EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
On Health Care, Diane Rehm Makes Me Sick
I'm an Arab American.
If I listen to the leadership of the Arab American organizations, I'm supposed to be proud of my fellow Arab Americans who make it in American society.
So, for example, the Arab American Institute promotes all Arab American politicians - no matter their political persuasion.
At its annual dinner, the American Task Force on Lebanon gives awards to the likes of Darryl Issa (R-California) and General John Abizaid, former head of the U.S. Command in Iraq.
A couple of years ago, the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee gave an award to National Public Radio's Diane Rehm, a prominent Lebanese American.
Rehm's a corporate liberal.
She'll espouse corporate Democratic Party liberalism - but won't go out on the limb for the American people.
Take the issue of health care reform.
Fifty million Americans are without health insurance.
More than 22,000 Americans die every year from no health insurance.
The underinsured are dying too.
That's why, according to recent polling, the majority of the American people want a Medicare for all, Canadian style, single payer health insurance system in the United States.
The majority of doctors want it.
The majority of health economists want it.
But the inside the beltway political establishment - of which Diane Rehm is a card-carrying member - despises it.
They despise it because the private health insurance industry despises it.
Take Diane Rehm's show this morning.
It's titled "The Politics of Health Care Reform."
On the show, three guests:
Corporate Republican, corporate Democrat, and corporate reporter.
Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute. (No to single payer.)
Ron Pollack of Families USA. (No to single payer.)
And Laura Meckler of the Wall Street Journal. (No to single payer.)
Was a single payer system ever mentioned on the Diane Rehm show this morning?
Yes, once.
But not by one of the four Washington insiders.
As usual, it was raised by a listener.
Mark Joseph e-mailed in to the show to say this:
"Is health care a necessity and a human right - or a luxury to be sold for profit? The debate is whether our government should provide us with the best health care that medical art and science can provide, or should a few special interests be allowed to continue to get wealthier by exploiting human suffering and need."
Antos gave a mindlessly ideological response - "Don't go to your doctor if you think he's exploiting your human suffering."
As if we had a choice.
Meckler rephrased the listener's question as - To what extent does the government have a responsibility to provide health insurance for its people?
And she answered it, against the preponderance of the evidence, with - "I think there's probably a consensus in this country that there is not support for a single payer system that you see in other countries - with the government as the insurer for everybody. I don't think we are going to see that. But there are things in between that and nothing at all."
Pollack didn't address single payer on the show, but he has publicly joined hands with the health insurance industry to oppose it.
Why did Rehm stack the deck against single payer?
Because she wants to be a player - against the interests of the American people.
Nothing to be proud of there.
On the brighter side, I am proud of a group of West Virginia belly dancers.
On Monday, March 31 at noon, they will be protesting outside the Martinsburg, West Virginia offices their Congresswoman - Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia).
Capito - like Rehm and Pollack and Meckler and Antos - knows what the deal is on health care reform.
And against the interests of her constituents, she sides with the insurance industry and chooses to dismiss single payer out of hand.
So, I am proud of the belly dancers.
They will be protesting for single payer.
They are calling the event "Shake it Up for Single Payer."
The event is being sponsored by singlepayeraction.org, which has put up a Shake it Up for Single Payer poster on its website.
Print it out.
Plaster it in the neighborhood of your local member of Congress.
Time to shake up the status quo.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
35 Comments so far
Show AllJoseph Antos sez: "Don't go to your doctor if you think he's exploiting your human suffering."
***
I've heard this corporate spin ad infinitum. In a genuine forum of ideas, somebody would have asked Mr. Antos how many doctors rake 35% of health care (sic) funds off the top and pad their bottom lines by denying legitimate claims.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Furthermore,
as Mokhiber writes,
"The majority of doctors want it."
referring to single payer.
Add AARP to list list of card carrying beltway insiders carrying water for the insurance industry.
After promoting the passage of the 2003 medicare pharma extortion act, AARP refused to allow single-payer advocates to participate in the 2008 presdiential candidate debate they sponsored.
I torched my AARP card at that point.
The Supreme Courts with the Corporate = Person and the Money = Speech; both absurd in the extreme; have destroyed the possibilty of democracy in the USA. The only possibility is that eventually enough Justices will be replaced to overturn the rulings.
Meanwhile in an undemocratic corporate binge of rapacious greed the coporations have slit their wrists and throat.
This leads me to conclude since the overulings are only a distant possibility that the best course of action is to let as many corporations as possible die and try to develope a strategy to save the working class.
Any suggestions?
Wasn't the Supreme Court ruling on the "personhood" of corporations based on the premise that because it was a person who started a company, the company was therefore basically the person? (This is a dumbbell's interpretation, but the general idea, I think).
So how many of these corporations that have ballooned to gargantuan obsceneties of their original beginnings actually have anything at all connected to the person/persons who created them? Seems like most of them (except maybe WalMart) have all those hired top dogs that come and go like the seasons of the year(with their mega million bonuses of course).
Seems to me there would be an argument in there somewhere to attack that ruling on the grounds that except for small businesses, it no longer holds true.
glenn ford March 25th, 2009 10:46 am asks, "Any suggestions?"
Yes. Take them at their word: "Don't go to your doctor if you think he's exploiting your human suffering."
Don't buy their bogus pills. In fact, reject the Western allopathic-industrial-insurance complex altogether.
We're all going to die someday, but we don't have to do it in a hospital, surrounded by strangers whose only interest is in our paying and paying until the last dime of profit has been extracted from our decaying husks. Why should we value life more highly than the experts do?
As the fictional Dr. House says, "There's never any dignity in dying, only in living."
Or to paraphrase the New Hampshire motto, "Live free, then die."
If enough of us get off the corporate treadmill, these parasites will dry up and blow away. When life becomes unbearable, I suggest having the means of one's own deliverance on hand.
my understanding is that the racist christian right in america are against public health insurance because they don't want to have to pay for a an illiterate black woman to have 20 kids by 20 different fathers - none of whom work or provide support
other countries are ok with public health insurance because they don't look at black people the same way
more racist fallout - no healthcare
now if they offered race based care - blacks pay for blacks and whites for whites asians for asians - i bet they would be ok with that
Actually you may be off somewhat on that assessment.
The insurance industry has control over the political parties, the doctors, and other providers, while the large Pharmacy Industry has control over the "controllers".
The money that is being made by the people in control is far to much for them to let go easily.
Think of it this way.
If you have 1000 people paying say $3000.00 per year per individual for "health insurance" then that is a net of 3 million. If no one files a claim for medical care during that year, then that is 3 million net profit. Multiply that exponentially and taking into consideration that Insurance companies often go out of their way to 'delay or deny coverage' or charge more for those who have filed claims or have a history of medical problems---then the potential for mega profit is there, but all for the Insurance company. The actual figure is in the billions, and the Insurance companies with a "rigged game deeply in place" can spend as much as needed for "paid advocates", and we all know that politicians are simply prostitutes, just less deserving of respect since they will not admit it. (I realize that this is insulting to prostitutes, but I have no other comparison)
If you took the same amount of money, and placed it into an interest bearing account, "held in common by the people" then the "profits" including the interest could go to the "people"-----and everyone would be covered.
This is perhaps an over simplification, but should suffice for now.
Health care is a primary concern for everyone, and no one should be forced to do without it. It should not be relegated to the "private sector" where human greed and avarice take control of such a very important concern.
For the people who would scream that this is "communism"---the same approach is now in place for Social Security----no one screams about that. GW Bush tried on several occasions to put the Social Security System under private control----because the health Insurance industry shows such a high profit, private industry would love to get its hands on "SSS"---money talks in Washington.
Good Luck America , you really need it.
