Health Care Resolution – Clarification

Ever since the health care debate started, the main objective among the visible opponents has been to fictionalize the various contents of the bill. The principles of the health care bill – costs, quality and affordability extensively discussed per blogpost Health Care Reform July 11, 2009 on this website.

Several testimonials by citizens from all walks of life through various mediums confirmed the urgency for health care reform.

The partisan politics continues to disparage the millions of people deprived of proper health care during the public discourse.

A sensitive national matter turned into a controversial subject by the special interests’ agents. The health care bill described as voluminous, inadequate and far-fetched in reference to the government plan or public option. On the other hand, the noise amazingly disappeared with the White House statement on the possible elimination of the government plan from the competition.
Hence, the overview of the health care funding and the actual role of government plan in the health care legislation vital for true perspective.
How is the government health care funded?
The health care funded through three main categories –
First, by reducing wasteful spending and redundant costs prevalent in the ‘all private run’ system at the moment, a liability transferred on to the Corporations providing insurance, small businesses and individual insurance subscribers by the Health Insurance industry.
Trimmings guaranteed to generate the required savings to a tune of $300-$450 billion, the major portion of it stemming from out-of-court settlements in health care lawsuits, rising costs in malpractice insurance, neglecting preventive care, excessive intervention by the insurance companies with pre-authorization and final authorizations…contributing to a chaotic structure of the huge public system.
Next, streamlining the Health Care industry’s disproportionate costs across the wide spectrum of health care services to fund the program. It’s essential to emphasize that no one is against profit in either private run or hybrid systems. However, profit set to bankrupt the economy and the consumers in the form of businesses and individuals is equivalent to driving blindfolded on a one-way street with a dead end.
Unless and until the health care industry profit margin is reasonable, even the Health Insurance industry objectionable to the government involvement cannot sustain the escalating costs factored with exorbitant mark-ups by the health care complex.
The common problem for both private health insurance and the government plan is the costs incurred in the health care provision – health care professional fees, hospital admissions, treatment, drugs and ancillary services.
In order to keep up with the ever increasing health care industry costs, the health insurance competes with the counterpart by selling unaffordable insurance resulting in the estimated fifty million uninsured as well as cutting corners by denying adequate and quality coverage to the remaining dissatisfied insured population. Even though, the propaganda negates the fact claiming the satisfied insured population at 80%.
The health care and health insurance might appear to be in cohort when they really are at odds against each other in the excessive profit oriented scheme. There has been a rebuttal on this ‘profit’ issue by the health care spokespersons, some even resorting to name-callings as the line of defense. An elaborate explanation was provided via Op-ed, Washington Post, July 2009-
How the reigning in on profit in a free market system would drive the economy to pitfalls.
What was not included in the explanation is the attempt to derive limitless profit at the expense of a vast majority in a sector that would naturally enable the expected returns given the volume based health industry. Similar to the energy sector surviving and thriving in any economy.
Another example for that matter, the world’s manufacturing warehouse, China ending in trade surplus with the rock bottom price due to worldwide mass production.
Regardless of the government plan, the health insurance industry cannot keep its promise to the changes required in the system without the cooperation from the health care industry. In a way, the government plan would ease the burden on the health insurance industry by negotiating with the health care industry via legislation. So, instead of viewing the government or the public option as an obstacle, the health insurance should envisage positive outcome from the hybrid system.
Third, tax increases on the taxpayers with extraordinary income configured in the earlier bill by the House of Congress to supplement health care funding is the prudent path to economic recovery that is excoriating the national revenue from other sectors. It could very well be a short-term pain evolving into long-term healing process.
The emotional outbursts with claims “I want to take my America back form Obama” revolves around the fear and commotion created by the veterans of smear tactics and the infamous ‘swift boat’ campaigners emerging during national elections, illegal wars and all things against national progress.
Ironically, the skepticism and cynicism about public option or a robust government plan for the benefit of the national economy and health in the near future overshadow the crisis in the present health care system.
One might call it a potent weapon by the opponents of the national interests suppressing the anomalies of the exclusive private run enterprise that is proven catastrophic to the overall economy and the general population.
Thus far, in all the town hall meetings organized to address the ‘legitimate’ concerns and queries from the victims of the present health care conglomerate watered down with the negatively charged combative remarks, cleverly pushing the pro-reform legislators on the defense.
