Democrats Want Health Care That’s Affordable:

Republicans Want Medicare to Die

The most expensive citizens to insure are America’s Senior Citizens. Whatever conditions they acquire—such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer—have had a lifetime to develop. And these conditions, once acquired, will usually be present until the time that they die.

And yet America has covered each and every one of our Senior Citizens from the time that they turn 65 until the very end. With Americans living longer and longer lives, many Seniors now live well into their 80s and beyond. Even to 100 and beyond. And we are glad to have them, our grandparents and our great-grandparents, and even our great-great-grandparents with us.

It is an expense that most Americans gladly pay, in order to keep our loved ones alive. But of course it is a large expense.

And yet we pay the expense as a nation, because we would not see our loved ones suffer and die.

America Insures Only the Most Expensive Americans

Insuring the most-expensive segment of the population has been a costly endeavor. The Democrats put this in place, back in 1965. It took them twenty years, from the time that President Harry Truman proposed it until the time that the Democrats managed to put it in place. This was in the first half of President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s tenure. Medicare was put through for our Senior Citizens during that time, and the Civil Rights Act was put through for all Americans in the same era, and the Conservatives turned away from the Democratic Party, as LBJ had foreseen, for the next 40 years.

Medicare Covers All Seniors....But Republicans Wanted to Kill It

During all this time that Medicare has made health care affordable for our Senior Citizens, Republicans have argued against it. Republicans argue against Medicare primarily on ideological grounds:

“It’s too expensive!” they cry.

“We can’t afford Medicare!” they shout.

“We don’t want big government running our health care!” they say.

Well, of course it’s expensive:

What do you think you get when you only buy the most-expensive things, without budgeting for all the rest?

We Insure More Than Just Seniors

On top of insuring Senior Citizens, already the costliest segment of society for health care, we also pay insurance costs for other expensive groups.

We Insure the Military

Our military—the soldiers, sailors, marines, and fliers who keep America safe—come back from war with myriad serious and costly medical conditions, both physical and emotional. And we pay for them all. Because our military—perhaps even more than our Seniors—deserve it. Our military suffers on our behalf, and the very least we can do is provide for their health care.

But it is expensive.

We Insure Prisoners

Our prisoners are another expensive group. And we pay their health care, too.

This segment of the population often leads lives riddled with drug addiction and other abuses. From tattoos (including those acquired with dirty pen points in prison) that lead to Hepatitis C and other practices that lead to AIDS, America pays for them all.

We Insure the Impoverished

The poor, too, we pay healthcare for.

We provide neighborhood health clinics in the poorer parts of our cities, and those not served in this fashion go to our hospital emergency rooms. And there in the ER, whether it’s a sore throat or a diabetic coma or a gunshot wound, America pays for it all.

We Pay for the Most Expensive: Why Not for the Least?

If we are already sharing the cost of health care for America’s costliest populations, it only makes sense to level out the field a bit more, and put everybody under the same reimbursement umbrella.

If cost is the issue—as the Republicans currently proclaim—then what better way to get those costs under control than to put the cheapest in the same tent with the most-exorbitant, and level out the costs for us all?

Republicans Work to Keep Medicare Too Expensive

But since 1965, for almost 45 years, the Republicans have worked to keep it so that the most-expensive health care to be paid for—is paid for out of the taxpayer’s your pocket.

The Republicans have made sure that Medicare is almost impossible for America to afford, so they can keep hollering out, “It doesn’t work! Socialized medicine doesn’t work! It’s too expensive! We can’t afford it! Medicare is going broke!”

Of course it’s going broke:

You Can’t Afford Steak and Lobster on a Hamburger Budget

The Republicans insist on serving up steak and lobster for dinner every night—while the rest of America eats low-cost, high-fat hamburger meat to pay for that steak and lobster (which, by the way, the members of Congress also get to eat, through their government-paid healthcare).

And then they keep fussing at Democrats for blowing the food budget.

If America is already paying for the most-costly patients—the poor, the prisoners, the military, the Seniors—and also paying its own insurance through employer-paid policies—and on top of that, we are paying the insurance companies bigger and bigger and bigger profits every year, then cutting out the insurance company profits, and using that money to pay for Medicare and the VA and the rest of us, can only cost less.

Why Not Keep Healthcare Profits Where They Belong?

A single-payer insurance system that covers all Americans, while paying the bills of the private sector, is the best way to encourage the private sector—doctors, hospitals, drug companies, medical-equipment companies—to continue providing the best possible health care, at the affordable costs that the free-enterprise system and free-market capitalism provides.

