Popular demand for Universal Health care – Single Payer System

April 29, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The special interests representing the insurance and the health care industry successfully thwarted the consumer demand for Single Payer System with aggressive lobbying and campaign.

It’s not hard to figure out the reason behind industry opposition to Single Payer system.

Single Payer system is the guaranteed health care for all citizens regardless of personal health and economic status.

With the 24/7 access across the nation, it effectively addresses the opponent’s claims against the ‘Universal Medicare.’

Issues such as waiting period and subsidized quality are eliminated with the promotion of Medicare payments and not cuts to the hospitals and the professionals across the health care spectrum.

Similar to the social security number assigned to every legal resident, the Medicare expansion with a standard Medicare card for 24/7 access at any medical facility is long overdue in the only industrialized nation restricting the provision.

Medicare is an established system in the United States.

Other federal programs that are operating in conjunction with Medicare are highly beneficial to the segments receiving the government administered health care service.

Programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, VA, COBRA along with Medicare are the salvation for the ailing and the unaffordable groups in the society.

Since these services are available only to specific segments, the vast majority are forced to endure the abusive conditions in the private insurance and health care industry.

Consolidation of the current federal programs into a ‘Single Payer system,’ would not only provide universal coverage in real terms but also contain the astronomical costs incurred by the taxpayers in the exclusively privatized national health care.

The irony in a democracy is, the people are expected to cast their votes to their representatives and they are forbidden from seeking the basic human rights like the national health care for their contributions through exorbitant premiums and tax dollars.

Contrarily, the campaigns funded by the relevant industries ensure they more than recover their investment in each candidacy from the local to the highest office on the land.

Otherwise, democracy is up for sale during the elections.

The largest donation recipient usually emerges the victor, and then onwards,

The campaign financiers control the legislative process, leaving the electorate with the actual power, a mere formality.

Citizens’ consciousness to the democracy abduction is devoid of vigor and often distracted by the corporate owned media and other outlets, ever dedicated to spin the facts into the concocted theory in obeisance to the sponsors.

When politics is governed by profit management, the democracy’s voice is silenced with massive propaganda and shenanigans.

As a result, the truth and the public trust are casualties in the so-called free and fair elections and the governance supposedly pledged to transparency and accountability.

Speaking against injustice by itself declared as injustice and condemned in the highest order.

Again, the condemnation varies with the target’s background.

The health care is a classic example where the public plight is subject to the industry and their representatives’ acknowledgment or the lack thereof evidenced in the health care legislation costing in excess of $35 trillion for the period 2010 – 2019 and,

Yet the estimated 34 million remain uninsured until such time.

In addition, the mandatory insurance purchase from the private sector expected to generate revenue in penalties through default by the 4 million struggling households.

Essentially, the electorate granting power through the ballots is rendered powerless in a democracy defined as the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Changes do not occur voluntarily.

Throughout history, the grass roots movement has been responsible for the paradigm shift in politics, economic and social environment.

Their activism and relentless support has been instrumental in promoting economic and social justice, particularly political freedom in different parts of the world.

Sometimes human apathy is directly related to ‘individualism.’

Personal experience triggers instant reaction than passive exposure.

Health care bill like the other legislations, severely affects every citizen as a subscriber and a taxpayer.

Complacent to the recent legislation by denouncing the factual presentation is oxymoron, notwithstanding narcissism.

Standing with the power is an easier option and commonly displayed in the absence of courage.

Failure to amend the health care bill is declining the popular demand for ‘Universal Medicare,’ through Single Payer system –

The honorable and the best health care policy to end the population misery.

Denial eventually leads to cataclysmic outcome and in the health care matter,

It’s a choice between saving life and adhering to the political convention.

Citizens’ need compromised in the health care bill is a travesty and the inaction to reverse the course reveals the Washington reality.

People must come together and share their passion to restore democracy conspicuously lost in the special interests’ dominant legislative affairs, poignantly the health care reform.

Remember, the health care debacle is like the wildfire known for ravaging the entire habitat.

Reluctance to modify the health care legislation to ‘Universal Medicare with 24/7 access’ is an invitation to a colossal political defeat in the midterm elections.

Rationality never betrays at the crossroads of decision-making.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Health Care Scandal – Apocalyptic Forecast

April 28, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Despite the candid presentation with facts and figures on the scandalous ‘Health Care reform,’ the issue is evaded with nonsensical representations by sources benefiting from the monumental fraud.

Perhaps, the notion among the authorities is the public have to be content with the policy that is unequivocally detrimental to the citizens interest, regardless of this being a life and death matter and,

Ignore the apocalyptic event arising from it – particularly with respect to,

The cost/value determination showing a significant rise in national deficit at $35 trillion for the period 2010-2019, without the much-acclaimed insurance coverage for the 34 million uninsured.

Details made available in the articles:

Health Care Reform – A National Scam – April 25, 2010.

Health Care Reform – Facts and Flaws – April 23, 2010,

Health Care Legislation Amendment – April 22, 2010 and

Thorough analysis of the components reveals the legislation is industry favored with the vulnerable population subject to predatory practices, otherwise the status quo extension granting exclusive rights to the private sector with an utter disregard for the public health and national debt.

Rejecting the legislation amendment call is a dangerous precedence in a democracy not to mention the constitutional breach, the latest trend in the abuse of power.

There is more chilling evidence that beckons unanimous action on the national debt.

According to the Washington Post article – April 27, 2010

Panel to meet on skyrocketing U.S. debt

If no action is taken, forecasters see fiscal crisis by decade’s end

By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post – Thank you.

Washington – A presidential commission will convene today at the White House to address what leaders of both parties agree is one of the greatest threats to the country’s economic future:

“The rising national debt.”

Official forecasts suggest that without sharp changes in federal spending or tax collections, the United States could enter into a downward spiral of indebtedness that by the end of this decade would erode the country’s ability to educate its children, care for the elderly or mount a robust national defense.

Republicans and Democrats alike say the fiscal challenges have been too long ignored.

But with the two parties feuding over health care reform, Wall Street regulation and a host of other issues – and the economy still uncertain after a deep recession – there is considerable doubt that they could join hands to fend off a still distant potential crisis.

“It would take a miracle,” agreed Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

But “I believe in miracles.”

Durbin is the highest-ranking lawmaker among a dozen members of Congress on the commission, which also includes six presidential appointees.

The panel has until Dec. 1 to devise a plan to stop a federal borrowing binge that exploded during the recent recession and will only get worse as retiring baby boomers tap into federal retirement programs.

The gulf between the two parties is vast.

No budget commission has managed to spur action since 1983.

And a host of interest groups is lining up to rally the public against any solution that involves higher taxes or cuts to favored programs – particularly Social Security, which members of both parties consider the ripest target for compromise.

Even supporters of the commission are not optimistic:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md, a vocal advocate, said the most he expects is,

“A good message with regard to the magnitude of the problem.”