Did the opponents gain from the anti-national movement?
Maybe for the time being but only soon to realize that such back alley ambush has its own ramifications that should not be underestimated.
As stated earlier, it’s about time the medical industrial complex and their representatives in the Senate and the House against the public option or the government plan get off the offense and provide believable answers to the simple yet direct questions:
The contentious issue in the health care legislation is the government plan or the public option.
Considering that the contemporary health care system is exclusively private run with the exception of Medicare and Medicaid,
1. Why is the nation left behind with a staggering fifty million population uninsured, if the free market has enough competitors to lower the price?
The correct response: It’s because there is no real or a formidable challenger up to the task of dealing with the monopoly in the system and the non-profit cooperatives will be a fly that would be swatted down by the big players even before it begins to buzz around.
2. Why are the insured population forced to reach out to overseas health care facilities, under the apparently fabulous health care system certified by the paid representatives in the Senate and the House?
Quote – Wall Street Journal – Extensive 2008 editorial and articles – “South Asia, a popular destination for American patients awaiting transplants and various treatment care involving hospitalizations.”
Response: Health care industry’s phenomenal profit driven costs is triggering the health insurance industry to subsidize quality and appropriate treatment necessary but flatly denied to the ailing population. Further, the pre-authorization and final authorization protocols from the private health insurers applicable on healthy and pre-disposed health patients arising from the lack of trust by the insurance industry against the health care industry cause the exodus of the suffering population to foreign locations, not to mention the loss of income to the state and the national economy.
3. Why is the infant mortality and uninsured dependents in the lower income families, elderly care in terms of drug costs to name a few issues, so high under the ‘supposedly’ caring and affordable health care system?
Response: The health insurance and the health care industry policy designed for the healthy and the wealthy minority, rather than the underprivileged and the unfortunate majority.
4. The assertion that government plan dependent upon costs reduction from the health care industry only to be evaded by the health care providers held against the public option entry.
On similar assumption, What is the insurance industry proposal to alleviate the costs to make it affordable for all Americans?
Is the health insurance industry more influential over the health care providers?
In that case, what are they waiting for and why can’t they demonstrate their ability to improve the conditions now, i.e. (if they recognize that there is a systemic problem) to include all in the present system that would benefit the stagnant economy as well.
Alternatively, Does the health insurance possess a unique charm that would mesmerize the health care proponents to agree with the Insurance Industry demands?
One would assume that if it works for one, why it shouldn’t work for another.
Response: Both health care and health insurance industry common goal is to appease their shareholders with handsome returns and will stretch any limits with the consumer as the sacrificial lamb in the expansive, unmitigated health care arena.
5. The Congressmen and Women not in favor of public option, but probably supportive of non-profit cooperative system, is obligatory to their constituents and the entire nation to come forward in a town hall meeting or comparable setting,
To lay out their presumably efficient ‘free market’ operation predicted to create a utopian environment apart from setting precedence for other industrialized nations with hybrid health care systems.
Considering the unanimous consensus that the health care system due for modifications,
It would be fair and justified to call on the health care, the health insurance industry and their representatives in Congress responsible for the stalemate to present the facts and figures to the American consumers and taxpayers in their pledge to clean up the mess in the national health care.
In this context, the activism from the health care professionals seemingly frustrated with the insurance industry dictating terms and conditions in patient care disappointingly missing in action.
The other issue raised by the industry and their agents is – Why is the health care reform a priority and what is the need to rush on the issue?
Response: The economy and the plight of the suffering population speak volume in this regard. Failure to resuscitate the ailing heart would lead to fatality, evidenced in the victims’ real experiences.
In a nutshell, the nation has had enough with the shenanigans from the opponents of the national health care reform who have neither any treatment nor cure to the national epidemic called the health care that is aptly the health nightmare for the sane majority.
To reiterate, Health care is not a privilege or an entitlement but a necessity for survival.
Therefore, targeting higher profit against the market reality directly affecting the economy is not a smart business strategy, besides being beyond the realm of ethics and economics.
The evidence  is in the status quo.
If the industries and their agents cannot resolve the matter effectively through cooperation, the obstinacy reflects the national decimation policy.
Finally, health care reform in the absence of universal provision viz. single payer system  is cosmetic measure with health industry and political establishment being the real beneficiaries in the lucrative deal.

