Dave Chandler

We've Been Conned

In the end, all of Colorado's Dimocrat representatives in the U.S. House voted for it; and both of the state's Repuglicans voted against it. But either way, they were willing players in a confidence game perpetrated on the American people.

It is the biggest con played on taxpayers since the bank bailouts of 2008.

I'm talking, of course, about the passage of the corporate health insurance 'reform' legislation passed last night to be sent to President Obama's desk for his signature.

In a successful confidence game, the mark (that's us) doesn't even realize that he's been 'conned'. The right thinks that we've now got socialized medicine, the left thinks we're on the way to socialized medicine. The 'play' is that the corporate health insurance cartel has got almost everything it could have hoped for ... they made out like con men and we've been 'stung'.

The taxpaying folks in this country are now on the hook for more billions of dollars to be funneled into the coffers of some of the biggest corporations in the world. One way or another we are all now legally mandated to purchase the product of the health insurance companies. Moreover, the insurance companies now have a legal obligation to raise rates (for instance) to cover the cost of "pre-existing conditions'. And, because it was a con, we were supposed to believe that this 'reform' was either a "government take-over" of health care (the Repuglican patter) or that the corporations were fighting this 'reform' tooth and nail (the Dimocrat line). (Dimocrats were also conned with the exhortation that this had to pass or Obama's presidency would effectively be over. In other words, it didn't matter anymore what was in the legislation, this was about political survival and "winning".)

How this con plays-out, we'll see. I certainly won't be surprised if somehow the "fixes" proposed by the House get derailed in the Senate's 'reconciliation' maneuver. But the pro-corporate Senate version of 'reform' was always the favorite of Obama and the Congressional Dimocrat establishment.

Now, how this works out for the Dimocrats and Repuglicans in the 2010 elections remains to be seen. Since so much of this new law doesn't take effect for four years, Dimocrats may fare better than is now expected against the extreme reactionary Repuglicans and their bigoted Teabag allies. Frankly, I don't care much about that kind of calculation anymore. Without single-payer or a robust public option, we've created another "too big to fail", government subsidized, mega-industry with the new insurance scheme.

My prediction is that the redistribution of wealth from working Americans up to the super wealthy corporate elite will only accelerate over the next few years because of this legislation. Insurance companies will still find ways to raise premiums higher and higher (well, because taxpayers are now footing the entire bill) and to cut-off unprofitable 'terminal' patients.

Conned.

We've been conned.

In Health Care Reform, Boons for Hospitals and Drug Makers | New York Times

... some analysts said as the vote neared that the final legislation was shaping up as much kinder to the industry than many initially feared. Hospitals and drug makers, which supported the final legislation, would be clear beneficiaries, analysts say, even if the outlook for insurers was less certain.

Yet the bill would not create the thing that insurers feared most: a government-run public option, a health plan that would compete with the private insurers.

Over all, the legislation would be a positive for much of the industry, said Les Funtleyder, who oversees health care strategy for Miller Tabak & Company, a New York investment firm. ...

... But insurers are expected to benefit from the influx of new customers after years of shrinking enrollments. About 16 million of the newly insured are expected to enroll in private plans. The rest would become eligible for Medicaid, the state-administered program for the poor, but some of those would probably sign up for privately run Medicaid plans available in different states. ...

The Health Care Hindenburg Has Landed | Chris Hedges/TruthDig.com/CommonDreams.org

Rep. Dennis Kucinich's decision to vote "yes" in Sunday's House action on the health care bill, although he had sworn to oppose the legislation unless there was a public option, is a perfect example of why I would never be a politician. I respect Kucinich. As politicians go, he is about as good as they get, but he is still a politician. He has to run for office. He has to raise money. He has to placate the Democratic machine or risk retaliation and defeat. And so he signed on to a bill that will do nothing to ameliorate the suffering of many Americans, will force tens of millions of people to fork over a lot of money for a defective product and, in the end, will add to the ranks of our uninsured.

