The news that the House passed the Health care reform bill was a welcome relief. Passing this bill was a huge step toward raising the standard of living in the United States and improving the quality of life for all.
The senate must still reconcile the House bill with its own, and senators will face heavy lobbying during the weeks ahead. The stories of doom and gloom should begin to disappear. Health care providers will begin to realize that millions of new “customers” are about to enter the health care market.
If the law achieves even part of its purpose, medical bills will not climb as quickly as they have in the past few years. Fewer people will be forced into bankruptcy by medical bills. People will no longer have to put off needed medical care because they cannot afford it. In short, Americans will have one less thing to worry about.
This is a day to be proud to be part of a democracy. The government did what millions of us asked it to do, and have been asking it to do for many years. There has not been much of that in the last ten years.
Lots of people heard that government is the problem. The Republican Party courted a brand of far-right conservative whose outlook is basically libertarianism. These people believe that abolishing the government will make us all better off. It is not uncommon to hear ordinary people talk about a city being “government controlled.” People have heard the buzzwords repeated so many times that they have the illusion of truth. The government must be the enemy, or so many people would not be saying so.
They have been coached to resent the government and everything it does by conservative hate-speech radio. They and the talking heads they listen to have forgotten one very basic fact. In the United States of America, WE are the government. To say that the government is the enemy in this country is to say that the people of the United States are their own enemy.
These same government-haters are the ones who apply for social security and Medicare on the first day they become eligible. They support their local police and fire department, and they will call the police immediately if a neighbor’s party becomes too loud.
It will be really interesting to watch them wait for the end of the world as they know it. Watching them grow old waiting for the dire consequences that never come will provide some entertainment and fodder for comics. How will they reconcile reality to their world view when every small business in the country fails to fail? What will they do when people do not have to wait for years for routine surgery? They might just realize that they were wrong. They might get the idea that it is good to live in a society that takes care of all its members and not just the privileged moneyed class. Eventually, they may see that the rest of America is not their enemy.
One can hope.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 108
I think you're right. It was with Reagan that we began to be a plutocracy.
ps, RR expanded government.
So norman, share the congnac if you want us off the kool aid.
After nearly 20 years I am reading an account by the very citizens of US complaing about Ronald Reagan having run an anti-government platform. This is an aspersion over a government that has passed on to history. And I personally feel that mud-slinging on to a government who is not there to provide answers is merely an act of ...... (no name-calling to be done)...only to buy time and excuse to save the present government. Incidentally, the present government is still at the infancy stage. Do I think right?
What is indeed shocking to me is that US which is championing the cause of democracy all over the world, is having people who are prepared to go any extent to defend one particular government whereas they were always at liberty to exercise their democratic rights and vote out a government that was anti-national. What made them keep mum then? This is just by way of courtesy without seeking a reply.
As for Reagan's anti-government platform, it certainly was no surprise at the time. What is mildly surprising in retrospect is the extent to which that platform has contributed to the angry unreasonable accusations against the Obama administration.
This bill is so bad and lacking that even Dennis Kucinich voted against it, not for the reasons other Dems voted NO, but because this bill is a hugely lousy bill, with a mandate for us to purchase it.
I'm glad Kucinich voted NO.
The mandate has to go.
then we might FINALLY get the single payer system we really need.
Buzzwords like democracy? This country wasn't formed as a democracy and this illusion is a big part of the problem. This act of congress will do nothing to repair the the problems with healthcare nor will it lower the costs or make it more accessible. Many practices have been turning people away for years and the last time the insurance industry was investigated, as well as the substandard health care, one of the main underlying reasons was the access and "affordability" of unnecessary tests and procedures. If those elected and appointed to government positions would do their jobs as outlined in the constitution this wouldn't be a concern.
Social security is a good example of people being forced to participate in a government program and being unable to collect the benefits for which they have already paid for. These programs like this proposed program is not free.
As I see it, the major problem with our current health care is the insurance industry. Get them out of the picture entirely and we will have a far better system. I would love to see your proof of the statements you made.
The Justices said that it was more of a DETERRENT to keep the Insurance companies honest.
WHOAAAAAA!
They called it right.
It was megga millions.