Thank you.
Padmini Arhant

Health Care Bill from the Senate Finance Committee

By Padmini Arhant

Also included is the Response to the Presidential Address to Congress on Health Care Reform.

According to the latest report from the Associated Press:

Health care bill advances without bipartisan deal –

“After months of bipartisan negotiations, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, told associates during the day he intends to unveil a detailed outline of legislation on Wednesday and convene the panel next week to vote on it.

Baucus’ proposal is certain to shun the liberals’ call for the government to sell insurance, and rely instead on co-ops to offer coverage in competition with private industry. His approach includes a requirement for individuals to buy insurance, with financial penalties for those who don’t. Rather than a mandate for larger businesses to provide coverage for employees, they would be required to defray the cost of any government subsidies their employees would qualify for.”

——————————————————————————————–
Analysis: By Padmini Arhant

The public officials’ loyalty to the private industry in the health care bill strongly suggests that these officials are making a mockery of the world’s modern democracy emulated by many young and developing nations up until now.

It is obvious from their openness that they will continue to thumb the electorates’ nose and instead chose to oblige to the whims and fancies of the “Special Interests’ hiring them to deliver the meal in every legislation.

If these officials have great concern for the welfare and the interests of the industries they are associated with, then why are they wasting their time in public service?

They might as well work for the private sector and attain the personal financial gains they are looking for in life and leave the public office to the earnest Americans committed to the service of the people and not the ‘Special Interests’ hiring them for mutual benefits.

There are many qualified, honest and hard working individuals in the American society pledged to serve the people and produce the results in favor of the entire population across the political spectrum.

It’s time for America to wake up from the deep slumber and restore democracy now by directing the legislature to include the government run ‘public option’ rather than accepting the status quo from the elected officials clearly operating under the guidance of the ‘Special Interests.’

Has America become so weak that it can’t defend its own democracy invaded by Capitalism conspicuous in the love-fest between Wall Street and Washington?

Perhaps, the marriage between the Wall Street’s ‘Capital’ and Washington ‘Power’ will be a great model for the marriage counseling.

The inseparable bond is awesome but when it happens to the detriment of their constituents without the people favored ‘public option’ the public officials’ priorities are clear.

Unless and until every constituent struggling to make ends meet along with the nervous citizens confronting the lingering economic uncertainties rise to the occasion and demand Washington to address their needs by declining the ‘Special Interests’ decision pushed through the democratically elected officials, it will be too late to challenge the ogre in the health care battle.

The ‘Special Interests’ investment in media propaganda on the government run ‘public option’ as the bureaucratic meddling in the patient care and the controversial ‘death panel’ is a far-fetched psychodrama displayed at the town hall meetings and the weekend rally in the Capitol.

However, the camouflaged truth behind the so-called health care reform is, the bureaucrats in Washington and Wall Street are already in control of the citizens’ destiny with their verdict to move on without the government run ‘public option.’

Again, the Washington and White House ambivalence in the ‘public option’ of the health care bill, despite the grueling tragic experiences shared by many people across the nation regardless of political factions and socio-economic backgrounds is not only disappointing but also thoroughly unacceptable.

Please don’t forget that all those officials have a guaranteed health care, besides the authority and means to survive during and after their political career regardless of whether they return to power or not. Unfortunately, human nature often motivated to care for self prior to others. It’s prevalent more so now than ever before.

In the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ environment, nothing is available without a robust fight and it is poignant in the health care debate. It’s the democratic right of every citizen to expect the essential requirement particularly in the health matter that has revealed the true colors of the individuals’ with power.

Never mind the campaign promise and the constitutional oath while being elected to the office. The gulf between the elitist and the populist is more prominent in the health care matter with the elected officials’ resignation to diminish the SOS from the people granting them with power in a democracy.

The rebuttal could be that the bill has the mandatory requirement for the private insurers to immediately insure all those ailing patients with pre-existing conditions upon passing the legislation and therefore, declare the issue as resolved.

With the Senate Finance Committee diligently proposing the private citizens to purchase health insurance bringing more business to their favored party, the health industry,

Will the private industry cover the disputed 47- 50 million uninsured regardless of the employment situation?

Who will pay for the citizens who cannot afford the price tag from the private insurers in the absence of the government insurance program?

Obviously, the taxpayers expected to cover through government subsidies or aid like they are footing the bill right now for patient care at the county hospitals and ensuring the health insurance as well as the hospital industry’s prosperity while the expenses added on to the national deficit.

Ironically, the objection raised against the government insurance program claiming it would disproportionately increase the national deficit when the Senate Finance Committee proposes exactly that with the non-profit cooperative society funded by the government instead of the direct government involvement such as Veterans Care, Medicare and Medicaid.

The surreptitious Health Care bill from the Health Care industry via the Senate Finance Committee is a mere fulfillment of the legislative duty because it does not address the real problems of the people classified as the minority later to become the majority without a strong competitor.

The industry response might be that the price will be competitive for those individuals to pay for it. Even if such magical event were to take place, the million dollar question is,

How long is the competitiveness effective for the current uninsured to remain in the system with the compulsory insurance purchase enforced upon them?