The claims made by the proponents of the bill are the usual deceptive corporate advertising. The bill will not expand coverage to 30 million uninsured, especially since government subsidies will not take effect until 2014. Families who cannot pay the high premiums, deductibles and co-payments, estimated to be between 15 and 18 percent of most family incomes, will have to default, increasing the number of uninsured. Insurance companies can unilaterally raise prices without ceilings or caps and monopolize local markets to shut out competitors. The $1.055 trillion spent over the next decade will add new layers of bureaucratic red tape to what is an unmanageable and ultimately unsustainable system.

The mendacity of the Democratic leadership in the face of this reality is staggering. Howard Dean, who is a doctor, said recently: "This is a vote about one thing: Are you for the insurance companies or are you for the American people?" Here is a man who once championed the public option and now has sold his soul. What is the point in supporting him or any of the other Democrats? How much more craven can they get?

Take a look at the health care debacle in Massachusetts, a model for what we will get nationwide. One in six people there who have the mandated insurance say they cannot afford care, and tens of thousands of people have been evicted from the state program because of budget cuts. The 45,000 Americans who die each year because they cannot afford coverage will not be saved under the federal legislation. Half of all personal bankruptcies will still be caused by an inability to pay astronomical medical bills. The only good news is that health care stocks and bonuses for the heads of these corporations are shooting upward. Chalk this up as yet another victory for our feudal overlords and a defeat for the serfs.

The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care-$7,129 per capita-although 45.7 million Americans remain without health coverage and millions more are inadequately covered, meaning that if they get seriously ill they are not covered. Fourteen thousand Americans a day are now losing their health coverage. A report in the journal Health Affairs estimates that, if the system is left unchanged, one of every five dollars spent by Americans in 2017 will go to health coverage. Private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume 31 cents of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough, Physicians for a National Health Plan points out, to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans. Check out www.healthcare-now.org. It has some of the best analysis.

This bill is not about fiscal responsibility or the common good. The bill is about increasing corporate profit at taxpayer expense. It is the health care industry's version of the Wall Street bailout. It lavishes hundreds of billions in government subsidies on insurance and drug companies. The some 3,000 health care lobbyists in Washington, whose dirty little hands are all over the bill, have once more betrayed the American people for money. The bill is another example of why change will never come from within the Democratic Party. The party is owned and managed by corporations. The five largest private health insurers and their trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, spent more than $6 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. Pfizer, the world's biggest drug maker, spent more than $9 million during the last quarter of 2008 and the first three months of 2009. The Washington Post reported that up to 30 members of Congress from both parties who hold key committee memberships have major investments in health care companies totaling between $11 million and $27 million. President Barack Obama's director of health care policy, who will not discuss single payer as an option, has served on the boards of several health care corporations. And as salaries for most Americans have stagnated or declined during the past decade, health insurance profits have risen by 480 percent.

Obama and the congressional leadership have consciously shut out advocates of single payer from the debate. The press, including papers such as The New York Times, treats single payer as a fringe movement. The television networks rarely mention it. And yet between 45 and 60 percent of doctors favor single payer. Between 40 and 62 percent of the American people, including 80 percent of registered Democrats, want universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans. The ability of the corporations to discredit and silence voices that represent at least half of the population is another sad testament to the power of our corporate state to frame all discussions.

Change will come only by building movements that stand in fierce and uncompromising opposition to the Democrats and the Republicans. If they can herd Kucinich and John Conyers, the sponsors of House Resolution 676, a bill that would create a publicly funded National Health Program by eliminating private health insurers, onto the House floor to vote for this corporate theft, what is the point in pretending there is any room left for us in the party? And why should we waste our time with gutless liberal groups such as Moveon.org, which felt the need to collect more than $1 million to pressure House Democrats who had voted "no" on the original bill to recant? What was this purportedly anti-war group doing anyway serving as an obsequious recruiting arm of the Obama election campaign? The longer we tie ourselves to the Democrats and these bankrupt liberal organizations the more ridiculous and impotent we appear.

"I'm ready to listen to the White House, if the White House is ready to listen to the concerns about putting a public option in this bill," the old Kucinich said on the "Democracy Now!" radio and television program before he flipped. "I mean, they can do that. You know, they're still cutting last-minute deals. Put the public option back in. Make it a robust public option. Give the people a chance to really negotiate rates with the insurance companies ... from the standpoint of having a public option. But don't just tell the people that you're going to call this health care reform, when you're giving insurance companies an even more powerful monopoly status in our economy."

