December, 22 2009, 10:08am EDT
Pro-Single-Payer Physicians Call for Defeat of Senate Health Bill
Legislation ‘would bring more harm than good,’ group says
WASHINGTON
A national organization of 17,000 physicians who favor a single-payer
health care system called on the U.S. Senate today to defeat the health
care legislation presently before it and to immediately consider the
adoption of an expanded and improved Medicare-for-All program.
While noting that the Senate bill includes some "salutary provisions"
like an expansion of Medicaid, increased funding for community clinics
and the curbing of some of the worst practices of the private insurance
industry, the group says the negatives in the bill outweigh the
positives.
The negatives, the group says, include the individual mandate requiring
that people buy private insurance policies, large government subsidies
to private insurers, new restrictions on abortion, the unfair taxing of
high-cost health plans, and cuts of $43 billion in Medicare payments to
safety-net hospitals. Moreover, at least 23 million people will remain
uninsured when the plan finally takes effect, they said.
"We have concluded that the Senate bill's passage would bring more harm
than good," the group said in a statement signed by its president, Dr.
Oliver Fein, and two co-founders, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie
Woolhandler.
Addressing the Senate in an open letter, they write: "We ask that you
defeat the bill currently under debate, and immediately move to
consider the single-payer approach - an expanded and improved
Medicare-for-All program - which prioritizes the advancement of our
nation's health over the enhancement of private, profit-seeking
interests."
The full statement appears below.
To the Members of the U.S. Senate:
It is with great sadness that we urge you to vote against the health
care reform legislation now before you. As physicians, we are acutely
aware of the unnecessary suffering that our nation's broken health care
financing system inflicts on our patients. We make no common cause with
the Republicans' obstructionist tactics or alarmist rhetoric. However,
we have concluded that the Senate bill's passage would bring more harm
than good.
We are fully cognizant of the salutary provisions included in the
legislation, notably an expansion of Medicaid coverage, increased funds
for community clinics and regulations to curtail some of private
insurers' most egregious practices. Yet these are outweighed by its
central provisions - particularly the individual mandate - that would
reinforce private insurers' stranglehold on care. Those who dislike
their current employer-sponsored coverage would be forced to keep it.
Those without insurance would be forced to pay private insurers'
inflated premiums, often for coverage so skimpy that serious illness
would bankrupt them. And the $476 billion in new public funds for
premium subsidies would all go to insurance firms, buttressing their
financial and political power, and rendering future reform all the more
difficult.
Some paint the Senate bill as a flawed first step to reform that will
be improved over time, citing historical examples such as Social
Security. But where Social Security established the nidus of a public
institution that grew over time, the Senate bill proscribes any such
new public institution. Instead, it channels vast new resources -
including funds diverted from Medicare - into the very private insurers
who caused today's health care crisis. Social Security's first step was
not a mandate that payroll taxes which fund pensions be turned over to
Goldman Sachs!
While the fortification of private insurers is the most malignant
aspect of the bill, several other provisions threaten harm to
vulnerable patients, including:
* The bill's anti-abortion provisions would restrict reproductive choice, compromising the health of women and adolescent girls.
* The new 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans - deceptively
labeled a "Cadillac tax" - would hit many middle-income families. The
costs of group insurance are driven largely by regional health costs
and the demography of the covered group. Hence, the tax targets workers
in firms that employ more women (whose costs of care are higher than
men's), and older and sicker employees, particularly those in high-cost
regions such as Maine and New York.
* The bill would drain $43 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net
hospitals, threatening the care of the 23 million who will remain
uninsured even if the bill works as planned. These threatened hospitals
are also a key resource for emergency care, mental health care and
other services that are unprofitable for hospitals under current
payment regimes. In many communities, severely ill patients will be
left with no place to go - a human rights abuse.
* The bill would leave hundreds of millions of Americans with
inadequate insurance - an "actuarial value" as low as 60 percent of
actual health costs. Predictably, as health costs continue to grow,
more families will face co-payments and deductibles so high that they
preclude adequate access to care. Such coverage is more akin to a
hospital gown than to a warm winter coat.
Congress' capitulation to insurers - along with concessions to the
pharmaceutical industry - fatally undermines the economic viability of
reform. The bill would inflate the already crushing burden of
insurance-related paperwork that currently siphons $400 billion from
care annually. According to CMS' own projections, the bill will cause
U.S. health costs to increase even more rapidly than presently, and
budget neutrality is to be achieved by draining funds from Medicare and
an accounting trick - front-loading the new revenues while delaying
most new coverage until 2014. As homeowners seduced into balloon
mortgages have learned, pushing costs off to the future is neither
prudent nor sustainable.
We ask that you defeat the bill currently under debate, and immediately
move to consider the single-payer approach - an expanded and improved
Medicare-for-All program - which prioritizes the advancement of our
nation's health over the enhancement of private, profit-seeking
interests.