Although, the question posed is by no means any concessions towards the elimination of government administered public option, it is absolutely important to determine the timeframe as free market has periodically demonstrated its free will to adjust price to meet the shareholders and the Chief Executives’ extravaganza.

Notably, the finance industry offering the teaser rates as a decoy on credit cards and home loans, only to be discovered later by the victims upon receiving notifications from the banking sector regarding the atrocious interest rates hikes.

Interestingly, the myopic view by many to pass the legislation in order to satisfy the process and claim a historic victory ignoring the tragedies of a significant population is a betrayal of the people’s trust in their representatives and a political suicide for the majority party in the 2010 elections.

It shouldn’t be a surprise when the opposition’s relentless effort to sabotage the health care reform spun around during the mid-term elections as the failure of the ‘hope and change’ Obama care plan resulting in a win-win situation for the obstructionists now and in the immediate future.

In conclusion, the White House, the House and the Senate’s coherence to the health care conglomerates by marginalizing the weak, the sick, the vulnerable population and everyone else in the landmark legislation is a colossal mistake due to the misplaced trust in the private industry essentially responsible for the health care disaster.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

P.S. My Response to the President’s Congressional Address on Health Care Reform

From: Padmini Arhant

Subject: Re: Not the first, but the last

Hon. President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

Please refer to attachment for details.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Padmini Arhant

Honorable. President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for laying out the Health Care components to clarify the doubts and confusions surrounding the landmark Health Care legislation.

As I consider myself extremely privileged to have known you and your sincere desire to serve the American people representing the stars and stripes of this great country, not recently but from the grueling time on the campaign trail, I’m taking the opportunity to share my honest understanding and legitimate concerns regarding this bill.

I realize the humongous challenges related to the Health Care legislation particularly in dealing with the ‘Special Interests’ force and the worsening partisanship creating a gulf to block the necessary reform, the only hope and salvation for our national economy and the American people , the victims of the heavily politicized and narcissistic Washington culture.

In your speech, you mentioned that the details would follow in the immediate future and that the Health Care address was to familiarize the nation with the framework of the bill. In this context, we cannot ignore the truth that those who are against any reform are always going to detect flaws regardless of the many concessions already in the bill.

The reason for the delay in my response to your message is to review the issue rationally given the public plight on affordability and eligibility in the exclusively privatized industry. You are no stranger to this aspect with your passive experience during your mother’s agonizing battle with the terminal illness in the absence of a guaranteed insurer ideally in the form of a ‘single payer’ or at least the ‘public option’ to save and prolong life. Unfortunately, we all know that it is a common tragedy for the many struggling population in our society.

Obviously, it is a huge mountain to climb with a rugged and slippery slope path. You pledged to the nation last night that you want to be the last President to have aimed at the century old national issue directly affecting every American and emerge successful in the legislation. The consensus among the victims is if the legislation passed to appease those who prioritize their personal interest over the common goal then there was no need to mobilize the nation and raise the hopes of millions during the election campaign and now.

I don’t think it is fair or morally justified to disappoint and deny the people who are the taxpayers, consumers and electorates the means to exist and stay alive through the absolute ‘single payer’ process or in the least a government administered ‘public option’ and not a non-profit cooperative agency. Again, in comparison the former President George W. Bush took the nation to war on false pretences and the ultimatum ‘either you are with us or with the terrorists.’

Apparently, rhetoric of that kind proven to resonate among the ‘Nay’ Sayers on the Special Interests’ payroll. Witnessing the opposition to life saving proposal is no surprise at all but that is not the ‘hope and change’ people voted for last November 2008.

I’m always with you and the great Americans working harder than ever in the legislative matter that promotes equality, fairness and justice for all.

Health Care legislation is a unique moment for your Presidency to do the right by the people and for the people who really matter in a democracy.

Overall, your presentation was very impressive and right on target, although I was hoping for a steadfast commitment towards the majority preferred ‘public option’ that is truly meaningful and paramount to reform the status quo.

I’ll be presenting the brief analysis on your address to the Congress for public view shortly.

Best Wishes

Padmini Arhant

Presidential Address to Congress on Health Care Reform

By Padmini Arhant

The President’s address, September 9, 2009 on the Health Care Reform laid out the components to clarify the doubts and confusions surrounding the bill. Despite the vehement opposition from some quarters in their loyalty to the sponsors, the ‘Special Interests’ representing the Health Insurance and the Health Care industry, the President reached out to them to be his ally rather than the adversary.