© 2010 TruthDig.com

Udall to Colorado: Pay Top Dollar for Drugs

Colorado U.S. Senator Mark Udall is apparently content with what you have to pay at the pharmacy for your medicine. Yesterday, Udall voted 'no' to include the re-importation of drugs in the health insurance reform legislation.

If there is a backroom deal between President Obama and Big Pharma that Udall is supporting, well, that's the kind of government most of us are sick of in this country. Or else, Mark Udall gets lots of campaign contributions for the pharmaceutical industry, or he thinks you aren't paying enough for your medicine.

What is even more disgusting about this development is that the amendment to let less expensive drugs be imported into the country actually passed, 51 - 48. However, because of the filibuster rule, the will of the majority means nothing in our allegedly great democratic, deliberative body.

The United States Senate is a dysfunctional organization.

In a republic, we elect people to legislatures to make laws for us. In the republic of the United States we also believe in the notion that the majority rules ... with proper respect for the rights of the minority.

Once upon a time the 'filibuster' idea was that in the 'deliberative' legislative body of the U.S. Senate, the minority could slow down action causing more time for, well, deliberation ... and persuasion (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington).

Only in recent times has the filibuster morphed into a tactic creating a 'tyranny of the minority' -- both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for this perversion of the original idea.

The current health insurance reform effort accompanied by the radical Republican's calculated political ploy to become totally obstructionist in the federal legislature has highlighted how the filibuster has become an anti-republican, anti-democratic tool. The present use of the filibuster has made the U.S. Senate a dysfunctional body and by extension the whole legislative process as envisioned in the Constitution.

This needs to end. Unfortunately, the feckless Dimocrat Senate leadership is worried about being in the minority again (we can guarantee that if they don't change course now) and want to preserve the perverse filibuster tactic for their own future use.

But we think most Americans understand and support the concept of majority rule and the notion that at least 51 votes out of a hundred is a win.

Under the current circumstances we should call the parliamentary maneuver to change the Senate rules and end the present filibuster regulation "The Lieberman Option," since it is his arrogance and conceit that is precipitating this legislative crisis.

After the filibuster is killed, in short order a genuine, true health insurance reform bill could be passed by majorities in both houses of Congress and the will of the people as expressed in the last election could be fulfilled.

If this doesn't happen then President Obama and the Dimocrat Congress and Dimocrats in state and local offices can watch their 2008 'mandate' collapse.

And, the entire nation may very well witness citizen cynicism and disgust envelop our governmental and political system ... and who knows what will be the consequences of that sad development.

From Wikipedia (Nuclear Option):

The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

So-called "reconciliation", another Senate parliamentary tactic is hardly a viable alternative to passing health insurance reform: it is too restrictive (limited to budget issues) and it's a one shot deal. After 'reconciliation' the Senate is right back with an obstructive radical Republican Senate minority and Lieberman/Nelson/Lincoln available to block any other legislation.

What is somewhat sobering about this development is realizing how quickly the Dimocrats have squandered their control of Congress; they have actually significant majorities in both houses. Yet they will now be perceived as incompetent, unprincipled, easily bullied and corrupt (health insurance campaign contributions).

Here is our prediction: the Senate Dimocrats will not exercise the "Libererman Option." The Senate Dimocrat leadership is too 'dainty' to be audacious enough to use the power the Constitution gives them as a majority.

It is amazing ... the Dimocrats just never seem to come to the comprehension that by NOT EVER being bold and daring, they demonstrate repeatedly to the American people that they really are not tough enough nor principled enough to be given the privilege of governing this nation for very long (since the 1980s anyway). Sometimes, even if you don't win, it is important to display strength of character by taking risks, by being innovative, by being gutsy -- Dimocrats don't seem to be capable of doing this. It means that their regaining of federal power since 2006 will probably be brief.

Real Change Needed in Health Care

Dave Chandler, candidate for Congress in Colorado's 7th district said today that we must find a way to insure affordable health care for all Americans.

"We're going to witness a lot of "gottcha" politics in these closing days of the 2006 election," said Chandler. "But I'm going to keep talking about important issues."