Let’s keep medical profits where they belong: in the medical industry. Not in the pockets of private insurance companies.

Republicans Argue Ideology.....
While Americans Without Insurance Die

Now, Republicans can argue with this all that they want. They can talk about the threat of Big Government—but you can ask any Senior how he or she feels about Medicare, and you’ll know that Big Government isn’t really the issue.

The real issue is insurance companies. It's not that they're evil. But businesses need profits in order to survive. And it's just the profits that they have to take out of society that make insurance too-expensive. It's just the profits that require denials of coverage, whether for preexisting conditions or from loss of your job.

Republicans Cry “Choice!” But There Is No Choice.....

Republicans can argue about “choice” all they want. But under our current system of private insurance, there is no real choice.

When all the products available are supported by a broken system—

—that squeezes profits out of the misfortunes of patients and the dedicated service of doctors—

—and no available insurance policy will afford you complete coverage—

—without any rationing of preexisting conditions and illness-caused loss of employment—

—adding zero value to our health care—

—that leaves every single American taxpayer at risk of financial ruin—

—then you know that it’s time to give Medicare to everyone.

Republicans Are Determined to Bankrupt Medicare

The Republicans have worked for almost 45 years to kill Medicare. It’s time to put this destructive Republican ideology aside.

Now Let’s Work to Keep All Americans Alive...

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

“What About Disallows?”

....The Number-One Question to Ask Your Insurance Company....

You Probably Know the Insurance Term, “preexisting condition.” That’s the term insurance companies use to keep from paying for health conditions that you already have.

Another Term for How Your Health-insurance Company rations your medical care is “disallows.”

What Are “Disallows”?

“Disallows” Are What Your Insurance Company Refuses to Pay For—even if your doctor says it’s part of the medical care you need.

If You Think the “Disallows” that Insurance Company A has are better for you if you need a liver transplant, while the “disallows” that Insurance Company B has are better for you if you have pancreatic cancer, then you are free to choose which policy is better for you and your family.

Which Diseases Are You More-Likely to Get?

If You’ll Get a Heart Condition, then Company C’s policy may be the one for you.

But If Your Child Might Get Muscular Dystrophy, then Company D’s policy may be right.

What's the Best Insurance Policy for Your Particular Family?

Insurance Policies Are Not the Same. You probably like the insurance policy you get from work right now. But what if your policy is not the right one for you? Can you change to a policy that better reflects your family's health-risk factors?

Which Policy Is the Best Insurance Policy to protect you against whatever medical conditions time and circumstances may throw your way?

Is Your Family History the Same as Your Spouse’s? In that case, the same policy–from Company E–may be just right for you.

If Your Family History Includes Cancer, but your spouse’s family has a history of heart disease, you might have to go with a policy from Company F—and hope that neither one of you ever has to use it.

Which Policy Is Best for You and Your Spouse?

And Is the Same One Best for Your Kids?

And the Most-Important Question to Ask Your Insurance Company:

“What Are Your Disallows?”

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Why Americans Don't Hate Their Insurance Companies—Yet.

What Makes Most Americans Happy with their health insurance is that they haven’t had cancer or any other major life-changing disease. They haven’t experienced their insurance company “rationing” health care by refusing to pay portions of hospital bills. Such as those items that the insurance company “disallows.”

Your Insurance Company Currently rations your medical care. It gets between you and your hospitals and doctors. The insurance company negotiates what it will pay for and how much they will pay for it.

Your Insurance Company Has a Profit Motive to keep from paying for all the health care that you need.

Those Opposing Health Care Reform Call It “Rationing.” That's how they describe what your insurance company does right now.

What Your Insurance Company Won't Pay, the hospitals and doctors come after you. In the case of life-changing diseases, these unpaid charges can total tens of thousands of dollars, or even more.

But That Hasn't Happened to You Yet. You're still happy with the insurance you have now.

What Will Your Insurance Pay for If You Get Cancer or some other major disease? What will they refuse to pay?

What Will Your Doctor Prescribe for You, that your insurance company won't pay for?

Ask Your Insurance Company about “Disallowed” Items.

Have You Compared These Items with those of other insurance companies, to see which one is better for you? Are you protected for cancer, but not for muscular dystrophy or diabetes? Are you protected for muscular dystrophy, but not for multiple sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease? And how about macular degeneration? Are you covered for that?

You Can’t Know What to Insure Against, until it’s too late.

But Your Insurance Company Has to Insure You in a way that keeps it from going bankrupt–and in fact, your insurance company needs to show a profit of some kind.