The fact of the matter is, with some groups determined to detect flaws regardless of many concessions in the bill, at the expense of the victims in the exclusively privatized sector, they will continue to defend the status quo because of the personal gains. That is the reality of the highly politicized and narcissistic culture in Washington. With these representatives holding the mantle to the power in legislative matter, it would be appropriate for the nation’s Capitol to trade name as ‘the sin city’ with the West Coast casino capitol ‘Las Vegas,’ Nevada, except the latter deserves credit for the openness.

Ironically, the lawmakers particularly in the Senate and the moderate to conservative House democrats creating the gridlock have sworn allegiance to the industry supplementing their income while turning a blind eye to the plight of the people, the entity behind their power.

Interestingly, some politicians among them even reminisced about their humble and modest background prior to the acclaimed stature and somehow that emotions surface only during the ‘book’ promotions on prime time television shows and not utilized to relate to the sufferings of the millions in their turf or across the nation.

Upon challenging them to the task to do the right by their constituents electing them to the office to be their representatives, the message is lost and their support shifted to the corporate financiers as they prove to the electorates that they are indeed the visionaries devising ways to protect their interests and re-election possibilities. Thus, the transformation from ‘public’ servant to ‘private’ servant takes place in the Capitol of the world’s modern democracy.

Although, the President’s message was clear in terms of assuring affordability, eligibility and costs control, arguably the three major proponents that triggered the health care debate at the dawn of the Presidential campaign and continuing up until now,

The skepticism by the opponents’ media and their loyalists overshadow the truth behind the contentious issue, their push to drive the robust ‘public option’ out of the equation. Having been successful in eliminating the ‘single payer’ system that would have been an absolute guarantee to fulfill the urgently required health insurance with a non-terminal and unconditional coverage for the millions insured as well as the disputed uninsured population,

The industry is now resilient through their paid representatives in the Senate and the House to demolish the public option from the bill, a move that is contradictory to the definition of free market. By definition, the free market should allow the consumers to pick and chose at free will among the different providers/purveyors catering products and services at different price and quality to suit market conditions. Since that appears to be a misnomer in the present environment, the industry with the willing legislators on their side adamantly pledged against any viable competition such as the people represented public option.

Again, according to the Congressional Budget Committee, even with the introduction of the public option in the bill, the proposed participants under the coverage expected to be less than 5% leaving the approximately 95.5% market share to the private insurers.

To all those pundits and demagogues viciously attacking the genuine voices for the less fortunate who happen to be the majority in the society,

How much profit is profitable in the vast market share comprising 95.5% to the private health insurers?

The argument often reversed claiming the corporations’ profit being the national revenue viz. the taxes should spin the economy. Perhaps a valid stance, by no means a reality given the negative impact of the rising health care costs in premiums and health care management. The health insurance has surely been profitable causing liability to the corporations, small businesses and private individuals other than nearly bankrupting the economy. Unequivocally, the health care conglomerate’s real beneficiaries are the CEO’s and the shareholders.

Besides, in the absence of vigorous competition through ‘public option,’ expecting the private sector that has the formidable monopoly in the national economic issue to conform to the legislative requirement is a cliché. This is poignant especially when the American taxpayers as consumers are still awaiting the ‘accountability’ factor to kick in with the bailed out financial sector’s promise to stimulate the economy through liquidity in the credit market.

The news media reported that the finance industry’s ‘mischief makers’ admonished by Congress during the bailout and categorically denied of any golden parachutes with the taxpayer dollars. When the session was over after a brief ‘timeout’ for the bad behavior, suddenly the blue sky adorned with none other than the forbidden ‘golden parachutes’ with the finance sectors’ pilots taking off to their favorite paradise.

So much for the free market’s obedience and respect for rules and regulations in a democracy!

In the similar context, it is not possible to ignore the anti-regulation agents’ objection to the government participation in the national issue. However, the overwhelming control and dominance of the private industry in the nation governance is cordially welcome in the Capitol Hill corridors, airwaves and the communications media irrespective of the devastating outcome on the economy. It is accepted as perfectly normal for the private sector to meddle in public matter but the flip side becomes explosive at the core minimum.

The heckling was not limited to the town halls on this issue and prominently displayed by one of the industry representatives during the Presidential address with the accusation of ‘lies’ in the immigration matter.

On the immigration deal, the shocking detail revealed by the Progressive caucus chair Raul Grijalva, Congressman (D) Arizona, during his interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez of Democracynow.org on September 10,2009.