Their are many who collect amounts much less than they are rightfully entitled to, often times do to circumstances beyond their control. Early retirements or "golden hand shakes", not qualifying or reduced benefits because of their net worth at the time of their retirement was too high then dropped to nothing overnight. Most have paid in more than they will ever receive back in benefits especially when you consider the dollar they paid in was worth considerably more than the one they are getting today. In terms of performance a comedy for sure. SS hasn't done what it was intended to do or what congress said it would do when they enacted it (or however the fraud really came about). It has become congress' cookie jar and has been empty for years. It was enacted because, like many situations, our government doesn't do what it is supposed to do. The cost of everything is on the rise yet there is a three hold on cost of living increases. Cost of living hasn't increased? What world do these people live in? I guess caviar and air fair to London is holding steady so all is well. One of the fastest growing legal services these days is for securing SS benefits. Unfortunately all too often it is for those who should not be collecting. While laziness, bad attitudes and drug dependency may be debilitating they are not disabilities. We need unskilled labor too. Personally I'm tired of the people around me losing everything they have worked for because because their retirement investments went south due to blatant criminal activity, their real estate is worth a fraction of what the government accesses it at they can only collect a fraction of what some of the able bodied people are collecting who have really paid nothing in.
There are two congressional reports. One dating back to the 80's was ordered because our government could not get insurance and the other was to look at the medical malpractice rates which was revisited again in 2003. The insurance companies won both times and the courts, who ordered the investigations, were just as much to blame as congress and their bureaucratic cronies. Congress passed bunch of bills that was going to fix it. Never happened.. and the numbers keep getting worse only now we have more agencies who aren't responsible for what they were created for so now we need to create more.
Our government was formed to uphold justice, promote tranquility and provide national defense. Instead of doing their jobs they set up all these narcissistic societies of acronyms and as you can see by Rude D's comment they don't work. Where was the insurance commissioner? That is the commissioners job. They are just as culpable. On the same token exuberant tort awards are very much part of the problem.
I'd like to see proof that our country was founded as a democracy and that this legislation is at all legal or that it will do anything to reduce the cost of healthcare. Buzz-words and catch phrases get everyone the warm and fuzzy distracting the masses from the real problems and we spend millions on pointless legislation that does nothing to solve anything. It's pretty pathetic when even the Library of Congress doesn't know and will make no attempt to count or event guess the number of "laws" that really aren't. The last time I read the US codes in their entirety was in 2006 and from the time you start to the tome you finish huge sections are amended, repealed or a Supreme Court case proves how worthless they all are.
The employer is paying as much as you pay.
So really,
People do not collect a lot more than was paid in in their name.
And. . . . this employer obligation is why the Republicans want to END
Social
Security, now and forevermore.
Anyone that files for early retirement knows full well that the benefits are reduced .........they tell you that and advise you to wait if you possibly can. Better to wait til you reach full retirement age because your decision is BINDING no matter what happens to you tomorrow. It is a risk taken with full disclosure so there is no basis for complaint...........period!
My mother lives in Sun City, AZ, a retirement community of more than 30,000 in which at least one member of every household must be over 55. She is typical of this community in that she began collecting SS in her early 60s. She's now 84 and still collecting over $1,700 per month.
Finally, net worth is not taken into account in determining SS benefits - income is.
While wages from employment are a factor they only come into play in SS in a couple of areas. One is when you are paying in and the other is when you work during your retirement which for a low wage earner produces an increased benefit because you are paying more in and your benefit is reduced while you are working. Higher wage earners are penalized. Typically the same class of people who this original article alludes to protecting or helping. The small business owner or self employed who pay the most into the fund but receive the least benefit. The number of small businesses that fail is very high and the majority that fail have nothing to do with healthcare.
"Healthcare" or more appropriately health insurance benefits has primarily been about attracting and retaining "quality" employees. A good percentage fail due to the cost of hiring employees and the taxes and fees associated with it that do nothing to protect the employees as they are intended to do although they often make it difficult for a small business to dismiss an inefficient or unproductive worker.
While I don't have a problem with the lower wage earners experiencing a greater ROI, if you wish to call it that, I do have a problem with those who worked hard for what they have, paid considerably more to the government through various licensing, permitting and other fees, have been ineligible for many benefits afforded to others and often do not count in many government statistics who are having to substantially lower their standards of living because all the money they paid to all these regulatory agencies was for nothing as they are not required to do their jobs. Any agencies and their supporting companies created as the result of this legislation will be no different.
With friends like our government who needs enemies?
I didn't think so.
It was James Florio.
Uh-huh, James who?
"If the law achieves even part of its purpose, medical bills will not climb as quickly as they have in the past few years." I am not sure how this will work. There was something I learned about supply and demand to the effect if the demand goes high then the price will rise. It has to do with paying for adding to the capacity to deliever service. If during the current downturn the fastest growing sector for jobs has been health care and prices are going up to pay for those new hires then how will adding patients lower the cost? I guess it might if the number of patients treated per health care work goes up.
I hae heard that the predominate factor in personal helath problems is lifestyle, do believe that is true?
My medical insurance company is accountable to the state regulators, to the courts, to the people who pay for the insurnace policies. Does this new law hold the government accountable in similar ways or can they do what they want without any accuntability?
As I understand it the trillion plus cost of the new law will be paid for by reducing payments to Medicare by several hundred billion dollars. Does the law prevent the Congress doing that to the new "public option" if they costs aren;t as low as they claim?
If you think you're insurance company is accountable to state regulators, you're assuming that the regulators are impartial. I know for a fact that isn't so in my state. The regulators are there to protect the interests of the insurance industry.
They're accountable for following the lax regulations your state has in place. And then only if you are successful in registering and following through with a complaint. They're allowed to reject your claims because of the most spurious pre-existing conditions. "Accountable to the people who pay the premiums? How? In most states 1 or 2 insurance companies control the vast majority of the business. They're not accountable to you if you have no alternative.
What accountability do you think the government should have? Is it in the new law?
If you don't like the accountability of insurance companies, what do you propose?
In Michigan the state regulators are the ones with final approval on insurance fees and licensing of the insurance companies to sell here. That seems pretty powerful. If you don't think the state has mcuh control why would you think anyone would have control of the federal "public option"?
As for accountability for "the government" I don't know - but I do know that the insurance company bureaucrats whose jobs depend on denying claims are accountable only to their bosses, not to policy holders.
You don;t trust the state governments to hold the insurance companies acconutable, but you are willing to put blind faith in an unaccountable federal government to do everything right.
The "public option" is not competetive, the government has unlimited funds with no reason to be competetive. President Obama likes to use the Post Office as an example of competetion. There are only two reason it still exists, federal law prohibits private companies from deliverying first class mail and the federal government subsidizes with billions of dollars.
At least be willing to accept some legal methods to hold the "public option" accountable.
Interesting take on it. I don't see how another 1.5 trillion out of an empty treasury is going to help but if you say so.
These are the exact arguments used against Medicare in 1964
Colonel, you look at this as though we have to pay the bill at the end of the month. In business, there is an ebb and flow to money; things float, and if the business is successful, it all comes out in the wash. Now that everyone will be responsible to buy their own health care, as they are able, I won't have to pay double through the back door with high premiums and higher bills to cover people who have no insurance, but still need health care. I also might get seen sooner at an emergency room when I have an emergency.
And insurance co's may get rich, if they can raise premiums enough to meet the requirements in this bill. They will have to serve only the subsidized poor, though. Nobody else will be able to pay the skyrocked premiums.
Ok and here is why the conserv yakkers rag on this.
Back in Geo W's days, he created Medicare Advantage.
Now there are some Medicare Advantage providers that are charging the Medicare program a reasonable fee and providing good care.
B U T
There are a few billing as much as 3 to 6 times the rate of the good providers and not providing good care. IT IS THESE OVER BILLING PROVIDERS WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR PAYMENTS CUT.
HUMANA is one of the worst and has already "settled" for serious, fraudulent overbilling in the 1990s.
Statements such as "libertarians want to abolish the government" and that they're "government haters" who listen to too much "conservative hate-speech radio" is not helpful. Sorry, but I believe in freedom and don't listen much to talk radio.
Oh right, what was I thinking? ... The IRS Settlement lawyers - you know the ones you see on TV - will get involved (new clients ... yeah!) and bail us all out .... whatever ....
If you look at the House Bill, it doesn't take much to see that someone somewhere (tell me who - I'm too "stoopid") is just trying to cash-in before it goes to single-payer.
No offense, but the reality is this: If this type government is working for you, then you are part of the problem.
That's right. They want to get so many people "on the dole" that it crashes our whole system. Ever heard of the Cloward & Piven Strategy?
"No offense, but the reality is this: If this type government is working for you, then you are part of the problem."
That's for sure.
VS: I see no reason why people shouldn't slam a bad government.
I see no reason why people shouldn't uphold their duly elected government, after the previously presiding rats leaped into the ocean, taking their very ill gotten gains with them.
They did reduce their majority, because people were angry at being duped into paying for a war they didn't want to be in. We didn't want to be in ANY kind of war.
I resent the "provided a token majority" line, because it is not "token." (But it makes him sound rather like a superscillious right winger, yah?)
Yes, regarding the yeoman service, but we could have done without the violations of TARP 1, TARP 2, etc.
Tit for Tat? The whole goal of electing "new and improved" people to government is so that we DON'T revert to "same ole, same ole) management.
And Obama is Not an icon--he is My President.
And, I'm damned proud of him. I just wish the other dems, the govs, the reps and the sens--would stop bending over to the corp $$$ machine.
They need to be voted out asap---and the reason needs to be loudly explained to them--they did not represent the best interest "of the people" during the health care restructure.
But your view expressed in the last but one para - well Kathy, I am not proud of anyone. And I have got my reservations on this score. I cannot express my view now as I am bound by my own decision to come back with the graph after two years, when it would be amply clear where your pride stands and the government. Thanks for your views expressed so genuinely and without any bias.
The medical industry will never be what it was before attorneys evolved from valuable consultants to bloodthirsty ambulance-chasers. Those giant medical bills you mentioned? They're the result of terrified Doctors ordering every test and procedure (and backup Doctors) available, just to cover their asses when the malpractice vultures start circling. Throwing the numbskulls in government into this unholy mess will ensure that nothing will get done.
Also, a hell of a lot of the Doctors being trained in our best schools are foreigners, who zoom back to their native countries 5 minutes after getting their diplomas. This whole matter might be solved by attrition -- we'll just run out of Doctors and nurses.
We are headed toward socialism, and that will fail. The politically-correct idiots have crushed capitalism, so what's left? FASCISM.
What we have had, in an increasing fashion, over the last 2-3 decades, is primarily protected and unregulated form of corporate rape of the American people. It should be replaced, indeed.
When Americans placidly stand by and watch, allowing big money corporations "to buy" our senators, representatives, local governers, mayors, etc, with their PAC money, disguised as campaign funds, then we're essentially giving up the power of the individual citizens to vote the bums out.
That is exactly what we're seeing with the national health care joke, and it is exasperated by the media's pro-corporate propaganda spew.
I really am thinking, more often, that we need to split the country along the Mason Dixon Line; And allow it to be free choice of the citizens as to whether they want to live in the non-religious-zealot Blue States--or if they want to relocate (if necessary) to the Rush Limbaugh / Hannity Insanity Red States. We can reclaim the consititution and bill of rights, lose corporate "get out of jail free" cards, have national insurance, free choice for women, sufficiently funded education--and NO sheeple. Ah! Utopia!
Wilka
There is some justification for that school of thought, I believe.
Nowhere does the constitution outlaw the idea that the Government can provide for the needs of the poor, or the ill, or anyone else.
This is a pathetic beginning, done more to appease the insurance industry and hedge out any further reforms for a few years, because doing nothing would have amounted to even more financial ruin and fewer medical patients, with a greater number of deaths.
It is galling to be expected to buy some form of insurance. The solution would have been to outlaw insurance outright in favor of single payer. Eventually, this will dawn on people.
I also KNOW that the medicare covered folks need to step up to the plate and help moderate (medicate?) medicare. I have many instances of overbilling--from dad's recent hospital stay, and subsequent in-home care, that are both astonishing and fiscally disgusting.
Shock and Awe, on a medical billing level.
Wilka
I also admit I found it highly ironic that the rowdy people who were injured at the healthcare reform rallys were uninsured. Talk about shooting themselves in their own toe? Then, they had to go around and beg for money for medical treatment.
Do I hold out hope that any of those peeps will grow up and admit they were acting as the puppets for the WealthCare industry powers? Not so much.
Altogether a wonderful write--and it is true that we have to keep the torch blasting on the Senate in order to forge through and get it as close to right as possible.
10 for your accounting...
Wilka
Accordingly, I have to acknowledge your post as literally good but lacking in a perspective that should be conducive to people's adverse opinions and accommodate others judgments. If today you have a government that suits your own judgment, the earlier government too had a majority who acknowledged their policies. It is another matter that some people like cowards switch sides and forsake people whom they pretended to support once their ends were achieved. That in my opinion is being opportunistic. As such, it would be improper for me to support a judgment that severs a connection merely for selfish ends. Otherwise, I repeat, your post is good for healthy reading. Thanks for it too.
Ok, they were never a majority.
I so appreciate your insertion of "I so believe". It allows me to not find the need to explain that after 9/11 many of us were attacked viciously for not sharing some of the other's more flamboyant patriotic demeanor. Many rose to an obnoxious state of blindly accepting anything said by the administration and why we had to put the original invasion of Afghanistan on hold while we invaded Iraq. The name calling. The animosity tossed on anyone who didn't agree with the position of preemptive invasion of Iraq. In the midst of all that the same thinkers ignored the anything which didn't show the administration in a good light and simply pressed harder to show their undying support.
No, its all in your mind that the whole of America endorsed their view of the war on terror and their subsequent policies were on the rail. At some point it just might come to your mind that terror is an ideology and has no set station which makes it more than difficult to create a war against it. It also might some day come to your mind that as long as we view terrorism through the pristine eyes of our own lives we will never eradicate it. It is tantamount to allowing our pets to shit on our neighbors lawn yet fail to understand why our neighbor doesn't like us. My hope is that one day your eyes will open fully and you will see the error of your ways.
For argument sake only thanks for your input.
As you say, there might have been some backlash by some section of the people who would at all costs have lambasted the decision of the government to go after the terrorists. And in the melee, some of you might have been caught unawares. But that was bound to happen since the ire of the people had been directed against those traitors. Even some of our sikh people who live in US (thinking them to be working hand in glove with terrorists) were targetted. It was altogether an utmost trying time for the US then. I feel I need not say more on the psyche that caught the nation after 9/11.
No, it is not my view that the whole of America endorsed the view. Al Gore did not lose with that margin either. So I do accept there would not have been a majority who vouched for the policies of the government. But democracy did it and the government survived a second time, to proceed with the policies.
Whatever that might be, if one government falls and another receives the baton, then surely we must accept the fact that a few stray elements had switched sides to prop up another government. I have no qualms about this one either. But the point is, since neither the earlier government nor the present government are party to treachery and did only what they deemed fit under the existing circumstances, it is absurd to take the earlier govrenment to task for wrong policies or deficiencies that took place then, only to defend the present government and their policies. My only say is that - let bygones be bygones and get going with what could be advantageous for the nation for today.
Great article Ann.
Actually, Ann, I fear that the people of the United States have long been evolving into their own worst enemy for many reasons. As a nation, we slip lower and lower in relation to the rest of the world in education & health services & outcomes, we are getting more and more obese and unhealthy as a nation and our life spans are going down, we care less and less about truth and more and more about gossip and sensationalism, we have become greedier and greedier, even as our standard of living and incomes have diminished.
Personally, I don't see much hope for this country. If what you say is true and the people ARE the government, then we would have seen an uprising demanding campaign reform a long time ago. People in fact do not care. They complain and gripe, but they have no interest in the truth. They want their news in 3-second sound bytes and love to watch talking heads battling it out on the screen like some kind of island game reality program. Then they can lazily flick the remote to watch a bunch of B-has been personalities battle it out on the dance floor, while stuffing their faces with processed food full of chemicals and fat.
And all the while, our government has been bought off by big money and corporate interests. Very few really care or are informed. Most just love the drama and back-biting. Honestly, I don't think the people of this country deserve democracy anymore.
I guess you're forgetting how disconnected the government is from us. There's 237 millionaires in Congress. They get most of their money from Wall Street. Their Secretary of Treasury and other officials are former CEOs of corrupt businesses like Goldman Sachs.
"Government is not wisdom; it is not eloquence; it is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington
Government cannot drive health care costs down.
Did we ever stop to ask, why is health care so expensive?
However, government policies have a big effect on unemployment.
For instance, if we reduced or got rid of minimum wage, employment would increase.
Featured in the Triple Name Club.
We, the people established it, we vote for the persons in office..
So, if it fails, it's on us, and not some mythical, government monster.
Thank you for presenting such a clear understanding of what is currently happening. I have been bombarded with anti-Obama emails and jokes from even before his inauguration. Not being very politically oriented and spending most of my time either working or building my online business, I am not sure what to believe anymore about our government and its current policies.
Yours is a clear and important voice - and - you have offered this community a chance to share and express their own views.