And the Doctors and the Hospitals Have to Stay in Business. They can’t just write off all of the charges that insurance companies and patients don’t pay. So they find other, creative ways to spread the cost around.

In America, If You Pay Your Own Medical Bills, you usually pay a lot more than your insurance company pays for the same treatment. Up to 70% more for the same treatment.

Meanwhile, Our Government Pays out the Billions of Dollars in treatment provided for those without insurance.

The System Is Broken. You just don’t know it yet.

Lucky for You, your family is healthy. You don't have any kind of catastrophic medical situation—

At Least Not Yet....

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Calling Congressman John Boehner to Explain

Ohio District 8's Distinguished U.S. Congressman John Boehner said something odd in the White House Press Pool this past Thursday.

Speaking on the Subject of Healthcare Reform, Congressman Boehner interrupted a reporter's question to give an example of how the Obama plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest 3% might effect others. In the example, Rep. Boehner posited a hypothetical Subchapter-S corporation with income of $500,000.

In a Subchapter-S Corporation, all income passes through to the taxpayer, In Rep. Boehner's example, the taxpayer's income is only $150,000. But according to Rep. Boehner's implication, this hypothetical $150,000 taxpayer would pay increased taxes—on the total $500K,000 of the pass-through income.

This Is Not the Case. This is not the way the tax code works at all.

In Such a Situation, the Exact Opposite Is the Case: the taxpayer might earn $500,000 in his Subchapter-S corporation, but after deductions and exemptions, and credits, if his income came out on the 1040 tax form as $150K, he would not be affected by the Obama proposals. In fact, this taxpayer would pay less tax under the Obama healthcare plan.

As Promised During the Presidential Campaign.

Maybe Rep. Boehner Doesn't Know How the Tax Code Works. Or did he perhaps misspeak? Or did he intend to deceive or to scare us? Or is some other reasonable and logical explanation missed?

It Would Be Good to Know the Answer, and I trust the media in Ohio to investigate. What is the story in this seemingly odd hypothetical situation, that may fly under the radar of most Americans' understanding of the tax code.

This Situation Makes a Perfect Opportunity for media to demonstrate its value, by chasing down the answers. As I write, it is more than twenty-four hours since the incident. occurred. Are the newspapers and TV stations and bloggers of Ohio not paying attention?

Which Ohio Paper or Radio Station will be first to call Rep. Boehner to account?

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

In Defense of Dave

It Sucks When People with Thick Skin and little concern for others try to take advantage of good people such as late-night TV show host David Letterman. Mr. Letterman’s good heart, earnest intellect, and genuine curiosity have been on regular display for the last 25 years or so, for those of us eager to enjoy the antics that those traits engender after the kids have gone to bed.

On the Other Hand, the latest Republican vice-presidential candidate and current governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, appeared on the scene recently and has made clear her ambitions to continue parlaying her looks and pretense of self-confidence into higher political office—or whatever else she can manage to get by exploiting these superficial traits.

It Is All a Bunch of Hooie, as they say. No one in American politics has made so brazen an exploitation of her own children for political gain as Ms. Palin has. Where everyone else strives to keep their kids out of the limelight as much as possible, Ms. Palin thrust hers out in front, almost as a kind of a shield.

And Now, with the Unfortunate Opportunity of an unfunny joke, in dubious taste, of a pitched ball served up by Dave, Ms. Palin has done her best to hit the ball out of the park.

As in All Things Political, most of us saw the curve ball fall far short, well into foul-ball territory, while a few of those sitting resentful in far-Right field swear that the ball sailed fair over the outfield fence.

Whatever.

David Letterman's Choice of a Joke taking aim at the lame political candidate was unfortunate. And likely it stuck in his craw to have to apologize to someone who so clearly has sought to exploit Dave's gaffe for some political purpose—as if Ms. Palin truly can't differentiate between Mr. Letterman and actual political competitors, or between herself and professional entertainers.

Meanwhile, Mr. Letterman Seems to Have Made the Best of the unfortunate situation, publicly offering credence to Ms. Palin's pretence that she misunderstood the target of the joke (Palin herself, and not really either of her daughters); that this one, particular, bad Letterman joke, a degenerate makes (degeneracy is in the eye of the beholder); and that Ms. Palin gives a flip about our men and women in military service fighting for the right to have the failure of “abstinence” as a birth-control method not be held against those of us who have been given the God-given right to freedom of speech, or the right to bear children. Or....whatever.

I Hope That Mr. Letterman Knows Better than to take this experience too much to heart. For that would be a real shame.

On the One Hand, This Incident has probably ruined any chance Mr. Letterman has for a successful vice-presidential run in the foreseeable future.