“And one of the things that is not well with this health reform plan is that legal permanent residents are required to wait five years before they can receive any health benefit, even though they are legal. And we are arguing with the framers of the legislation, as well as the administration, that you’re making people illegal twice. You’ve asked them to go through the process, they legalized their status, they’re permanent legal residents, but yet there’s a penalty attached that you can’t get the benefit for five years. We find that to be double jeopardy.”
————————————————————————————————–

The hypocrisy is conspicuous in this instance. The nation that is proudly declared as the country of immigrants slams the immigrant population with the tax burden on par with the citizens. Meanwhile, the overzealous legislators and the administration architects in the selective amnesia moment about their personal ancestry simultaneously deprive the immigrants from benefits that they are lawfully entitled to as the ‘legal and permanent residents’ soon to be the eligible voters upon naturalization. Such political maneuvers frequently bring the best creativity among the sculptors of the monumental piece.

To touch base on the President’s bipartisan approach in the highly contested health care legislation, it could be aptly described as ‘Why look for enemies when you have foes within.’

In the uphill battle to pass the health care reform, the industry has cleverly sabotaged the democratic majority from relying on their own breed.

Should there be any speculation on why the Senate Finance Committee has not yet presented their version? The President confirmed it during his speech as ‘awaiting the proposal from one committee.’

More revelations in this respect from the interview with the Congressman Raul Grijalva by Democracynow.org: – Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Grijalva, I also want to ask you about Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus and his close ties to the healthcare industry. Yesterday, the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Baucus had distributed his healthcare plan to lobbyists on K Street prior to sharing the plan with other members of the committee.

“The watchdog website LittleSis.org has revealed Senator Baucus’s chief health adviser, Elizabeth Fowler, is a former executive for the insurance giant WellPoint. Fowler has been called the “chief operating officer” of the healthcare reform process.

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA: I think the product that has come out from his committee and himself, I really believe that it has no legitimacy in this debate. It’s an insider product. It’s there to protect the industry. It is not there to try to look for that middle ground.

I consider Senator Baucus’s proposal to be essentially an insider trader move to protect an industry and really doesn’t have validity at all, both political validity or content validity.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —to basically—it’s on you whether healthcare reform passes or not, any kind of healthcare reform passes.

Even though that happens, and it’s publicly stated, I think the winds are going to shift, and the progressive members of Congress are going to be seen as the obstructionists. They’re going to try to be labeled at that. And I’ve said over and over, both to—we have told the administration and our leadership for almost—consistently for a year what we felt were the guiding principles to a public plan. We’ve been consistent. We haven’t backed off.”
————————————————————————————————–

So America, there you have it.

Why look elsewhere to blame the Republican army…

When the democratic legion with the exception of those dedicated to their constituents are living up to the reputation of “Politics finds strange bedfellows.” At least the Capitol Hill sanctity spared with no distinction between the ‘same sex marriage’ and ‘the Solemn union of opposite genders.’ Only in the State and Nation’s Capitol the amazing blend between the private ownerships and the public representatives unparallel match revealed against the people empowered democracy.
.
Furthermore, the commentary and punditry following the speech obviously varied depending on the ‘Who is for whom’ platform. The opponents presented the entire content as hogwash.

The former President George W. Bush took the nation to war on false pretences with an ultimatum “either you are with us or with the terrorists.’ The present ‘Nay’ Sayers on the life saving legislation then spellbound by the remarkable rhetoric for the illegal war cast their votes that is draining the national treasury until date.

Apparently, Washington’s immunity to lies and distortions in the past eight years is aroused with the current ‘truth’ vaccine prepared to protect the people from the widespread epidemic in the form of corruption and cronyism.

On November 2008, people representing the stars and stripes of this great country enthusiastically voted for the ‘hope and change’ to release themselves from the shackles of Corporate greed and Washington corruption. Now is the time for the elected officials to deliver the promise made on the campaign trail that would testify the strength and character of the real democracy?

Finally, the President’s speech was impressive and right on target. Nevertheless, the health care reform is truly meaningful only with the steadfast commitment towards the majority preferred ‘public option’ that is paramount to resolve the burgeoning crisis.

Padmini Arhant

National Health Care Forum with President Obama

By Padmini Arhant

Despite grueling experiences and horrifying facts from millions of people across the nation, the health care debate bogged down by distortions, lies and deceptive tactics from the representatives of anti-national progress.

Please join President Barack Obama and rescue our nation from the partisan politics and demagoguery that dominates every legislation for national interest.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Reference: San Jose Mercury News, Thursday, August 20, 2009 – Thank you.

Government Option Needed:

Friday, my son underwent a five-hour surgery to reconstruct his cheekbone after a brutal, unprovoked attack two weeks prior. He has insurance through his university that ends mid-September with no option for COBRA extension. It is the policy of every private insurance company in California to deny coverage for six months following any surgery.

Our son will not have any option to purchase health insurance at any price for five months. He will be in the words of an industry representative, “on his own.”

Most of the anger in today’s health debate seems to result from conjectures about the future based on fear. My anger results from conclusions about the present based on fact.

As a minimum, we need a government option to today’s system.

Tom Martin
—————————————————————————————————————
Padmini —

Thanks again for signing up to be a part of the OFA National Health Care Forum with President Obama.

The event is today (Thursday, August 20th) at 2:30 p.m. ET/1:30 p.m. CT/12:30 p.m. MT/11:30 a.m. PT.

You can watch the forum live at:

http://my.barackobama.com/watch

This is an incredible opportunity to huddle with the President and discuss how we’re going to pass real health insurance reform this year. Glad you can make it.

Talk to you very soon,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

P.S. — We need to make sure as many supporters as possible know about this event. Can you spread the word on Facebook or Twitter, or by forwarding this email?

Health Care Resolution – Clarification

By Padmini Arhant

Ever since the health care debate started, the main objective among the visible opponents has been to fictionalize the various contents of the bill. The health care bill principles – costs, quality and affordability extensively discussed per blogpost ‘Health Care Reform’ July 11, 2009 on this website.

Several testimonials by citizens from all walks of life through various mediums confirmed the urgency for health care reform. The partisan politics continues to disparage the millions of people deprived of proper health care during the public discourse.

A sensitive national matter turned into a controversial subject by the special interests’ agents. The health care bill described as voluminous, inadequate and far-fetched in reference to the government plan or public option. On the other hand, the noise amazingly disappeared with the White House statement on the possible elimination of the government plan from the competition.

Hence, the overview of the health care funding and the actual role of government plan in the health care legislation vital for true perspective.

How is the government health care funded?

The health care funded through three main categories –

First, by reducing wasteful spending and redundant costs prevalent in the ‘all private run’ system at the moment, a liability transferred on to the Corporations providing insurance, small businesses and individual insurance subscribers by the Health Insurance industry.

Trimmings guaranteed to generate the required savings to a tune of $300-$450 billion, the major portion of it stemming from out-of-court settlements in health care lawsuits, rising costs in malpractice insurance, neglecting preventive care, excessive intervention by the insurance companies with pre-authorization and final authorizations…contributing to a chaotic structure of the huge public system.

Next, streamlining the Health Care industry’s disproportionate costs across the wide spectrum of health care services to fund the program. It’s essential to emphasize that no one is against profit in either private run or hybrid systems. However, profit set to bankrupt the economy and the consumers in the form of businesses and individuals is equivalent to driving blindfolded on a one-way street with a dead end.

Unless and until the health care industry profit margin is reasonable, even the Health Insurance industry objectionable to the government involvement cannot sustain the escalating costs factored with exorbitant mark-ups by the health care complex.

The common problem for both private health insurance and the government plan is the costs incurred in the health care provision – health care professional fees, hospital admissions, treatment, drugs and ancillary services.

In order to keep up with the ever increasing health care industry costs, the health insurance competes with the counterpart by selling unaffordable insurance resulting in the estimated fifty million uninsured as well as cutting corners by denying adequate and quality coverage to the remaining dissatisfied insured population. Even though, the propaganda negates the fact claiming the satisfied insured population at 80%.

The health care and health insurance might appear to be in cohort when they really are at odds against each other in the excessive profit oriented scheme. There has been a rebuttal on this ‘profit’ issue by the health care spokespersons, some even resorting to name-callings as the line of defense.

An elaborate explanation was provided via Op-ed, Washington Post, July 2009-

How the reigning in on profit in a free market system would drive the economy to pitfalls.

What was not included in the explanation is the attempt to derive limitless profit at the expense of a vast majority in a sector that would naturally enable the expected returns given the volume based health industry. Similar to the energy sector surviving and thriving in any economy.

Another example for that matter, the world’s manufacturing warehouse, China ending in trade surplus with the rock bottom price due to worldwide mass production.

Regardless of the government plan, the health insurance industry cannot keep its promise to the changes required in the system without the cooperation from the health care industry. In a way, the government plan would ease the burden on the health insurance industry by negotiating with the health care industry via legislation. So, instead of viewing the government or the public option as an obstacle, the health insurance should envisage positive outcome from the hybrid system.

Third, tax increases on the taxpayers with extraordinary income configured in the earlier bill by the House of Congress to supplement health care funding is the prudent path to economic recovery that is excoriating the national revenue from other sectors. It could very well be a short-term pain evolving into long-term healing process.