"Everyday I'm hearing more about the big problem with the cost of health insurance and the bureaucracy of getting prompt and thorough medical service. The cost of health care is getting so out of hand that families are being forced to stop making contributions to their retirement accounts in order to afford the health insurance premium. How much sense does that make?" (News report below.)

Chandler said that if he is elected to the U.S. House, he will support the single-payer idea as a good starting point from which to build consensus for a program that will be beneficial for all Americans.

"I've heard so many stories of folks having a difficult time paying for prescription drugs, hearing aids, preventative care, mental health, unexpected illnesses. We've just got to do something soon, or we are going to have a serious, serious health care crisis."

"Let's be open-minded about the various ideas for getting our health system in order. The worst thing we can do is take a hardened, ideological position right off the bat. Too many good, hard working citizens are suffering ... there has got to be a solution if we work cooperatively to find one."

Dave made this important point: "Unlike the big party candidates, I haven't taken and never will take any campaign contributions from the insurance industry or the doctor's lobby or the drug manufacturers -- I am free to look for the best proposals that will work for all the people. I won't have to be worried about offending some potential big contributor now or in the future. I can put good ideas based on solid principles ... before politics."

Link: Physicians for a National Health Program | Single-Payer National Health Insurance

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

Link: Cost Concerns Drive Dissatisfaction With Health Care | Kristen Gerencher/MarketWatch

Health-care costs are increasingly vying with retirement contributions for a piece of the household budget. More than a third of Americans squeezed by higher medical costs say they've reduced their contributions to retirement and other savings accounts in response. Thirty-six percent of those who've seen their health costs climb in the last year report they've decreased their retirement savings compared with 25% who said so in 2004, according to a survey of 1,000 adults from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). More than half -- 53% -- say they've ratcheted down other savings.

Paying for higher health costs resulted in other financial struggles more often as well, with 28% saying they had trouble paying for basic necessities this year vs. 18% in 2004. Difficulty covering other bills affected 37%, up from 30% two years ago. ...

... Premiums for job-based health coverage rose 7.7% on average from 2005 to 2006, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Wages rose 3.8% and inflation increased 3.5%.

Staying Alive

Freed from the contraint of offending big-monied campaign contributors, Colorado 7th Congressional District candidate, Dave Chandler, believes that we need fundamental reform of our health care system.

Dave thinks that the 'Physicians for a National Health Program' (PNHP) is a good place to start a national discussion about how we pay for and receive care from doctors and other health care professionals.

"With premiums rising every year, with out co-pays going up, and our waits for appointments getting longer, we've got to be bold and daring in looking for new ways to provide health care to all Americans," says Dave.

"What the Physicians for a National Health Program proposes may not be exactly how a final, implemented program might look like," Chandler said, "But this plan is a good place to start having this necessary discussion."

"Explore the Physicians for a National Health Program web site. I think folks of all political persuasions will find it interesting, provocative and informative."

Dave recommends reading the Frequently Asked Questions about the single-payer plan.

Dave says that he is particularly impresses with two facts pointed out by PNHP. First:

"Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars."

"We have got to find a way to improve efficiency to get our money's worth out of our health care dollars," says Dave.

"Secondly, on top of our private insurance, today, now, we are paying with tax dollars almost two-thirds of health care costs in this nation already," Chandler points out. "That is duplicative and wasteful."

"Currently, about 64% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 17% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 19% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do."

A member of the U.S. House of Representatives that is not beholden to special interest groups for campaign contributions and is not captive to the influences of special interest lobbyists will be in a unique postion to examine plans and make proposals that can benefit the vast majority of Americans and residents of Colorado's 7th Congressional District.

It is time to say 'no' to the big, establishment political parties and their cautious candidates who depend upon special interests to get them elected. It is time to say 'yes' to an independent-minded candidate like Dave Chandler.

"If we are going to improve our health care financing system in the United States, we have to move beyond the 'Democrat' position and the 'Republican' position. We'll need representatives free from the influence of insurance company lobbyists, drug company lobbyists, HMO lobbyist, and all the big-money special interests.

"My candidacy gives you a way to vote for that kind of new political freedom -- that can do what is best for all Americans and for all of our great country!"

Vote Dave Chandler for Congress!

Clip art licensed from the Clip Art Gallery on DiscoverySchool.com