Oliver Fein, M.D., President
David U. Himmelstein, M.D., Co-founder
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Co-founder
Physicians for a National Health Program
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
LATEST NEWS
Republicans Funded by Arms Industry Fume Over Biden Threat to Withhold Bombs From Israel
"What did we do after we were attacked in Pearl Harbor?" asked Sen. Lindsey Graham. "We dropped two nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities."
May 09, 2024
Congressional Republicans funded by the arms industry lashed out Wednesday over U.S. President Joe Biden's belated threat to withhold American weaponry from Israel if it launches a full-scale ground invasion of the Gaza city of Rafah, which is currently facing a humanitarian nightmare.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from pro-Israel interests and the weapons industry during his 2020 reelection campaign, declared that Biden's threat "put our friends in Israel in a box."
"What did we do after we were attacked in Pearl Harbor?" Graham, who previously encouraged Israel to "level" Gaza, said in a Fox News appearance late Wednesday. "We dropped two nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities... What is Joe Biden doing? He's making it impossible for allies throughout the world to trust us, he's making it hard on Israel to win."
Lindsey Graham: What do we do after we were attacked in Pearl Harbor? We dropped nuclear weapons on Japanese cities pic.twitter.com/kh7RU4flDw
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 9, 2024
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) echoed Graham, falsely claiming that Biden has "imposed an arms embargo on Israel" and endorsed "a Hamas victory against Israel." Lockheed Martin, one of the world's biggest weapons manufacturers and a major beneficiary of Israel's war on Gaza, was the fourth-largest contributor to Cotton's campaign committee in 2020, the last time the senator ran for reelection.
The notion that Biden's threat to withhold future weapons deliveries to Israel undercuts the country's ability to assail Gaza was contradicted by a U.S. official who toldThe Washington Post that "the Israeli military has enough weapons supplied by the U.S. and other partners to conduct the Rafah operation if it chooses to cast aside U.S. objections."
Earlier this week, numerous media outlets reported that the Biden administration opted to delay a shipment of thousands of Boeing-made bombs over concerns about Israel's impending assault on Rafah. On Tuesday, Israeli ground forces entered Rafah and seized control of the city's border crossing with Egypt, imperiling humanitarian aid operations there.
Biden, who has approved more than 100 weapons sales to Israel and billions of dollars in additional aid since the October 7 Hamas-led attack, falsely said Wednesday that Israeli forces "haven't gone in Rafah yet," raising questions over the practical implications of his threat to withhold U.S. weapons in the case of a ground invasion.
But Republicans nevertheless fumed over Biden's approach, showing no concern for the humanitarian catastrophe that Israel's military—armed to the teeth with American weapons—has inflicted on Gaza.
In a letter to the president on Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—both major recipients of arms industry cash throughout their careers—wrote that delaying weapons deliveries "risks emboldening Israel's enemies and undermining the trust that other allies and partners have in the United States."
Johnson and McConnell, along with most congressional Democrats, supported a sprawling foreign aid package last month that authorized around $17 billion in military assistance for Israel. Reutersreported that Lockheed Martin and RTX—formerly Raytheon—both "stand to profit" from the measure.
Raytheon's PAC donated $18,500 to McConnell's 2020 reelection campaign.
Contrary to the position of congressional Republicans, progressive foreign policy analysts and anti-war organizations said Biden would be adhering to U.S. law if he halts weapons deliveries to Israel. Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibits U.S. military assistance to any country that is impeding the provision of American humanitarian aid—something Israel has done repeatedly.
"Enforcing our laws and making clear that the U.S. will not transfer offensive weapons to support a disastrous military operation that endangers millions of Palestinians throughout Gaza is vital," Sara Haghdoosti, executive director of Win Without War, said in a statement Wednesday.
"U.S. law gives the president ample power to ensure that no more U.S. arms go to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's brutal war in Gaza," said Haghdoosti. "With a crucial cease-fire deal within reach, added pressure from the Biden administration can help end this war and create a path to a sustainable peace for people in Israel and Palestine. We once again urge the president to use every tool available to him to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and the release of all hostages."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden 'Moving the Goal Post' With Threat to Withhold Bombs From Israel
"Now Israel has a green light to destroy Rafah in slow motion," said one critic.
May 08, 2024
While some Palestine defenders on Wednesday welcomed U.S. President Joe Biden's threat to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel if it launches a major invasion of Rafah, critics noted that an invasion is already underway and accused the American leader of walking back a previous "red line" warning against an Israeli assault on the southern Gaza city.
Biden said for the first time that he'll stop sending bombs, artillery shells, and other arms to Israel if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu orders a major invasion of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians forcibly displaced from other parts of the embattled Gaza Strip are sheltering alongside around 280,000 local residents.
Referring to Israel's use of U.S.-supplied 2,000-pound bombs—which can destroy an entire city block and have been used in some of the war's worst atrocities—Biden toldCNN's Erin Burnett that "civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers."
Even the U.S. military—which has killed more foreign civilians than any other armed force on the planet since the end of World War II—won't use 2,000-pound bombs in urban areas. But Israel does, including when it launched a strike to assassinate a single Hamas commander by dropping the munitions on the Jabalia refugee camp last October, killing more than 120 civilians.