The emotional outbursts with claims “I want to take my America back from Obama” revolves around the fear and commotion created by the veterans of smear tactics and the infamous ‘swift boat’ campaigners emerging during national elections, illegal wars and all things against national progress.

Ironically, the skepticism and cynicism about public option or a robust government plan for the benefit of the national economy and health in the near future overshadow the crisis in the present health care system.

One might call it a potent weapon by the opponents of the national interests suppressing the anomalies of the exclusive private run enterprise that is proven catastrophic to the overall economy and the general population.

Thus far, in all the town hall meetings organized to address the ‘legitimate’ concerns and queries from the victims of the present health care conglomerate watered down with the negatively charged combative remarks, cleverly pushing the pro-reform legislators on the defense.

Did the opponents gain from the anti-national movement?

Maybe for the time being but only soon to realize that such back alley ambush has its own ramifications that should not be underestimated.

As stated earlier, it’s about time the medical industrial complex and their representatives in the Senate and the House against the public option or the government plan get off the offense and provide believable answers to the simple yet direct questions:

The contentious issue in the health care legislation is the government plan or the public option.

Considering that, the contemporary health care system is exclusively private run with the exception of Medicare and Medicaid,

1. Why is the nation left behind with a staggering fifty million population uninsured, if the free market has enough competitors to lower the price?

The correct response: It’s because there is no real or a formidable challenger up to the task of dealing with the monopoly in the system and the non-profit cooperatives will be a fly that would be swatted down by the big players even before it begins to buzz around.

2. Why are the insured population forced to reach out to overseas health care facilities, under the apparently fabulous health care system certified by the ‘special interests rewarded’ representatives in the Senate and the House?

Quote – Wall Street Journal – Extensive 2008 editorial and articles – “South Asia, a popular destination for American patients awaiting transplants and various treatment care involving hospitalizations.”

Response: Health care industry’s phenomenal profit driven costs is triggering the health insurance industry to subsidize quality and appropriate treatment necessary but flatly denied to the ailing population. Further, the pre-authorization and final authorization protocols from the private health insurers applicable on healthy and pre-disposed health patients arising from the lack of trust by the insurance industry against the health care industry cause the exodus of the suffering population to foreign locations, not to mention the loss of income to the state and the national economy.

3. Why is the infant mortality and uninsured dependents in the lower income families, elderly care in terms of drug costs to name a few issues, so high under the ‘supposedly’ caring and affordable health care system?

Response: The health insurance and the health care industry policy designed for the healthy and the wealthy minority, rather than the underprivileged and the unfortunate majority.

4. The assertion that government plan dependent upon costs reduction from the health care industry only to be evaded by the health care providers held against the public option entry.

In that case, what are they waiting for and why can’t they demonstrate their ability to improve the conditions now, i.e. (if they recognize that there is a systemic problem) to include all in the present system that would benefit the stagnant economy as well.

Alternatively, Does the health insurance possess a unique charm that would mesmerize the health care proponents to agree with the Insurance Industry demands?

One would assume that if it works for one, why it shouldn’t work for another.

Response: Both health care and health insurance industry common goal is to appease their shareholders with handsome returns and will stretch any limits with the consumer as the sacrificial lamb in the expansive, unmitigated health care arena.

5. The Congressmen and Women not in favor of public option, but probably supportive of non-profit cooperative system, is obligatory to their constituents and the entire nation to come forward in a town hall meeting or comparable setting,

To lay out their presumably efficient ‘free market’ operation predicted to create a utopian environment apart from setting precedence for other industrialized nations with hybrid health care systems.

Considering the unanimous consensus that the health care system due for modifications,

In this context, the activism from the health care professionals seemingly frustrated with the insurance industry dictating terms and conditions in patient care disappointingly missing in action.

The other issue raised by the industry and their agents is – Why is the health care reform a priority and what is the need to rush on the issue?

Response: The economy and the plight of the suffering population speak volume in this regard. Failure to resuscitate the ailing heart would lead to fatality, evidenced in the victims’ real experiences.

In a nutshell, the nation has had enough with the shenanigans from the opponents of the national health care reform who have neither any treatment nor cure to the national epidemic called the health care that is aptly the health nightmare for the sane majority.

To reiterate, Health care is not a privilege or an entitlement but a necessity for survival.

Therefore, targeting higher profit against the market reality directly affecting the economy is not a smart business strategy, besides being beyond the realm of ethics and economics.

The proof of the pudding is in the status quo.

If the industries and their agents cannot resolve the matter effectively through cooperation, the obstinacy reflects the national decimation policy.

Finally, Health care reform is meaningless without government plan or public option.