But panel members from both parties say the experience of Greece, deeply in debt and begging other countries to help pay its bills, provides a vivid incentive to set aside ideological differences and work together.

“After stopping a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction, this is the single most important issue we confront as a nation,”

Said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a commission member.

That crisis seemed distant until the recession hit, causing tax collections to tank and federal spending to increase as policymakers scrambled to avert an economic collapse.

The public debt is forecast to rise from less than 40 percent of the economy to more than 60 percent by the end of this year, its highest level since 1952.

The debt will hit 90 percent by 2020 under President Obama’s budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, a level last seen in the aftermath of World War II.”

Grim Reality – By Padmini Arhant

It’s clear from the above WP article and the health care legislation costing $35 trillion for the decade 2010 -2019 under the private for profit health care with 34 million uninsured until 2020,

The United States fiscal crisis is a looming national and global financial disaster.

Failure to amend the health care legislation is a kamikaze action on behalf of those in power unwilling to acknowledge the inevitable catastrophe under the guise of health care reform.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce not surprisingly, considers the public option or the Universal Medicare disruptive in their televised forum on April 26, 2010.

Not long ago, their key representative proudly claimed to have influenced the Supreme Court decision in the ‘Citizens united vs. Federal Election Commission.’

With the cosmetic measures in the health care bill, the legislation is essentially a jackpot for the insurance industry due to the mandatory insurance purchase through federal aid and the regulation lapse extending beyond the decade.

Legislations espousing special interests’ agenda is not a revelation.

However, the ‘Hope and Change,’ campaign pledge was meant to transcend the culture in Washington through transparency and accountability, a misnomer at the political helm.

Continuation on this path projects the dismal economic conditions for the United States, similar to Greece forced to rely on external rescue for solvency.

There is an exception to the United States situation.

Unlike Greece, the United States shares the ‘Too big to fail,’ status and the major creditor China would be susceptible to the precipitous fall,

Notwithstanding the clichéd ramifications on the world financial markets.

CBO’s proclamation on the U.S. debt expected to hit 90 percent by 2020 under the current administration’s budget is not merely a national affair but an international calamity, seeking universal attention.

United States borrowings absorbing 90 percent of the national GDP with revenue on the decline and increase in federal spending is unsustainable.

The economic collapse that was averted in 2009 is effectively created through irresponsible legislations viz. the health care bill designed to escalate the national deficit.

National health care legislation was absolutely necessary to save lives starting immediately.

But not to promote the prospects for the flourishing insurance and the health care industry.

Medicare for all citizens with 24/7 access alongside the private insurance for the high end market as elaborated in the article Universal Medicare – Single Payer System, April 8, 2010, on this website is the ideal and the only viable solution to national health care apart from containing the national debt.

Since Medicare is already established, the cost control and the Medicare expansion to all citizens is no longer a request but a requirement.

Why would the authority in Power lead the nation to the ‘Death Valley’ and refuse to provide valid explanation on this bizarre decision that has been made into law?

Citizens’ disapproval and peaceful (non-violent) protest against the industry favored, private for profit health care is the only hope for democracy to survive.

As for those defending the health care bill and defying the burgeoning national debt from it are in denial.

Remaining complacent to the private for profit health care law at $35 trillion dollars in the absence of universal coverage is a huge burden on the baby boomers and the future taxpayers.

Perhaps, the self-realization that their tax dollars are transformed into the industry’s extravagant bonuses in the ‘business as usual’ environment could change their position and prompt them to be part of the solution rather than the problem.

National debt and valuable health care are inter-related and the health care law exacerbates both issues through preference for profit and politics over people.

The citizens action demanding ‘Universal Medicare’ with 24/7 access by health care bill amendment is imperative to protect life and the democratic system.

It’s incumbent upon the administration to do the needful for the nation or step down graciously.

Democracy is alive when the government of the people stands by the people and delivers for the people.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Health Care Reform – A National Scam

April 25, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The revelations on the Health care legislation published via articles ‘Health Care Legislation Amendment,’ dated April 22, 2010 and ‘Health Care Reform – Facts and Flaws,’ April 23, 2010, based on the facts is a serious national crisis that cannot be slighted for political or personal ideology.

Legislation that is designed to favor the industry with dire consequences for the citizens, desperately relying on immediate relief from the abominable insurance and health care industry abuse have been defrauded under the guise of reform.

A thorough analysis of health care components on this website along with contributions from neutral economic experts, Medicare Office of the Actuary, Congressional Budget Office, Department of Health and Human Services unequivocally confirm the legislations’ serious implications on millions of lives and the national deficit at $35 trillion from 2010 to 2019.

The health care law in 2014, with mandatory insurance purchase from the private for profit health insurance industry, targets the struggling average Americans and the corporations with penalties for failing to enroll in the system.

However, the requirement on the insurance industry to accept patients with pre-existing illnesses has no similar conditions.

The cost-benefit determination for the decade – 2010-2019 and beyond is disproportionately alarming due to the essential national health care service exclusively privatized and exacerbated with compulsory insurance on federal funding via tax credits to middle and low-income families.

Federal funding to the economically disadvantaged population is necessary.

Unfortunately, the funding is also the means to facilitate private insurance purchase at the industry’s discretionary price conveniently subject to market rates and the costs burden related to health plan taxes, fees etc., factored in as the government’s revenue ultimately transferred back to the federal source through aid recipients and taxpayers.

The report found that “the overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010 – 2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent.

To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.”

In other aspects, the Medicare cuts are lethal to the seniors gravely concerned about the health care law with the following review:

“The longer-term viability of the Medicare reductions is doubtful.

Assessment flagged the Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable.

Further, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program.

Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer.”

Instead of providing the Universal Medicare with 24/7 access across the nation, the so-called reform is geared in the reverse direction and clearly aimed at weakening Medicare system that is appreciated by the beneficiaries and the legislators on both sides of the aisle.

Again, the Universal Medicare – Single Payer system is affordable and the only permanent solution to the burgeoning health care crisis and national spending.

The expenditure to exceed $35trillion through private for profit health care leaving millions penalized for possible default on insurance subscription and the 34 million Americans expected to wait until 2020 for coverage is not a reform.

It is a direct assault on the vulnerable and ailing population,

For whom the legislation was initiated.

Those who pretend to be tone deaf reflect callousness on this issue for they think it would not affect them.

Apart from narcissism, the attitude is a potential threat to democracy.

As for some advocating to ignore the call, it reveals their priority in promoting self-interest through cronyism, the catalyst to the broken political system that replaces national interest with special interest needs.

The ramifications on silence in the national issue inevitably impact every citizen regardless of political allegiance.

Even the A-political consumers and taxpayers are not spared in the massive health care scam.

Complicity in the widely acknowledged defective national health care legislation is a dangerous setback for democracy.

Anyone who considers this issue to be isolated ought to be in a parallel universe, for it’s the tip of the iceberg with more legislations of this kind – whether financial, energy, climate bills…replicating the pattern.

Despite the grim facts endangering life and the dismal national deficit forecasts,

The White House response to move ahead on other issues for political expediency is deeply regrettable and demonstrates the lack of respect for the citizens’ well being in the national health care law.

Congress is the republic’s true representatives and,

I extend my support to the lawmakers willing to come forward to amend the health care legislation to conform to the reality and that being:

Universal Medicare for all citizens with 24/7 access – Single Payer System and,

It would be funded within the allocated revenue sources to contain the phenomenal health care spending.

I’m prepared to work with them from the public domain to protect the citizens’ interest.

I guarantee every lawmaker that this unique step on their part would be highly rewarding for them in the midterm elections, seemingly challenging around that time.

If the legislations were proved detrimental to the citizens’ welfare and progress as established in the national health care law and there is reluctance to amend the bill,

Then such act is unconstitutional and regarded as treason.

Health care is a life and death matter.

Existing Medicare expansion for all is the only effective policy to deal with the national coverage and escalating deficit.

Legislators and the Executive branch opposed to this amendment owe legitimate explanation to the American electorate in public.

I hope the lawmakers will be guided by their constitutional oath to serve the nation and safeguard the public interest by amending the bill to “Universal Medicare,” commencing immediately, not in a future date.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Health Care Reform Facts and Flaws

April 23, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The reason this topic cannot be swept under the rug, is the confirmed negative factors directly affecting the national deficit, the Senior citizens and the ‘average American’ families for whom the reform should be immediately favorable and not otherwise.

Following the blogpost titled “Health Care Legislation Amendment” April 22, 2010 supplemented with New York Times article reporting the ‘Senators fear Insurance Premium hikes’ prompting them to pass federal regulation on health rates,

There is yet another report with more alarming details.

According to Associated Press – April 23, 2010

Report: Health care costs set to climb –

President’s effort to control spending falls short, review finds

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar – Thank you.

Washington – President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law will increase the nation’s health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance – adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

However, the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs.

It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.

The mixed verdict for Obama’s signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections.

Seniors are more likely to vote than younger people and polls show they are already skeptical of the law.

The report from Medicare’s Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration.

White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law’s potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill – Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings – could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020.

But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

“During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansion of health insurance coverage,” wrote Richard Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary.

“Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare … reductions is doubtful.”

Foster’s office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama’s 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation’s health care system.

“A trillion dollars gets spent, and it’s no surprise – health care costs are going to go up,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues.

Camp added that he’s concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine coverage for seniors.

The health care law, passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses.

Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship.

Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, and Medicaid would pick up more low-income people.

Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

A separate Congressional Budget Office analysis, also released Thursday, estimated that 4 million households would be hit with tax penalties under the law for failing to get insurance.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren’t clearly better when compared to more frugal countries.

At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any reforms.

The report found that the president’s law missed the mark, although not by much.

The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent.

To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans.

The report’s most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging the cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program.

Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer.”

Cost/Benefit Determination – By Padmini Arhant

As stated earlier in the ‘National Health Care Legislation’ analysis and subsequent articles related to the health care reform on this website,

The contentious factors in the health care bill are:

The effects of law set in 2014 and 2019 for the 34 million Americans to obtain coverage and,

The exclusive “private for profit” health care service in the absence of a formidable challenger such as the ‘Universal Medicare’ program to provide real protection to the victims in the health care crisis,

Federal aid to middle-class and lower income families is an appropriate measure.

Again, this would not happen until 2014.

However, if it’s meant to facilitate the means for the mandatory insurance purchase from a private industry with enormous flexibility in price adjustments reinforced by the penalties against the struggling households and corporations will be a bonanza for the insurance industry.

Per the AP article, the CBO analysis estimated “4 million households would be hit with tax penalties under the law for failing to get insurance.”

The report found that “the overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010 – 2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent.

To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.”

Most poignantly, the costs and benefits during 2010 -2019 and beyond are entirely at the private insurance and health care industry discretion with the federal funding for the coverage to the unaffordable and uninsured segments.

Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

Nevertheless, the requirement for the insurance industry has no consequences.

Unlike the 4 million households and the corporations facing penalties upon the insurance purchase default.

Then the effects on Medicare elaborated in the reports from the Medicare Office of the Actuary and the neutral economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department deserve attention.

‘It warned that the unrealistic and unsustainable Medicare cuts would drive out 15 percent of hospitals into the red and “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.

During the 2010 – 2019, the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage are expected to outweigh the cost-control strategies in the bill – Medicare cuts …

Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare reductions is doubtful.

Assessment flagged the Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable.

Further, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program.

Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer.”

Clearly these drastic steps against Medicare is designed to serve the private industry forcing subscribers to choose the private plan due to the extreme reduction in benefits and care, which is adequately prevalent in the current system.

Indeed, the devil is in the details.

Despite the overwhelming health care spending for the decade 2010 -2019, estimated to surpass $35 trillion, the private industry reap the extraordinary benefits with the mandatory insurance law including the penalties against the uninsured.

In addition, the average citizens as consumers and taxpayers would be deprived of the desirable health care with the Medicare cuts to the private sector’s advantage.

Health care is a matter of life and death.

Since, the 34 million Americans will be covered in 2020 and not in 2010, the argument that,

‘The deal is a bargain for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent Americans’ does not bode well,
especially with the population needing urgent medical treatment now and the astronomical national health care costs evaluated to surpass $35 trillion for the decade 2010 – 2019.

Predominantly due to the status quo extension with the private health care management.

There is no doubt that the health care bill on Medicare and the culminating factors are going to be a major political liability in the midterm elections.

The Republican members cannot possibly derive any credit from their abstinence in the health care legislation.

It’s a win-win situation for the industry with,

The Republican members declining support to the “Universal Medicare.”

Thus, becoming the proxy for the private sector.

Case in point – Filibuster threat against the Independent Senator from Vermont – Bernie Sanders’ courageous call for “single payer” system thwarted with undemocratic opposition.

Expressing concern over the Medicare cuts for seniors and at the same time refusing to vote for the Universal Medicare for all citizens by the Republican members confirms political expediency.

The democrats on their part anyhow ended up with the legislation delivering victory to the special interests.

With the political system controlled by the lobbyists, the citizens only hope is to take democratic action by demanding that the health care legislation be amended in people’s favor.

“Universal Medicare” is easily affordable at $35 trillion and Single Payer system efficiently addresses the health care crisis and the rising national deficit.

Any reluctance from the lawmakers to amend the bill to ‘Universal Medicare’ would reflect their priorities.

Now is the time for citizen action to save lives and democracy.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Health Care Legislation Amendment

April 22, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

As stated earlier in the blogposts – National Health Care legislation – March 29, 2010, Universal Health Care – Single Payer System under ‘Health’ category on April 8, 2010, the certainty regarding premium hikes by the Health insurance industry has prompted the legislators to introduce a bill seeking federal regulation on health rates.