While it certainly plays a role, I don't think racism is the primary factor. England, France, and German all have serious racial issues with their respective minority communities yet they all have socialized health care. I think this is the core issue: the healthcare industry in the US is such an entrenched *business* - it will use its clout to fight for its survival and against the idea that healthcare should and can be a public service. Thus they will exploit any existing racist tendencies (as well as fear of a "socialist" government running your life) if it helps their cause. But I don't think racism or the Christian right is at the root of it. What needs to change are the fundamental concepts of (1) healthcare as a basic social right, not a commodity/service for sale and (2) a single-payer, government run healthcare system, not a government subsidized private system.
Otto von Bismarck gave Germany healh care back in the 1800s. Fear of SOCIALISM.
UK adopted health care right after WWll.
The South killed Truman's healthcare plan because they feared the their virgin white skined daughters would have to stay in the same hospitals as the "nigras"
Otto von Bismarck gave Germany healh care back in the 1800s. Fear of SOCIALISM.
UK adopted health care right after WWll.
The South killed Truman's healthcare plan because they feared the their virgin white skined daughters would have to stay in the same hospitals as the "nigras"
The same christian right that dosen't want to pay for an illiterate black woman to have 20 kids is OK with Insurance CEOs that own mansions and fleets of yachts and aircraft at the expense of working people who are denied coverage.
More crap from Diane Rehm, a typical rich yuppie NPR liberal.
Oh, how I hate NPR!
It is hard to believe that one time people like Michael Harringtont and even Mumia Abu Jamal on were commentators on NPR.
And even Rehm's (in her WAMU-DC days) and Terry Gross's politics were very different back then.
---USAn---
If Obama and the Congress are intent on supporting a for-profit health care system, would it be possible to create a non-profit health system, where any profits are put back into better access and better health care?
While a non-profit system does not exist at present (except on a limited basis in Massachusetts - Commonwealth Care), a non-profit system could be created over the next several years.
As the non-profit system gets larger, they would have the power to challenge the pharmaceutical companies (here or abroad). They could develop competitive programs and "steal" patients away from the for-profit system.
At present, most employees do not have choice on their health plans. The HR departments favor companies and brokers that provide incentives and golfing conferences for company executives. The whole system is corrupt and is at the heart of the problem.
Legislation would require employers to offer the non-profit alternative in their benefit program. If the non-profit program offered better benefits, you would see a massive shift towards the non-profit.
The last thing we need is a government mandated health program. Medicare sucks. How else can you explain the millions who have Medicare Supplements
and the millions who have Medicare Advantage Programs.
Both alternatives are better than Original Medicare according to the market. A non-profit system could provide a new Medicare system and decimate the crappy Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage programs.
If Medicare is any indication of government involvement, we are better off with a for-profit system. Since we can move towards a non-proft system, we can replace Medicare (government mandated) and for-profit health care.
Medicare sucks because it has been deliberately "made-to-suck" through defunding and quasi-privatization.
It is the same classic trick being imposed on all public services - schools, public transit, water and sewer, etc:
1. Starve the service of funds;
2. Scream: "See? Government can't do anything right!".
3. The stupid amnesiac public buys #2 above.
4. Privatize it.
5. Costs to the clueless public explode and the privatizers get fabulously rich from the profits.
6. Repeat.
---USAn---
Yup.
Another case of the Corporatists in this country declaring that Government is the problem, and making sure that it is. And yet for all it's problems, Medicare is STILL leaps and bounds better than most people's private insurance.
Someone on here mentioned Kaiser is a big non-profit group, but I don't know anything about it.
That's why it's called National PR (N PR) and Public BS (P BS). It's gone from bad to worse over the years.
You mean National Propaganda Radio? and Propaganda Bull Shit? When was is ever less that worse?
Diane Rehm is a media whore. Ralph Nader is also of Lebanese descent.