On the Other Hand, That Job May Have Been Irrevocably Tainted by one recent competitor for that office. Not to mention a few who have gone before.

God Bless America for the willingness of Joe Biden to step into the oft-sullied U.S. Veep job and try to make something respectable of the position.)

Oh: and God Bless and Keep Sarah Palin and her family......far away from us.

Keeping Guns Lethal—I Mean "Legal"

The Inarguable Truth About Guns in the United States is that their possession is constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment. But you already knew that.

Another Inarguable, if Irrelevant Truth, is that “guns don't kill people; people kill people.” I guess if military arms are to remain constitutionally protected—but we want to stop the crimes and bloodshed that they cause—we might protect the right to bear arms, but require that all gun-owners have their trigger fingers surgically removed.

At Least That Would Be One Solution. If not a good one.

Those of Us Who Ardently Defend the Right of Free Speech, which permits any American to say anything he damn well pleases—even on broadcast TV under the watchful eye of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia—should understand how those die-hard defenders of Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis movies feel about their own favorite constitutional right.

If You Were Not Ideologically Hamstrung, you might think the Left and the Right could hammer out some sort of compromise about these two issues. But given how unequivocal some are about “free speech,” it should surprise no one that gun-rights supporters feel equally strong. And that they feel equally threatened by anyone trying to take away their God-given Constitutional right.

So When Will We Learn to Respect the Constitution, and if necessary, work to amend the second amendment?

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Citizens to Own Shares of Rescued Wall Street Companies

“WASHINGTON — President Obama’s top economic advisers have determined that they can shore up the nation’s banking system without having to ask Congress for more money any time soon, according to administration officials.

“In a significant shift, White House and Treasury Department officials now say they can stretch what is left of the $700 billion financial bailout fund further than they had expected a few months ago, simply by converting the government’s existing loans to the nation’s 19 biggest banks into common stock.

“Converting those loans to common shares would turn the federal aid into available capital for a bank — and give the government a large ownership stake in return.

“While the option appears to be a quick and easy way to avoid a confrontation with Congressional leaders wary of putting more money into the banks, some critics would consider it a back door to nationalization, since the government could become the largest shareholder in several banks.”

—Edmund L. Andrews,
“U.S. May Convert Banks’ Bailouts to Equity Share,”
The New York Times, April 19, 2009

Channeling Barack Obama writes:

Republicans Are Predictably Outraged at this potential to “nationalize” American banks and turn America into “a socialist state.” But think about this:

If Republicans Would Pull Their Heads out of Their Ideology, and turn their thoughts toward constructive solutions—instead of always shouting out, “Just Say No!—just think what we could achieve.

Take This Proposal For Example:

The American Shareholder Plan

Now That President Obama’s Top Economic Advisors have begun turning taxpayer TARP loans into shares of common stock, it’s time to take another look at the ASP—the American Shareholder Plan.

(For Our Description of this taxpayer/shareholder proposal, see October 11, 2008:
“ASP: The American Shareholder Plan.”)

Conservative Americans Oppose Nationalization of publicly owned companies: Under the ASP corporate ownership gets taken out of the hands of government, and into the hands of private, American citizens.

Conservatives Oppose the “Moral Hazard” of rescuing profligate private companies such as A.I.G. and Citigroup. By giving ownership to individual taxpayers, the ASP makes sure that those on Wall Street who got us into the current mess pay the price—through loss of ownership. Thus, moral hazard comes at a real cost.

Liberal Americans Are Angry at the Investment Banks and Insurance Companies that have put the economy at risk, and countless Americans out of their homes and out of work. The ASP puts shareholder rewards in the pockets of the American taxpayer. Under the ASP, all citizens stand to benefit.

Americans Right and Left Share Concerns about Social Security. Republicans under the administration of President George W. Bush lobbied for private retirement accounts under the Social Security umbrella. The ASP can provide the basis for such private accounts—at no additional cost to the Federal Government and the American taxpayer.

For Once, Wall Street Need Not Benefit Alone from these historic excesses. Those who bear the real cost—the American taxpayers—receive the real benefit, in the form of stock-ownership that accrues toward each American’s retirement and education and health care.

If the American Shareholder Plan Raises Questions for You, please post a comment below or send an email to: channelingbarackobama@yahoo.com.

Otherwise, Please Write Your Senators and Representatives. If you’d really like to own a share of America, let your government officials know.

And If Your Congresspersons Happen to Be Republicans, please let them know about pulling their heads out of their ideology. It's time for the Republican Party to get back to work supporting America.