According to “The New York Times”, report dated April 21, 2010

By Robert Pear – Thank you.

Democrats seek federal regulation of health rates

“Senators say they fear insurers will raise premiums.”

Washington – Fearing that health insurance premiums may shoot up in the next few years,

Senate Democrats laid a foundation Tuesday for federal regulation of rates, four weeks after President Barack Obama signed a law intended to rein in soaring health costs.

After a hearing on the issue, the chairman of the Senate health committee, Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he intended to move this year on legislation that would “provide an important check on unjustified premiums.”

Harkin praised a bill introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, that would give the secretary of health and human services power to review premiums and block “any rate increase found to be unreasonable.”

Under the bill, the federal government could regulate rates in states where state officials did not have “sufficient authority and capability” to do so.

The White House offered a similar proposal in the weeks leading up to approval of the health care legislation last month.

But it was omitted from the final measure, in part for procedural reasons.

Reviving the proposal Tuesday, Harkin said:

“Rate review authority is needed to protect consumers from insurance companies’ jacking up premium simply because they can.”

Under the new health care law, starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to have insurance.

Insurers will have to offer coverage to all applicants and cannot charge higher premiums because of a person’s medical condition or history.

Michael McRaith, director of the Illinois Department of Insurance, told Congress on Tuesday,

“There is a distinct possibility that less responsible companies will raise rates to price out people who are sick or might become sick between now and 2014.”

McRaith said he and the governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, a Democrat, “unequivocally support state based insurance regulation” because local officials understand local markets.

He endorsed Feinstein’s bill, saying it would “provide an impetus” for states to regulate premiums if they did not already do so.

Karen Ignani, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group for insurers, said Congress should let the new law work before piling on additional requirements.

Ignagni said the law imposed new requirements, taxes and fees on health plans, which could further drive up costs.”

Amendment Requirements – By Padmini Arhant

It’s obvious from the news article and the cited blogposts that forewarned the inevitable health insurance premium hikes, especially with the mandatory insurance scheduled to commence in 2014.

Again, as indicated in the blogposts titled – ‘National Health Care legislation,’ “Universal Health Care – Single Payer System,” and per NYT article, the health care amendments are related to the most vulnerable patients subject to higher premiums between now and 2014.

The healthy subscribers may not be affected right now.

However, in the absence of foolproof system for the insurance industry to circumvent the health care laws, the majority will be forced to deal with the prolonged status quo, even after 2014.

Private sectors use the ‘unknown’ market rates for it is determined by demand and supply, to evade compliance on ‘reasonable’ price.

With the mandatory insurance purchase in 2014, the demand will exceed supply providing the insurers a huge opportunity in price management.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill is to address that aspect of the problem.

If the bill is aimed at premium caps augmented with the health and human services discretionary power to block the ‘unreasonable’ rates – it is thoughtful but not guaranteed to be obliged by the Health Insurance industry.

Further, any federal assurance to regulate rates upon the states’ failure or inability to do so, is also a welcome change.

Nevertheless, the resistance from the President of America’s Health Insurance Plans, Karen Ignani, representing a trade group of insurers to any new requirements is conspicuous.

Notwithstanding, the assertion to transfer the costs burden to the consumer, the ultimate payee in the retail business.

It’s always possible to modify and manage products and services under self-control, but it’s much harder when it’s designed and delivered by others.

Regardless of the requirements and legislations, the industry that is a dominant force in the health care service would not easily compromise on the disproportionate profit margins attained thus far.

That’s why, the solid protection for the ‘unaffordable’ customers and those in need of ‘urgent’ care, the existing Medicare expansion is recommended.

As such, the patients under these categories are being assisted with the federal funding to enable access to the ‘private for profit’ health care.

Therefore, it eliminates the opposition to the ‘Universal Health Care’ funding.

In fact, when the cost/benefit ratio is evaluated, the Single Payer system is approved by the economists, Congressional Budget Office and the non-partisan groups concerned about the consumer rights and the rising national deficit.

The purpose behind the health care legislation was to rein in costs to the ‘average’ American families struggling to cope with the private industry’s vertical premiums that will persist despite the regulations as confirmed by the President of the America’s Health Insurance Plans, Karen Ignani.

Although, the coverage denial on pre-existing conditions exacerbated with the higher premiums is prohibited, the present and the future subscribers i.e. in 2014, have not been informed with the relevant details, particularly on the quality and the maximum medical expenses for their individual health condition.

There is lot of ambivalence that requires clarification.

The information on the health care law made available to the public with Q&A interface is necessary to dispel the myths around the insurance plans and the unmitigated health care expenses.

Public awareness and complete knowledge of the health care law is essential to prepare the customers financially in the exclusive private health care service.

In addition, per the insurance industry stance against the health care law and any requirements, the consumers are challenged with the uphill battle in terms of unlimited health care access and affordable costs.

Unless the ‘Universal Medicare’ is extended to the vast uninsured, the health insurance and the health care industry would continue to maneuver around the health care legislation.

The health care legislation is a preliminary step towards the specific issues like pre-existing conditions.

Since, the actual benefits to the currently insured and uninsured are still dependent upon the ‘private for profit’ health care policy,

Unequivocally, the Universal Medicare for all with 24/7 access, especially to the ‘federal aid’ recipients is the immediate and permanent solution to the emerging and the long-term health care crisis.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

The Powerful Truth

April 12, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Ever since the health care legislation bill was analyzed and presented on this website, democracy has been suppressed by powerful forces represented in the highest office through false propaganda by media and press corps including the nation’s so-called liberal magazine against Truth.

The obituary for Truth published in the newspapers through innuendo against the evidence of its existence is oxymoron, if not unscrupulous.

Again, for the record – Truth is well, alive, and more determined than ever to prove the purity and sanctity of its element.

When one has nothing to hide and is honest, open and completely transparent – the vehemently opposed ethical practice in contemporary politics, the deadly carcinogens polluting the minds beyond salvation consider Truth as a major threat to their diabolical means.

Often those who judge others on the premise of disparaging information provided by those in  Power against truthful dissent ought to turn inward and question their own morality prior to voluntarily reaching the lowest ebb in journalism and/or theatrical performance via skits and movies on the specific overseas vile television network.

Is news being reported to inform public or entertain them by transforming their magazine or program to a cheap tabloid and a desperate source of concocted lies to appease those in power with nuclear arsenal?

If it’s the latter, then it’s doomed to fail on  complicity with authority’s flagrance allegation of debauchery against Truth.

Any honorable individual would confront the facts and take responsibility for their wrong doings rather than indulging in character assassination of Truth.