When Diane Rehm puts together three guests on any political issue, you can be assured that two of them are from right-wing think-tanks but never characterised as such: American Enterprise Institute anyone? Fair and balanced?
Long-time listener first time caller, love your show Diane.
-30-
The AARP sucks big time. Getting their continual trash in the mail is enough to make anybody sick.
My AARP junk mail started on my 50th birthday. Where did they obtain my address and DOB?
---USAn---
Diane Rehm is the consumate Washington insider who would rather have access to big shots than get at the truth of a matter. If you wamt to hear the latest Washington spin just listen to her Friday roundtable discussions of the news both nationally and internationally with politically correct stenographer journalists..
Poet
Capito is a Republican so that's no surprise. Our best bets is getting the Democrats in line so let's not give that up first. The Rethugs can come later if not last.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute: "Don't go to your doctor if you think he's exploiting your human suffering."
THINK tank or petri dish? AEI, the group of deep thinkers who helped bring you the Iraq War, probably provide health care to the despicable Mr. Antos. No doubt he also believes that people have the right to starve to death, the right to be unemployed, as well as the right to have unelected parrots like himself argue that insurance companies have the right to our taxes, but we have no right to even have our voices heard, to even have a seat at another fraudulent table. If we had a seat at the table, proponents of denying care to citizens while funneling more of our money to corporations would have to dig a little deeper than "let them eat cake."
"The debate is whether our government should provide us with the best health care that medical art and science can provide..."
No, actually - the debate is whether OUR government should use OUR tax dollars to provide US with what we need.
It's like if you went to buy a Caddy, handed the salesman $50 grand, and instead of a Caddy, he gave you a rusty bicycle with a flat tire and no brakes. "Trust me," he says, "the majority of people would rather have that bike than this beautiful, new Caddy." When you start to complain, he has you arrested for verbal terrorism, then gives away the Caddy to Senator Whomever...
"It's like if you went to buy a Caddy, handed the salesman $50 grand, and instead of a Caddy, he gave you a rusty bicycle with a flat tire and no brakes."
Only the "salesman" is a congressman who has his/her health insurance and care paid with $18 BILLION of our dollars every year. We hand over the $18B and get the back of their hand.
The federal employee (and member of congress) health plan is not free. I pay about $330 a month employee-share for it.
---USAn---
This is the United States, where we all have the right to die. If you can not afford healthcare, go ahead and die. This is what the right corporate leeches want us to do.
When the entire country wants single payer health care, I do not understand how they can keep the criminal insurance companies involved in the discussion.
Reality has passed Rehm. Now she is on her last leg of relevancy and will soon become irrelevant.
Avigdor Lieberman and his blood brother, Joe, are swine and trash. So are Darryl Issa and Diane Rehm.
In the meantime, my girlfriend cannot get the treatment for her breast cancer that her oncologist wants. Why? Because some hack insurance company sawbones who probably studied medicine at Bill Frist University Medical School said so. I hope that egg sucking quack drives his $80,000 Mercedes into a bridge abutment at 70 mph so they won't even be able to pick up his body with a teaspoon. I will not be sending a condolence card.
"Because she wants to be a player - against the interests of the American people."
Simply put, people like Rehm see their own self-interest and the demands of private interests as more important than public interest. There are plenty like her out there.
And that's why we're all headed for a world of economic pain.
I think single-payer would go a long way in bringing back the ideal of public interest.
That's what makes single-payer so important.
Is it just me, or has nearly all the commentary on National Public Radio gone corporatist?
I don't think it's just Diane Rehm.
With all due respect to Mr. Mobiker, there's no such thing as a "corporate liberal". It's a contradiction in terms: corporatism by its nature is conservative. Conservatism has discredited itself over the last several years and corporatism increasingly pretends to be "progressive" to promote itself.
Rehm is at best a corporatist merely posing as a liberal.
NPR = neoconservative propaganda radio.
You can tell because neocons from AEI and Heritage always get on the air while the progressives rarely do.