Barbara Ehrenreich: Healthcare Surrender Monkeys

[marmar]

from The Nation:


Healthcare Surrender Monkeys
Barbara Ehrenreich




Bow your heads and raise the white flags. After facing down the Third Reich, the Japanese Empire, the USSR, Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein, the United States has met an enemy it dares not confront--the American private health insurance industry.

With the courageous exception of Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic candidates have all rolled out health "reform" plans that represent total, Chamberlain-like, appeasement. Edwards and Obama propose universal health insurance plans that would in no way ease the death grip of Aetna, Unicare, MetLife, and the rest of the evil-doers. Clinton--why are we not surprised?--has gone even further, borrowing the Republican idea of actually feeding the private insurers by making it mandatory to buy their product. Will I be arrested if I resist paying $10,000 a year for a private policy laden with killer co-pays and deductibles?

It's not only the Democratic candidates who are capitulating. The surrender-buzz is everywhere. I heard it from a notable liberal political scientist on a panel in August: We can't just leap to a single payer system, he said in so many words, because it would be too disruptive, given the size of the private health insurance industry. Then I heard it yesterday from a Chicago woman who leads a nonprofit agency serving the poor: How can we go to a Canadian-style system when the private industry has gotten so "big"?

Yes, it is big. Leighton Ku, at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, gave me the figure of $776 billion in expenditures on private health insurance for this year. It's also a big-time employer, paying what economist Paul Krugman has estimated two to three million people just turn down claims.

This in turn generates ever more employment in doctors' offices to battle the insurance companies. Dr. Atul Gawande, a practicing physician, wrote in The New Yorker that ''a well-run office can get the insurer's rejection rate down from 30 percent to, say, 15 percent. That's how a doctor makes money. It's a war with insurance, every step of the way.'' And that's another thing your insurance premium has to pay for: the ongoing "war" between doctors and insurers. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071008/ehrenreich

[Mythsaje]

1. Fuckin' insurance companies...n/t

[redqueen]

2. Fuckin weak-kneed "top-tier" candidates. n/t

edited to put "top-tier" in quotes... cause ugh!

[bvar22]

12. Fuckin weak-kneed "top tier" Corporate Owned candidates....

AND those who help catapult their propaganda.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[redqueen]

32. It IS odd to see so many corporatist talking points

defended so vociferously, isn't it?

[TahitiNut]

56. When people mindlessly support the "lesser evil" they get this kind of evil.

Here's the 'logic' ...

It costs more because it's BIG. Therefore, we have to keep throwing our money at it because it's TOO BIG.

That's COWARDICE on steroids. Total, complete, abject poltical cowardice.

(Where it's not cowardice, it's criminality.)

[Demit]

3. 'As for the health insurance company executives, there should be an adequate job training program

for them--perhaps as home health aides."

Wouldn't that be poetic justice. I love Barbara Ehrenreich!

[redqueen]

4. Oh and I'm reeeeeeally really shocked

that this thread has so few responses.

Yep.

REALLY shocked.

[Warpy]

7. I'm not. Most people haven't gotten sick yet

so they haven't been greeted by that stack of denials, bills, copays, and, insult to injury, hiked costs for everybody in their plan just because one member got sick.

The health insurance industry in this country is 100% pure, unadulterated evil. They make money by cheating us in most cases and letting us die in other cases.

[redqueen]

8. So unless it bites 'em in the ass PERSONALLY, then it's no big deal.

Yeah, that's really nice.

*sigh*


edit to add: I've had insurance for nearly my entire life. Either through my parents or through my own job. SOMEHOW, I manage to still see how important that issue is. I wonder how it is that it doesn't work that way for everyone, the whole empathy thing.

[liberalhistorian]

57. Health care has been a major, major issue for me for many

years, even when I was insured. It makes me, literally, sick to see how so many people don't give a damn unless and until it affects THEM personally. I've done my part for years to make people aware of the critical importance of this issue and the need for universal, single-payer, guaranteed health care. It infuriates me that we still remain the only developed, industrialized nation that does NOT have that. It infuriates me that the goddamned insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies have ruined health care, control it, and are doing their very best to destroy so many lives. And that the executives make beaucoup money off of denying so many others the health care that they have no trouble getting and paying for, at the expense of the lives of others, and that Congress has the best health care of all paid for by those who do NOT HAVE THAT LUXURY YET THEY DENY IT TO THE REST OF US.

I'm living it now, though, I've been uninsured for about thirteen months and won't be insured again until I marry on November 23 of this year and am then covered under my fiance's work insurance. I've been very, very lucky in that nothing has happened to me this past year and I'm generally healthy and try to do what I can to stay that way. But you never, ever know, an accident/illness/injury can happen at any time no matter what and no matter how careful and responsible you are and I'm terrified that something will happen to me prior to getting insurance. I've put off the yearly mammogram that I should have had in March because, on the very off chance that it would show something, I wouldn't be covered even when I did finally become insured. It'll have to wait until December, after my marriage. Will someone please explain to me why my access to insurance, and, therefore, affordable health care (depending on the insurance company and what is actually covered, of course) depends on the status of my romantic relationship? And why that's the case for millions of others?

[redqueen]

61. Putting off healthcare

What kind of madness is this... and why are so many already giving up before the fight's even started... pure madness.

[Carolina]

44. you are so right

unadulterated evil says it all.

[eridani]

48. It's like people's opinions of their fire departments

As far as they know, their local fire departments are pretty good. In reality, nobody who hasn't had a fire knows jackshit about how good they are. Expensive illnesses are uncommon statistically, just like fires, so most people don't have a clue about how good their insurance is. Similar situations, except that we know the firefighters aren't in business for the purpose of screwing us.

[Elidor]

27. Supporters of the top 3 don't want their bubbles burst.

Because their candidate is just the greatest thing ever, and anyone who says otherwise is a HATER, a BASHER, a TROLL. It's amazing to me how many self-styled progressives have fallen for the same old shit with new faces. And how intolerant they are of any criticisms. They can't fucking wait until they can pull their Bill O'Reilly imitations here on DU: "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!"

I've really come to loathe this board, a little more every week. One day, I'll just remove the button from my browser and let it go.

[redqueen]

30. Yup.

Explains a lot about the state of politics in this country, doesn't it?

*sigh*

[bvar22]

55. I may be leaving too.

Depends on who the Dem nominee is.
Its against DU rules to advocate for a 3rd Party.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[BrklynLib at work]

5. Rec #5. Off to the greatest page with thee.

[Fovea]

6. It is the issue that has put me in Dennis' corner

because the other ideas are as bad as what we have now.

[Canuckistanian]

9. K&R

[bread_and_roses]

10. Ehrenreich is right, as she is so often. another Rec from me. I can't believe anyone here defends

the indefensible plans of the "top tier" - which are nothing but blatant sell-outs to the insurance and pharma gaping, insatiable maws. We know who the top tier's masters are, and who they serve, and it ain't us.

[redqueen]

11. Kick

:kick:

[OzarkDem]

13. As a proponent of single payer health care, I don't support Ehrenreich

As a breast cancer survivor who writes about the plight of working people, she tends to support policy groups with a warped vision - the old school folks from the multimillion dollar non profits who push only issues for children and the elderly. She doesn't advocate for other breast cancer survivors who,unlike her, don't have health insurance.

Most of the groups she works with think the only women's health issue is birth control & abortion and Ehrenreich gladly runs with the pack. She has betrayed breast cancer survivors who need access to health care and support systems repeatedly. I'm not sure why, I'd like to think she's just lazy and doesn't bother to investigate the groups and causes she works with. :shrug:

[redqueen]

14. Erm... I think the subject is healthcare... not "why Barbara isn't good enough for me"

:wtf:

[OzarkDem]

16. Yes, the subject is health care

and when discussing it, Barbara tends to leave out women who aren't elderly, or don't need birth control or an abortion. How's that for a clarification?

When the going gets tough for single payer health care and the so called "liberal" health care activists start picking and choosing who gets covered under a fallback plan, Barbara and her friends will leave women behind. Unless they have small children, are elderly or need birth control or an abortion.

And yes, I work on the front lines for women's health care reform. Some of these so called women's leaders need to be put out to pasture - their women's health policy hasn't changed since the 1970's.

[redqueen]

17. How does her lobbying for single-payer care

have anything to do with which areas she personally thinks are important?

[OzarkDem]

18. When the going gets tough for single payer

and the old school "liberal" health care reform gurus start picking and choosing who will get covered under an alternate plan, they will default to the 1970's when deciding women's health care policy:

They'll only support health care for women if they have small children, are elderly or need birth control or an abortion. Its as if they don't realize women have other serious health care problems between age 40 and 65.

Happens time and time again.

I'm all for advocating for single payer health care and am already doing it. But I place no faith in the "surrender monkeys" like Barbara who, when push comes to shove, will sell out middle age women for health care reform.

[redqueen]

19. They? Gurus? We have models that work well already.

I don't know where all the convoluted arguments are coming from... but can we just first DEMAND single-payer (i.e. SANE) care? And stop being apologists for the 'leave no insurance exec behind' plans that the "top-tier" candidates have come up with?

[OzarkDem]

25. Just a little peek behind the curtain

at how "liberal" health policy groups actually lobby for health care reform. Another group that is chronically AWOL on women's access to health care are the feminist groups. Its a lonely world standing in the Congressman's office lobbying for access to health care if you represent middle aged women.

I always hate having to explain to uninsured women with potentially fatal, catastrophic illnesses that "no, honey, the feminists and other women leaders aren't working on this problem". The poor, sick, dying women wave copies of Ehrenreich's book and ask "what is she doing to help?" and I have to answer "nothing".

[redqueen]

28. There are millions of people waiting for ANY care...

so I'm focusing on the big problems first.

[OzarkDem]

29. Health care for women isn't a big problem?

Thanks for filling me in. I can understand why you like Ehrenreich and her cohorts.

Perhaps you can provide us with a list of who you think is most important to cover.

[redqueen]

31. I'm not playing the "lets divide people from each other" game.

Single payer care... for everyone.

[OzarkDem]

34. As I said

Everyone talks a good game on single payer. But when single payer proposals fail and the time comes to do something incremental, women get the short end of the stick every time.

I've seen these health care lobbying groups who Ehrenreich likes to hang out with operate first hand. Their only interest is in keeping funding for the groups that already get coverage. They bristle, argue and fight when advocates try to get coverage for uninsured women, even for catastrophic illnesses.

I don't trust her, never will.

[redqueen]

37. I don't associate single-payer with Ehrenreich's priorities.

:shrug:

[OzarkDem]

39. Ehrenreich's only priority

is selling more books.

Single payer health care is worth advocating for, but don't bother with the likes of her. She's a diletante and has no credibility.

[redqueen]

42. Yeah... I really don't care what her personal proclivities are.

I just want what we need... what we deserve... what the other civilized countries have, but for some reason our 'top-tier' candidates (and KRUGMAN who is like unto JESUS HIMSELF :eyes:) seem to think we just can't have... darnit!

[OzarkDem]

47. I know, its discouraging

I've been hearing the "incremental" talk from beltway Dems for several months now, regardless of how much public opinion supports single payer.

The public would back any Dem candidate who supports single payer, that isn't an excuse they can fall back on. The big question is why they won't back it, even with public support. What are they afraid of and how do we convince them they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting it? :mad:

[redqueen]

50. I don't give them that excuse... they're on the take.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/sickos-for-sale/candidates/

[BlooInBloo]

15. Yah - fucking Paul Krugman - corporatist asshole!

[redqueen]

20. What?

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

21. Krugman unequivocally believes Clinton's, Edwards' and Obama's plans are all very good....

... and have the benefit of being politically doable quickly, which the beloved single-payer model doesn't.

[redqueen]

22. That doesn't make him a corporate whore... just misguided.

If it was his job to come up with a policy, and he came up with something that handed tax money to fatcat executives, and he came up with this plan after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from people connected to the insurance industry, then he'd be a corporate whore.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Oh ok. When you agree with him, he's awesome. When you disagree, he's misguided...

... At no point does the possibility that *YOU'RE* wrong cross your minds. And *that's* why America is at where America is at.

:rofl:


EDIT: And his decades of training and work as a professional economist don't matter in the least to what armchair "thinkers" opine. Again - America deserves the spot it occupies.

[redqueen]

26. Love the black and white bullshit "reasoning".

ANYONE can be wrong about anything... NO ONE is perfect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1869822

Tell me why nothing can pass congress. Explain to me how that makes sense.

"Armchair "thinkers"" you say.

Nice dig.

Funny how so many "Centrists" on this site suck SO MUCH FUCKING ass.

[Selatius]

33. Krugman said in an article a while back Edward's plan offers the best chance to transition to...

a single-payer format. One of the things in his plan which isn't in Obama or Hillary's plan is the notion of putting Medicare in direct competition with private insurers. I wish I had the article at hand, but he said that people would be given a choice to stay with their private insurer or switch over to Medicare. The upshot, said Krugman, was that the plan would use market forces to uproot private insurance because no private for-profit corporation could compete with Medicare as far as costs went, since Medicare has negligent advertising costs or the added burden of delivering a profit margin to shareholders or the costs of simply denying people coverage.

It would be ironic if private insurance were defeated using the forces of the free market, like turning capitalism against itself.

[redqueen]

36. Did he say ANYTHING about Kucinich's plan?

The one that's already in congress, with nearly 100 co-sponsors?

[BlooInBloo]

43. Yes, though not by name. It's in the excerpt I provided.

[redqueen]

45. Did you read the study group link?

Why is it just taken as gospel that it will be hard to pass the bill that already has so many co-sponsors, and that has so much support among the electorate?

[BlooInBloo]

46. Ending the war has 100 sponsors and majority support among the electorate...

... and it's hard to pass. What's hard to understand about that?

[redqueen]

49. It's not the same Congress it will be next time around.

And 'ending the war' isn't already a bill on the floor with co-sponsors out the wazzoo, is it?

[Selatius]

62. True, but if you can't get a veto proof majority, your bill dies on the Senate floor.

Any iteration of mandatory health insurance a la Romney, Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is more likely to get a couple or more Republican senators to peel off and vote with the Democrats than a true collectivist system such as single-payer. Mind you, I am a supporter of single-payer and think it's the most cost-effective plan for the long-haul, but politics always constrains what we can do as far as reforms go.

[redqueen]

63. VETO? But this is why I'm supporting Kucinich...

then there's no more fucking around with half-measures. Just get it done right the first time.

[BlooInBloo]

40. It doesn't matter - haven't you heard it's POSSIBLE for Krugman to be wrong?!?

Clutch the pearls!

Alternatively, of course, one could refer to current events:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html

The Edwards and Clinton plans as well as the slightly weaker but similar Obama plan achieve universal-or-near-universal coverage through a well-thought-out combination of insurance regulation, subsidies and public-private competition. These plans may disappoint advocates of a cleaner, simpler single-payer system. But it’s hard to see how Medicare for all could get through Congress any time in the near future, whereas Edwards-type plans offer a reasonable second best that you can actually envision being enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president just two years from now.
...
The smear-and-fear campaign has already started. The Democratic plans all bear a strong resemblance to the health care plan that Mitt Romney signed into law as governor of Massachusetts, differing mainly in offering Americans additional choices. But that didn’t stop Mr. Romney from denouncing the Clinton plan as “European-style socialized medicine.” And Fred Thompson claims that the Clinton plan denies choice — which it actually offers in abundance — and relies on “punishment” instead.

These attacks probably won’t be effective enough to prevent a Democrat from winning next year. But that won’t be the end of the story: even if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Congressional majorities, the insurance and drug lobbies will try to bully them into backing down on their campaign promises.

That’s why the long delay before Senator Clinton announced her health care plan made supporters of universal care, myself included, so nervous — a nervousness that is not completely assuaged by the fact that she finally did deliver. It’s good to know that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will run on a very good health care plan. What remains is the question of whether he or she will have the determination to turn that plan into reality.

It doesn't matter what Krugman says, of course, because - GASP - it's POSSIBLE for him to be wrong! Oh shit - it's possible for ME to be wrong! Can I be wrong about being wrong? !!!Ay dios mio!!!!

Epistemological skepticism as a refutation of Krugman. Only on DU, only in America. :rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

35. Yes, anyone CAN be wrong about anything. Some are more likely than others, however...

... And while there are but few who would describe me as a "centrist", I'm happy to put you down as one of those proud few.


EDIT: Ah - except if "centrist" just MEANS "doesn't like Moonbeam McCrazypants". Then the appellation would be correct simply by virtue of gerrymandered definition. Nothing I can do about that.

[redqueen]

38. "Moonbeam McCrazypants".

Whatever you call yourself... you make nasty personal attacks instead of discussing things like an adult.

Be proud.

[BlooInBloo]

51. It's a good'un, isn't it? (BEAM)

[redqueen]

52. Yup.

Schoolyard bullshit.

I guess you really ARE proud.

That's fuckin sad.

[BlooInBloo]

53. (BEAM)

[redqueen]

54. I'm really glad you're so proud of yourself.

:sarcasm:

[eridani]

59. Mandatory insurance is worse than no insurance at all

Being forced to deplete your bank account to subsidize private insurance makes you even less able to cope with being hard hit by medical expenses.

[redqueen]

60. I don't get the support for these plans...

I don't think I'll ever understand why so many are already settling for less... I guess they figure we won't have control of congress.

[eridani]

64. The support comes from a bunch of ignorant people who have never been expensively sick

The majority have insurance, and think it's good on the same basis that they think their local fire departments are good. In both cases, those opinions are completely uninformed by actual experience with reality, and most of them will be lucky enough so that will continue to be the case.

[Greyhound]

24. We've read these same fabricated excuses here for months much to our shame.

We can only take solace in the fact that those that support this obscenity will get to enjoy the tender mercies of the corporate system they've capitulated to someday.
:kick: & R

[depakid]

41. An excellent polemic

Tells it like it is.

At best, these plans are band aids on gaping wounds. Not one of them addresses the fundamental problems that underly the increasingly dysfunctional and fragmented US health care "system."

[cosmicdot]

58. knr

[area51]

65. kick.

Single payer is pro-life. No other change can save so many American lives.