As for the alleged cover up in the health care scandal – any incident political and otherwise propagated in the selective nation’s so-called liberal magazine and the public funded network in the name of  Free Speech,

The Bible – King James Version: John 1:47

“Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”

I present the unequivocal facts about my involvement going back to the political campaign of the candidate –

Senator Barack Hussein Obama and his spouse Michelle Obama.

a. 1608, William Shakespeare, King Lear, II, II, 102.
“I know, sir, I am no flatterer: he that beguiled you, in a plain accent.”

Beginning with my personal life, I was nurtured with the value to earn respect and not demand it.

My Principle – Rise to glory through your noble deeds that you can share with all.

Regarding the unsubstantiated allegation of debauchery –  I wish to state that chastity and morality is revealed in the human conduct.

When the guilty accuses the truth finder of debauchery for exposing the factual Presidential scandal it’s a confirmation of the accuser’s personal experience.

My personal life is no longer personal and subject to the triviality of –

‘She is anyone’s guess and a fair game indeed.’

Accordingly, the self promoted moral guardians of the society consider their prerogative to target the woman who is a mother, sister, daughter…in family relations.

More importantly, a human being committed to the sanctity of spiritual call by accepting God’s will. 

I bear none other than the Almighty God witness to this truth.

Never mind about the fact that she too has a family.

The passion, dedication, sacrifices made thus far for humanitarian issues is presumed a sheer exhibition on the world stage, despite enormous benefits to those responsible for the caricature.

Further on chastity and morality issue:

The irony is the purveyors of physical pleasure (the flesh trade) are denigrated by those contributing to the establishment.

What does one call trading human trust for profit and self-interest in today’s politics?

If morality and ethical norm is patented by those holding the power mantel, then it’s incumbent upon them to demonstrate through action.

After all, isn’t action believable than rhetoric?

Reverting to the political involvement that began in January through April 2008 – then September 2008- until March 2010.

I was approached by the candidate Senator Barack Obama via email, subsequent to my first time political donation in life – an amount $25.00.

From then onwards, I had repeat requests from then Senator Barack Obama, his spouse Michelle Obama and other prominent Democratic Party members to volunteer for the campaign and make regular donations.

The endless course literally led me to financial bankruptcy serving the beneficiaries not only in political gains but also material for mockery of my difficult monetary status.

The email requests were periodically published on the website including my responses.

I adopted the policy of transparency and accountability from day one of the Presidential election campaign and advocated vigorously in that regard.

On all issues pertaining to political, economic, social and environment matter, I emphasized on ethical efficacy conspicuously abandoned in the political capital, Washington D.C. where decisions concerning millions of lives across the globe are made.

I routinely submitted the communication with all political entities via World Wide Web for public view and understanding of the issues that are imperative to global community.

All my ideas, suggestions and strategies were presented on the web site and were addressed to the authorities for implementation.

However, they were selectively neglected on both domestic and international issues. The ones that were adopted like the economic stimulus and the job bill assumed the administration’s titles.

I deplored the pork barrel or earmark spending in the stimulus bill through the blogpost upon identifying the items in the news report.

Any communication from the President of the United States and the Democratic Party were strictly related to campaign donations, rallying for the candidates and complaints about the opposition attacks.

The communication was published on the website and available for public review.

I unsubscribed to the email from the President Barack Obama, the administration and the campaign in early October 2009.

The reason being, it had only instructions to energize the public on health care, energy legislation asking constituents to contact their local representatives without providing any details on the bill.

I learned about the components from the news report published in my local newspaper, on-line news publications and television broadcast.

My communication was always relayed through the website, for which there was no response.

I was not privy to the White House and/or the Congress members’ dealings and discussions with any interest groups in Wall Street, Washington and elsewhere.

My information source on legislative matter and the political affairs was solely through local and international news reports available in print and public news media.

As stated earlier, I was never hired by the White House, the Democratic Party, corporations, any groups or agencies intimately or remotely affiliated or associated to political members or authorities in Washington, Wall Street or anywhere in the World.

I was constantly approached for mandatory service without pay as the political aide by the Obama campaign and then the administration in getting the Democrats elected to Congress and never briefed or detailed on the nature of any developments on the legislations or administration’s policies.

I worked since January 2008 and until now without any payments or benefits.

Now, there are false rumors about me claiming unemployment benefit, which is absurd and completely distorted. I’ve never been on any unemployment benefit.

At the same time floating the fictitious narrative on me as super wealthy to drown any other candidate.

A  Super wealthy  collecting unemployment benefit alongside!  Obviously, they were attributing own practice to feel better.

Then the comedy satire insinuating bipolar disease, acute mental illness and the continuous slander thereafter to show their loyalty to political class is nothing more than own mirror reflection.

Perhaps, the notion is that Brown Foreigners are not supposed to eat. They don’t need a home and maintain a modest existence by being able to pay their utility bills, transportation needs, and provide for their family.

My explicit request to President Barack Obama on my precise role in the administration or the Democratic Party following the influx of donation reminders had no response to that until date.

I regularly clarified my position with President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010 through the website, that I was unwilling to be a cheerleader of policies against public interest and refused to be an attack dog for the administration at any time.

I had no previous knowledge about the distant period setting and the health bill negotiations between the White House and their special interest allies.

It was also published on the website and obtainable if required.

I was treated as the political campaigner for the Democratic Party and not an administration or Congress member. They sought help with the political election in 2010 to boost public support for President Barack Obama.

There is political smear from the critics, more interested in the investigation of my openness instead of channeling their resources towards the Bilderberg secret meeting attended by Presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008 that I unveiled on my website for public awareness and fearlessly dissented the authorities’ decisions on many issues including the troops increase in Afghanistan.

If I were to allegedly cover up on the health care or any other issue manufactured by the White House,

Why would I become the victim of violent threats by the authority in power?

Why would they insist that I should quit being inquisitive and even nick named me Snoop Dog in their parlance?

I questioned the then candidate Barack Obama on flip-flopping of issues during the political campaign and after the administration assuming power in the White House.

For switching from Single Payer System to private health care for profit.

Defaulting on campaign finance at the crucial moment of the Presidential election.

Casting his vote on FISA in 2008. Patriot act and the discriminatory policy in 2009.

Torture, detention, overseas rendition, troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, altering the 9/11 terrorists federal trial to a military jurisdiction, the continuation of the predecessor, the former President George W. Bush’s policy.

Collecting public donations while claiming that there were no special interests’ contributions to his campaign, when the funds were flowing from Goldman Sachs, AIG, health industry and others – the figures that I published on the website much to the administration’s anger.

The administration and the State Department blocked the EU unilateral declaration under Sweden’s Presidency that embraced my policy on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was scheduled in November 2009. The people in both states were prepared and unbeknown the news vanished.

Similarly, in the Honduran crisis, the military coup leader agreed to step down and allow the former President Manuel Zelaya to remain in office until the national election in November 2009. The prospect was extinguished with the administration not inclined to intervene.

The materials with visual content were published on the website to this effect.

Haiti – the recommendation on the exiled leader Jean Bertrand Aristide’s return to his country was ignored.

Challenged on the environmental policies that was contradictory to the pledge made on the campaign trail. I called the COP15 summit a failure in the absence of real achievement.

In the 2008 Pennsylvania Primary election – I expressed my objection earlier on about Senator Obama’s approval to spend an estimated 11 million dollars on the television advertisement against his formidable opponent Senator Hillary Clinton while they declined to pay the foot soldiers $10 an hour for going door-to-door campaign. Most of them were African Americans eager to serve in the contentious primary that he lost to his democratic contender.

Lately, I responded to the Washington Post’s article by Richard Cohen on,

“Obama Policy unappreciated by the right and the left,” where I indicated that showering praise on the inadequate or failed policy would qualify as cronyism and exacerbate the corrupt political system.

I was issued a warning and a remark ‘She does not follow rules and creates her own that does not bode well with the authority.’  i.e. the international incognito clique running the gamut via proxies and puppet governments worldwide.

Because of my strong position on ethics and morality, I was abruptly eliminated from the campaign in March 2008 after ensuring the Democratic Party nomination in the primary election victories.

Perhaps, the critics’ selective memory may not serve them well.

I launched a campaign through my earlier website and endorsed the former Vice President Al Gore for President in May 2008. Furthermore, in an unprecedented gesture, I selected the Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold as the Vice Presidential candidate on the ticket.

It was in protest of the dramatic shift in Senator Obama’s policies visible after clinching the Democratic Party nomination. My rejection of the international Presidential candidate Barack Obama infuriated many of his ardent supporters, who have now become my cynics.

I was called a traitor even though the Senator’s policies did not synchronize with the base.

After the arrival of the Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican candidates gained momentum in the general election and so did the communication from the candidate Barack Obama, his spouse Michelle Obama (for whom I was non-existent during the Gala Democratic Party Nomination) and the Obama campaign.

The flurry of emails and snail mail asking me to get back in the campaign was superfluous.

They managed to persuade the Vice President Al Gore to email me and send a letter in that regard, which was also published on the website.

Somehow, the alleged ‘character’ of the woman they have misportrayed now didn’t seem to matter then, when they were aspiring their dreams.

Is it political expediency or cutthroat politics to borrow the term recently used by them?

My communication medium from the start has been the website to keep the public informed on the direct engagement with the power in Washington throughout the election and up until now.

Unlike the then candidate Barack Obama’s surrogate and spouse Michelle Obama, reportedly dictated the The View  show hosts on the permissible questions that debarred the co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck from straying in the contrived conversation.

The press media also confirmed on the restrictions imposed by the Obama campaign that prohibited many reporters and anchors from asking relevant questions with the candidate and the talking heads.

The prevalent censorship on free speech and the Nuclear Policy signed with Russia on April 9, 2010 – especially the overtone against the non signatories of NPT and reservations to use nuclear weapons is extremely disturbing and deserves scrutiny.

There were verbal attacks against me on the delay in rebuking the administration on the health care legislation scandal.

It’s easier to view the situation from one’s own perspective.

According to the news media, certain African American legislators were in the process of creating a preventive measure to grant immunity to Obama Presidency against impeachment following the inauguration.

Besides, it was necessary to be mindful of the repercussions such as the racial discord, two wars and the stock market in the aggressive removal of the President of the United States, found guilty of treason.

Therefore, the systematic procedure was to hold the elected official to the highest office accountable to the people, who have been betrayed in the national legislation that was bound to impact millions of lives.

Hence, soon after I exposed the unethical bargain with the health insurance industry,

I waited for the explanation from the President of the United States and the Congress leaders who shared the recognition as the victorious team of historic health care reform.

I ask the Press Corps and the media,

Why are you not pursuing those members in this matter, who are the signatories to this legislation?

Isn’t Congress leaders and other legislators’ responsibility to review the content prior to casting their vote?

I was never presented with the details of the bill, until the report from the New York Times, which none of the critics, who are attacking me bothered to analyze and bring it to public attention.

So much for their investigative journalism in the liberal frontier.

The President then conveniently sent me a letter in the usual manner – glorify privately and vilify publicly.

There was no request from the President to share with the public, I still went ahead and published the content to honor democracy.

Subsequently, there is no remorse or acknowledgment from the President of the United States, elected to the office to protect the republic interest.

Up until such time, I was a mere blogger to indefinitely campaign for elections.

If my word was the rule of law,

Why was my plea prior to the final health care vote, to modify the legislation to universal health care in the letter published on the website to President Barack Obama discarded?

After them being caught in the act of ethical compromise that I detected on my volition, I was bullied with death threats and implicated as an accomplice to turn the tide against me, the public watchdog all along.

Any domestic and global policy submission through the web site was initiated exclusively due to my commitment to the higher calling to serve humanity.

When there is divine intervention the integrity is measured by the solemn oath to serve the people not just in the United States but also across the globe and I’m expected to deliver the humanitarian goals determined by the Supreme cosmic force.

Unlike the tradition in contemporary politics, there is neither carte blanche nor financial gains in humanitarian service. The rules cannot be circumvented for the appointee’s agenda.

Whatever is being organized, it’s in coherence with universal convergence for a new beginning and a bright future.

I hope this would put the derogatory demagoguery to rest. If it doesn’t then it would be to the offenders’ downfall caused by their recalcitrant behavior.

People in glass houses should not cast stones at others.

The content is in reference to the events unfolding at present.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Universal Health Care – Single Payer System

April 8, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

On April 7, 2010 the amendments to the health care law were recommended based on the components in the bill.

Since the sole purpose of health care reform was to end the plight of the several million Americans without health insurance and those denied coverage for various unscrupulous practices by the insurance industry, the federal program via public option and expansion of the prevalent system such as Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and VA was proposed.

Besides, the amendments to health care legislation are also focused on containing the burgeoning health care costs that has been contributing to the rising national deficit.

Therefore, in order to achieve the combined goals of providing quality and cost controlled health care, the formal decision is to amalgamate the federal programs into a unified Single Payer System that has been long approved as the most effective measure by the non-partisan groups within and outside the health care industry.

Universal health care through Single Payer system is ideal in many aspects.

The important elements being the non-discriminatory health care access to all citizens regardless of gender, age and medical history as well as the convenience in enlarging the existing model that is accepted by the legislators on both sides of the isle.

In addition, the main feature of this system is the universal standard that would be applicable in the health care management saving lives and costs attributed to overheads reflected in the high premiums charged by the private insurance industry.

Single Payer System set up with a common facility providing services to all – 24/7, and a medical treatment available anywhere around the country is the prudent policy to meet the challenges in the health care crisis.

It would streamline the costs and eliminate the most feared concerns such as waiting period, pre-authorization, annual limits…experienced by the insured and the uninsured patients right now.

Even though the health care legislation that was passed addresses some of these issues, there is no guarantee that the private sector would not default through loopholes. It’s a persisting frustration among the insured.

The universal health care creates opportunity to negotiate periodically with the health service and pharmaceutical industry that would inevitably produce savings for all contributors in the industry.

Furthermore, the centralized system is easy to monitor and update technology, the nerve center of the concept.

Competition among the health care service providers promotes quality including the desirable choices for the insured in seeking the appropriate treatment.

Fraud and malpractice could be curtailed under the blanket rule for the industry.

Rewarding the health service and pharmaceutical industry through incentives upon quality improvement including limiting expenses for consumers and taxpayers would benefit the economy.

Universal insurance under federal program would ease the burden on the society – the individuals, small businesses and the Corporations.

With respect to the private insurance industry and their survival in the face of the ‘Single Payer system’:

The private health insurance industry is going to continue their service to the affluent demography and the segments resistant to federal health insurance program like the single payer system.

During the health care debate, there were voices expressing content with the health care policy they own and have maintained for some time. Perhaps, they belong to the healthy groups and low-risk category.

Needlessly, they were misguided by the opponents propagating false information – ‘the “socialized medicine” an imminent threat to their mere existence and that the federal program is being imposed upon them against their will.’

Nevertheless, it’s a significant proportion of the market share that would allow the private sector to cater to the population interested in high-end products and services.

For instance, there are consumers who prefer the private insurance determined by individual lifestyle and clients seeking non-medical procedures like the cosmetic surgery that would not be covered under the universal health care.

It offers preferences to the insurance subscribers to accommodate their personal needs.

Having monopolized the market until now, there are avenues available to the private sector within the consumer base that are impenetrable.

At the same time, being mindful of the factor that the private insurance industry also employs a large number of the American workforce, the ‘selective media’ critics demand to erode the private sector in the health care repair would exacerbate the unemployment status in the dire economy.

Even though, the job loss in the private industry could be absorbed by the public sector expansion, the disproportionate hiring in the private industry as compared to the public system would leave behind a residual number without jobs, thereby affecting the struggling job market.

Hence, restoring those jobs is essential in the health care salvation.

Innovation is the key to success in a competitive environment and the private insurance not likely to submerge with the abundant resources at their disposal.

Universal Medicare is a guaranteed protection for it would be available 24/7 regardless of the citizens’ health conditions.

The people of the United States deserve an efficient, cost saving, choice oriented health care system such as the Medicare for all.

Under the ‘not-for-profit’ universal healthcare, otherwise the single payer system, the consumers would invest the premiums in their health rather than the insurance industry agenda.

Citizens across the socio-economic spectrum will have peace of mind with the universal Medicare.

I request the leaderships to modify the health care legislation to a “Universal Medicare,” also known as the “Single Payer System,” with recognition that,

It’s legislatively possible through the legitimate reconciliation method, and the law made effective latest by April 16, 2010.

Funding source would remain the same that were passed in the health care legislation including the revival of the deal with the health care service and the Big Pharma during the health care legislative process.

Also, please refer to the article titled “Amendments to National Health Care legislation,’ for funding details.

Your understanding and cooperation is appreciated.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Amendments to National Health Care Legislation

April 7, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The health care legislation was signed into law in late March 2010. Subsequently, there is lot of disappointment to the effects of law and the insurance industry obligations that appear to contain many loopholes resembling the status quo.

Hence, upon reviewing the major components of the bill per the statements from the President’s letter, along with the data made available by Congress and the Congressional Budget Office,

It’s clear that amendments are necessary to protect ‘average Americans’ interests from the health industry behemoths.

Statements from the President’s letter:

“Now we need to begin the process of implementing these historic changes.

To ensure a successful, stable transition, many of these changes will phase into full effect over the next several years.”

1. “But for millions of Americans, many of the benefits of reform will begin this year – some will even take effect this week.”

Recommendation: Although, it’s claimed that the uninsured with pre-existing conditions would be covered beginning this week, the data should be provided for public knowledge.

The insurance companies willing to offer coverage to the uninsured population with pre-existing conditions including the information on the eligibility, the premium costs and the federal funding source is essential to confirm the benefit.

2. “Uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions can join a special high-risk pool to get the coverage they need, starting in just 90 days.”

Recommendation: “High-risk” pool coverage starts effective immediately and not in three months’ time.

Insurance industry must note that this is a health issue and not a decision about any recreational activity or a vacation.

For some it could be a life threatening illness requiring urgent medical intervention.

Moreover, in the absence of specifics from the insurance industry – on coverage costs, limits and treatment level, the patients could be inhibited from seeking the comprehensive coverage they might need for their health problem.

3. “And Americans with insurance will be protected from seeing their insurance revoked when they get sick, or facing restrictive annual limits on the care they receive.”

Recommendation: This legislative law applies to the ‘currently insured,’ who are pre-screened and selected as the ‘low risk’ subscribers.

However, the law must be extended to the uninsured regardless of medical history.

4. “We passed this reform for 5th-grader Marcelas Owens, whose mother died because she didn’t get the health care she needed after she got sick, lost her job and her health insurance. Marcelas’ message to Congress was simple: “Finish health care reform. No other kid should lose their mom because they don’t have health care.”

We passed this reform for Natoma Canfield, who wrote to tell me that she could no longer afford her health insurance policy. Since losing her health insurance coverage in January, Natoma has been diagnosed with Leukemia and is fighting for her life.

Recommendation: In order to protect victims of such tragic situations, the Medicaid and Medicare (if age qualified) expansion is vital as suggested below.

5. We passed this reform for Ryan Smith, a small business owner with five employees. Ryan was doing his part to provide health insurance to his employees, but cannot keep up with rising health care costs.

Small businesses will receive significant tax cuts, this year, to help them afford health coverage for all their employees.

Recommendation: The public option is the reliable option for Small business and self-employed individuals struggling to compete in the dire economy.

Because, it’s being facilitated through tax cuts (federal funding) to enable their private coverage,

The public option is the ideal choice that would produce savings for this demography and the government.

6. “Early retirees will receive help to reduce premium costs.”

Recommendation: Again, the burden is shifted from the insurance industry to the taxpayers via federal help.

Instead, the Medicare threshold should be lowered from 65 to 55 in the amendment that would adequately address the issue.

7. Young people will be allowed coverage under their parents’ plan until the age of 26.

Recommendation: It should be at no additional costs to the subscribers.

8. Children will be protected against discrimination on the basis of medical history.

Recommendation: It’s verified to be true for the ‘insured’ but not the uninsured.

It was also revealed that the law is interpreted by the insurance industry as a discretionary action. Otherwise, a non-committal response and even coverage denial to this piece of legislation.

Therefore, imposing penalties for failure to comply will make the law effective.

9. We’re also making investments to train primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

Recommendation: It’s a step in the positive direction.

To make the investment worthwhile, it’s imperative to utilize the health care services for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, VA patients as well as the ‘Public Option’ subscribers rather than the private industry solely benefiting from it.

10. “State-level consumer assistance programs to help patients understand and defend their new rights” –

Recommendation: This could create variation in practice allowing the insurance and the health care industry to circumvent the respective state laws as seen in the environmental matter on carbon emissions, leading the environmental agency to adopt a standard law across the country.

That’s why, the independent and non-profit ‘National Consumer Health Rights Agency,’ would be ideal to deliver the service.

“In Marcela, Ryan, Natoma, my mom and so many other Americans, we are reminded of what this fight was about. It wasn’t about politics. It was about doing the right thing, and taking care of the hardworking people that make our country great.”

It would be beneficial to the suffering population upon incorporating the above recommendations and the amendments listed below.
By Padmini Arhant

Amendments to the National Health Care Legislation

Since the health care legislation is already passed, the applicable changes should be rapid without any legislative rigmarole.

1. Effects of law commencing in 90 days, 6 months and within a year must begin tomorrow and no later than April 12, 2010 to accommodate all different health situations experienced by those who are ill at present.

2. The contentious settings in 2014 and 2019 for full effects should be brought forward to June 2010.

3. Simultaneously, the tax laws scheduled for 2013 and 2018 should be modified to be effective immediately.

Accepting the uninsured patients as new subscribers should not be a daunting task given the resources and the established system that are currently in place.

In addition, the federal funding for private insurance coverage should be diverted to ‘public option,’ program, CHIP, Medicaid and Medicare expansion notwithstanding the VA patient care.

4. Introduction of public option to induce real competition is the hallmark of the amendment.

5. Lowering the Medicare eligibility threshold from 65 to 55 as agreed by most legislators in Congress during the health care debate.

6. Medicaid expansion to the unemployed and senior citizens falling short on prescription drug expenses despite the $250 rebate upon them reaching the coverage gap.

NB: The votes are available in the House and the Senate to pass these rules via ‘the reconciliation process,’ if the bipartisanship remains impossible.

7. Revive the deal with the health care service and Big Pharma on the estimated $500 billion dollar savings that was initially committed by the industries.

8. Jan 1, 2011 – Enactment calls for ‘marketplace’ insurers to invest premium dollars on medical services by 80 percent for individuals and small plans, whereas the large groups by 85 percent respectively.

Recommendation: Monitoring is essential to ensure such practice among the insurers.

The law would be redundant without oversight.

Independent and non-profit ‘National Consumer Health Rights Agency,’ is appropriate for it would prevent breach of the investment criteria.

9. Anti-trust laws passed by Congress should be extended for a longer period i.e. until 2020.

10. Mandatory insurance should be based on affordability and individuals without sufficient financial means automatically qualify for federal medical program via public option at a lower competitive cost and not higher than the private sector as determined earlier to boost the private insurance sales, during the health care legislative process.

Alternatively, the Medicaid program should be accessible for these individuals and families experiencing sudden change in status due to loss of family income generating an insurance lapse in premium payments.

These changes will provide for all Americans.

The health care reform would be meaningful with the all of the above recommendations and amendments.

Those who contribute to these enactments need not be concerned about their re-election for they will be guaranteed a victory in November, 2010.

The legislators from both sides of the aisle could make this happen by showing their willingness to prioritize their constituent’s physical health over the special interests’ financial gains.

Ultimately, the power lies in the citizen’s vote regardless of corporate campaign financing.

‘Change’ is made possible by the people in a democracy and not the profit seekers.

If there is will, there is a way.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

P.S: Comprehensive analysis on National Health Care Legislation was previously published on March 29, 2010 under “Health,” Category on this website.

Response to President’s Statements on National Health Care Legislation

April 6, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

With respect to the content from President Barack Obama’s letter, the explanation is not necessarily accepted as ‘satisfactory.’

Hence, the White House must provide reasons to the legitimate questions raised in the analysis on National Health Care legislation and more to be submitted shortly.

Democracy thrives when the voice of the people are heard especially, with the legislative matter that affects millions of lives.

Avoiding the subject only arouses suspicion and creates confusion among the vast majority yet to be convinced on the ethical aspect of the legislation.

Since the Presidency was sworn in on transparency and accountability premise, it’s important to exemplify the pledge through action in the critical moment of public frustration.

Therefore, I request the authorities not to evade the issue any longer and be forthright in their response to the press and the public on the “insurance industry” favored health care reform.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

President’s Statements on Health Care Legislation

April 5, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Hon. President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for your letter on the health care legislation.

I deeply appreciate your kind remarks and present the main content of your letter for public reference.

“We succeeded where seven presidents did not.

We mobilized and organized. We helped secure the dream of our nation’s founding.

Our success marks a new season for our country – one in which mothers, fathers, sons and daughters no longer live in fear of a system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for ordinary people.

What we have done here is remarkable. It is historic. And many believed this day would never come.

With all the punditry, with all of the lobbying, with all of the game-playing that too often passes for governing, it’s been easy, at times, to doubt our ability to finish the job on health insurance reform.

We would not fall prey to fear. We would not settle for an easy way out. We would not stop until we passed this reform.

We passed this reform for 5th-grader Marcelas Owens, whose mother died because she didn’t get the health care she needed after she got sick, lost her job and her health insurance. Marcelas’ message to Congress was simple: “Finish health care reform. No other kid should lose their mom because they don’t have health care.”

We passed this reform for Ryan Smith, a small business owner with five employees. Ryan was doing his part to provide health insurance to his employees, but cannot keep up with rising health care costs.

We passed this reform for Natoma Canfield, who wrote to tell me that she could no longer afford her health insurance policy. Since losing her health insurance coverage in January, Natoma has been diagnosed with Leukemia and is fighting for her life.

And we passed this reform for my mother, who argued with insurance companies even as she battled cancer in her final days.

In Marcela, Ryan, Natoma, my mom and so many other Americans, we are reminded of what this fight was about. It wasn’t about politics. It was about doing the right thing, and taking care of the hardworking people that make our country great.

Now we need to begin the process of implementing these historic changes.

To ensure a successful, stable transition, many of these changes will phase into full effect over the next several years.

But for millions of Americans, many of the benefits of reform will begin this year – some will even take effect this week.

Small businesses will receive significant tax cuts, this year, to help them afford health coverage for all their employees. Seniors are going to receive a rebate to reduce drug costs not yet covered under Medicare. Young people will be allowed coverage under their parents’ plan until the age of 26. Early retirees will receive help to reduce premium costs, and children will be protected against discrimination on the basis of medical history.

But we’re not stopping there.

Uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions can join a special high-risk pool to get the coverage they need, starting in just 90 days. And Americans with insurance will be protected from seeing their insurance revoked when they get sick, or facing restrictive annual limits on the care they receive.

We’re also making investments to train primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals, and we’re creating state-level consumer assistance programs to help patients understand and defend our new rights. These changes will benefit all Americans.

We did it…And America is better for it.”


Padmini Arhant

Next Page »