"If they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities," Biden said Wednesday.
Israeli forces have already gone into Rafah, and it was reported Tuesday that Biden was taking the unusual step of delaying shipments of two types of Boeing-made bombs to Israel to send a message to the country's far-right government. It was, however, a mixed message, as the president also earlier in the day reaffirmed his support for Israel's war on Gaza, which the International Court of Justice said is "plausibly" genocidal in a preliminary ruling in January.
Critics noted the shifting and subjective language used by Biden—who previously said that any Israeli invasion of Rafah would constitute a "red line" resulting in unspecified consequences.
"He said invading Rafah was a red line. Israel invaded Rafah anyway, bombing buildings, burning and crushing children to death," political analyst Omar Baddar said on social media. "Biden is now moving the goal post by adding a completely subjective descriptor: 'Major.' Now Israel has a green light to destroy Rafah in slow motion."
During the course of the seven-month Israeli assault on Gaza—which has killed, maimed, or left missing more than 124,000 Palestinians—Biden has said Israel has killed "too many civilians" with its "indiscriminate bombing," even as he's pushed for more and more military aid for the key ally.
Wednesday's interview came on the heels of Biden's approval of a $14.3 billion emergency military aid package to Israel, multiple moves to sidestep Congress to fast-track armed assistance, nearly $4 billion in previously authorized annual military aid, and diplomatic cover in the form of several United Nations Security Council vetoes.
Reporting that the Biden administration will delay a highly anticipated report on whether Israel is using U.S. military aid in compliance with international law also drew backlash Tuesday from human rights advocates.
Referring to Israel's U.S.-funded anti-missile system, Biden continued his supportive rhetoric during Wednesday's CNN interview, telling Burnett that "we're going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks."
But the president added that Israel's use of devastating weaponry against civilians is "just wrong," and that "we're not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells."
Some peace groups welcomed Biden's threat to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel, even while urging him to do more to stop his ally's genocidal onslaught.
"Biden's statement is as necessary as it is over overdue," Jewish Voice for Peace executive director Stefanie Fox said in a statement. "The U.S. already bears responsibility for months of catastrophic devastation: The nearly 40,000 Palestinians that the Israeli military has killed, the two million Palestinians being intentionally brought to the brink of famine, the decimation of all universities and almost every hospital in Gaza."
"Today's statement shows that Biden can no longer ignore the will of the majority of Americans who want a permanent cease-fire, release of all hostages, and an end to U.S. complicity in Israeli war crimes," Fox added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Save 'MAGA Mike' Johnson From Marjorie Taylor Greene Ouster
"The GOP chaos caucus continues to do nothing for the American people and instead waste time infighting," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who did not support saving the far-right leader.
May 08, 2024
The majority of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday saved far-right Speaker Mike Johnson from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's attempt to oust him after less than seven months in the leadership position.
Johnson's (R-La.) election to the role in October—following the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who then left Congress early—was seen as a signal of the MAGA flank's hold on the Republican Party. However, since then he has faced criticism from Greene (R-Ga.) and others for, among other things, not shutting down the government.
Greene delivered on her threatened motion to vacate—provoking boos from fellow lawmakers—after meeting with Johnson for hours on Monday and Tuesday. The final vote to table her resolution was 359-43, with 196 Republicans and 163 Democrats backing the far-right speaker. Seven Democrats voted present and 21 lawmakers did not vote.
Ten Republicans joined Greene in trying to give Johnson the boot: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Eric Burlison (Mo.), Eli Crane (Ariz.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Alex Mooney (W.Va.), Barry Moore (Ala.), Chip Roy (Texas), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.).
Addressing the position of most Democrats, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) said in a statement:
Our decision to stop Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from plunging the House of Representatives and the country into further chaos is rooted in our commitment to solving problems for everyday Americans in a bipartisan manner. We need more common sense and less chaos in Washington, D.C.
Marjorie Taylor Greene and the extreme MAGA Republicans are chaos agents. House Democrats are change agents. We will continue to govern in a reasonable, responsible, and results-oriented manner and to put people over politics all day and every day.
Some of the 32 Democrats who supported ousting Johnson framed the vote as proof that—in the words of Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Fla.)—the "GOP really can't govern" and the "chaos caucus is on display."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) similarly declared on social media that "the GOP chaos caucus continues to do nothing for the American people and instead waste time infighting."
"Speaker Johnson organized an amicus brief effort to overturn the 2020 election. He opposes abortion rights, trans rights, and voting rights," Jayapal also said. "That's why I did not vote to save his speakership."
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) also explained his vote on social media, saying: "Mike Johnson is the most ideological, right-wing speaker since the 1830s. His views and values are directly antithetical to mine. He stands for everything we, as freedom-loving Democrats, proudly stand against. I will never vote to keep him in that chair."
Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) was one of the members who voted present, which does not count for or against passage.
"Did I vote with the extremist white Christian nationalist who called a motion to vacate the speakership or did I vote to save the extremist homophobic Christian nationalist speaker to keep him in office?" Pocan said. "Neither. I voted 'present' on this sideshow."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular