own energy. That means drill here drill now, mine our coal and use it, build nukes up the wazoo and develop an extensive geothermal industry, then and only then should we invest in minor sources like solar, wind and bio.

It is very important that the first thing be done first (what, you though I was kidding?). If we do not do something about our lawyer problem we will never get anything done ever. Everything cost more and takes longer because a lawyer was involved somewhere.

» local wrote on 10.29.09 @ 05:51 PM

ktaylor you are absolutely right. The public option puts into place a competitive alternative that creates a check and balance of the insurance companies. Tort reform is estimated to be only 5% or less of the total problem. Although if you talk to doctors it is the cost of malpractice insurance and not the cost of actual litigation. Just another way the insurance companies soak the system.

Did anyone take a detailed look at WellPoint earnings announcement today? If so, you would see record profits with margins per insured being at record levels . What that basically means is they have done a fine job of raising premiums and denied claims to enhance their bottom line. And just look at the CEO of WellPoint. Can you say over $20 million per year not including stock options?

An50 once again you are on the wrong side of history. The health insurance reform bill will have a public option. Also, your statement that having expanded and affordable healthcare is a service and does nothing to help the economy is completely offbase and frankly very naive. A robust and healthy labor force is the key to any expansive economy. If you can ensure tens of millions more at revenue neutral that is a winner and puts us at parity in terms of competitiveness against other industrialized countries. It is expansive in that it is a job creator and a productivity enhancer.

Also An50 parts of the bill will be implemented in 2010 and all of it by 2013. Get your facts staight. You need to move to Texas and enjoy your idea of energy extraction with oil and coal. Meanwhile, Californis will take the lead in alternative energy such as wind, solar and natural gas. While you are at it take a deep breath of not so fresh air. Finally, being in Texas maybe you can succeed from the union under Governor Perry or at the very least be in a state that has the highest number of uninsured that will opt out of the public option.

» ktaylor wrote on 10.29.09 @ 10:24 PM

AN50, allow me to address two things you mention in your response to my earlier post: You say “health care doesn’t expand our economy”, and you mention the start up dates for health reforms to take effect.

Here are just a few bullets on how improving health care helps our economy.
+If people don’t have to spend up to 12% of their income on health insurance, think of all the other places in our economy that money can go.
+If small business owners don’t have to pay exorbitant health insurance costs for their employees, think how they might be able to expand their business, take more risks, hire more people.
+If people don’t have to worry about losing their only affordable health care provided by their employer, think how many might strike out on their own, leave the cubicle behind and start up their own entrepeneurial enterprise.
+If personal bankruptcy due to medical costs were to disappear from our society, think of how many homes wouldn’t be foreclosed on, how many cars wouldn’t be repossessed, how many more kids might be able to go to college because their parents could afford to send them, and how much more contributions to the general economy those people would make.
+If manufacturers didn’t have to pay high health insurance premiums for their employees maybe they could be more competitive in pricing their goods and sell more of them to more people.
Geez I’m just getting started here, and I think anyone giving some thought could come up with a lot more ways, including you, AN50.

On the start up dates, in the first place the year 2013 is when the proposed plans are to begin taking effect, not 2015 or 2025. In the second place those dates will be one of the many things negotiated by committees in the legislature. They are not cast in concrete, nor are many elements of the plan. I agree with you in that it is a needlessly long time to wait. There is no practical or logistical reason, no political advantage, and no moral justification for waiting so long to implement health care reforms. Too many people are sick and going broke due to lack of affordable health care. We need prompt action, and I’m glad that we can agree on that much at least.

» DAVE wrote on 10.30.09 @ 04:00 AM

“ktaylor” = MY CONCERNS since I returned from uniformed military service as an (a) US Air Force commissioned officer (1962-‘78); then as the (b) VA West LA homeless outreach worker for our military combat war veterans: Into Santa Barbara; all of Ventura County; then truck stops along Interstate 5 (LA to Kern Counties - Dec, 2005 to Jan, 2009) IS THE LACK OF OUTRAGE FROM THE MANY PUBLICS AT THE “BLATANT FRAUD AND HYPOCRICY” WHICH JIM HIGHLIGHTs SO ELOQUENTLY!!!  Certainly: “Tea Parties” had a role to re-focus our public debate - but the Liberal Democrats’  House leaderships, especially, now seems to think that’s “old news”!  Evidence: The recent, phony Capital Hill “pep rally” [on Thursday - October 29th] led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer with ONLY 80 other select Democrats - none of them “Blue Dogs” and, conspicuously absent, NO GOP members in attendance!  [?] Maybe some Members of Congress - on both sides of the aisle - didn’t get “The Speaker’s MEMO” for this staged, partisan event on the Capitol steps???  WHERE’s THE [RENEWED?] OUTRAGE?  HAVE WE GONE SO NUMB—from either ‘brain-death’ OR over-much TV watching AND not enough news reading[!]—that we can no longer shout about “a dis-robed Emporer”? WHEN SUCH BECOMES OBVIOUS[?]!  HIGHTOWER’s CORRECT = but he scratches merely the surface!  “WRITE ON, JIM”!  ;-) EH?

» San Roque Resident wrote on 10.30.09 @ 01:14 PM

Don’t often agree with Hightower. This is one where I do.

Conservative, free-market members of Congress who vote against Health Care Reform for everyone because “private insurance” can take care of it right now, should be required to use “private insurance” for themselves and their families, exclusively.

And pay for it themselves. Not from tax funds. Not from campaign slush funds.

Why should taxpayers fund Platinum coverage plans for corrupt, loud-mouth hacks
who would deny even modest improvements for everybody else?

Especially when their rationale is that they don’t “trust” a federal option to “do it right”, or because a federal option “will cost too much.”

If that’s what they say, and how they vote, then they should not have it, or use it,
for themselves and their dependents. Time for them to walk the talk (for once).

And they should NOT be eligible for a “group” rate, either.

If every member of Congress (and the federal courts) were forced to go solely on
private health insurance for their families for just four years (1 presidential term)
I doubt there’d be more than a handful who’d continue to oppose a comprehensive, public option federal Health Care Reform bill.