January, 28 2010, 12:10pm EDT
'There IS a Better Health Plan, Mr. President'
Medicare-for-All doctors available for comment on State of the Union speech
WASHINGTON
Rising
to President Obama's challenge to others in his State of the Union
address that they come up with a better approach to health care reform
than his own, physicians who advocate for a single-payer program
stepped forward this morning to again make the case for their
alternative, which they say has solid public support.
Among them is Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrician and congressional
fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization of
17,000 physicians who support a single-payer system, who is traveling
to the White House today to deliver an open letter to the president calling on him to meet with her and other Medicare-for-All advocates.
Also speaking out today are Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David
Himmelstein, co-founders of PNHP, primary care physicians in Cambridge,
Mass., and professors at Harvard Medical School, who provided commentary in a blog in today's New York Times.
In her letter to Obama, Flowers notes how surprised she and others were
when single-payer advocates were excluded from the early stages of the
discussions on health reform. Flowers was one of several physicians,
nurses and reform advocates who were arrested at Senate Finance
Committee hearings last spring for standing up and asking in a
dignified way why the Medicare-for-All option was "off the table."
Flowers writes: "I am asking you to meet with me because the solution
is simple. Remove all of the industries who profit off of the American
health care catastrophe from the table. Replace them with those who are
knowledgeable in designing health systems and who are without ties to
the for-profit medical industries. And then allow them to design an
improved Medicare-for-All national health system."
Flowers then itemizes the advantages of adopting such a system, saying
that it would cover everyone, save thousands of lives, relieve medical
debt, control costs, help the economy, and restore the
physician-patient relationship. Obama himself is on record noting only
a single-payer plan would provide universal coverage: "The truth is
unless you have what's called a single-payer system in which everyone's
automatically covered, you're probably not going to reach every single
individual."
The full text of Flowers' letter, and the blog commentary by Woolhandler and Himmelstein, appear below.
All three, plus several other physicians, are available for comment on the president's speech last night.
There is still time for real reform, listen to the American people
By Margaret Flowers, M.D.
An Open Letter to President Obama on Health Care Reform
January 28, 2010
President Barack Obama|
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama,
I was overjoyed to hear you say in your State of the Union address last night:
"But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring
down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen
Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."
My colleagues, fellow health advocates and I have been trying to meet
with you for over a year now because we have an approach which will
meet all of your goals and more.
I am a pediatrician who, like many of my primary care colleagues, left
practice because it is nearly impossible to deliver high quality health
care in this environment. I have been volunteering for Physicians for a
National Health Program ever since. For over a year now, I have been
working with the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care/
National Single Payer Alliance. This alliance represents over 20
million people nationwide from doctors to nurses to labor, faith and
community groups who advocate on behalf of the majority of Americans,
including doctors, who favor a national Medicare-for-All health system.
I felt very optimistic when Congress took up health care reform last
January because I remember when you spoke to the Illinois AFL-CIO in
June, 2003 and said:
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care
program." [applause] "I see no reason why the United States of America,
the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent
of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic
health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about
when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan,
a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as
all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we
have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and
we have to take back the House."
And that is why I was so surprised when the voices of those who support
a national single-payer plan/Medicare for All were excluded in place of
the voices of the very health insurance and pharmaceutical industries
which profit off the current health care situation.
There was an opportunity this past year to create universal and
financially sustainable health care reform rather than expensive health
insurance reform. As you well know, the United States spends the most
per capita on health care in the world yet leaves millions of people
out and receives poor return on those health care dollars in terms of
health outcomes and efficiency. This poor value for our health care
dollar is due to the waste of having so many insurance companies. At
least a third of our health care dollars go towards activities that
have nothing to do with health care such as marketing, administration
and high executive salaries and bonuses. This represents over $400
billion per year which could be used to pay for health care for all of
those Americans who are suffering and dying from preventable causes.
The good news is that it doesn't have to be this way. You said that you
wanted to "keep what works" and that would be Medicare. Medicare is an
American legacy of which we can feel proud. It has guaranteed health
security to all who have it. Medicare has lifted senior citizens out of
poverty. Health disparities, which are rising in this nation, begin to
disappear as soon as patients reach 65 years of age. And patients and
doctors prefer Medicare to private insurance. Why, our Medicare has
even been used as a model by other nations which have developed and
implemented universal health systems.
Mr. President, we wanted to meet with you because we have the solution
to health care reform. The United States has enough money already and
we have the resources, including esteemed experts in public health,
health policy and health financing. Our very own Dr. William Hsiao at
Harvard has designed health systems in five other countries.
I am asking you to meet with me because the solution is simple. Remove
all of the industries who profit off of the American health care
catastrophe from the table. Replace them with those who are
knowledgeable in designing health systems and who are without ties to
the for-profit medical industries. And then allow them to design an
improved Medicare-for-All national health system. We can implement it
within a year of designing such a system.
What are the benefits of doing this?
* It will save tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of
American lives each year, not to mention the prevention of unnecessary
suffering.
* It will relieve families of medical debt, which is the number one
cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure despite the fact that most of those
who experienced bankruptcy had health insurance.
* It will relieve businesses of the growing burden of skyrocketing
health insurance premiums so that they can invest in innovation,
hiring, increased wages and other benefits and so they can compete in
the global market.
* It will control health care costs in a rational way through global
budgeting and negotiation for fair prices for pharmaceuticals and
services.
* It will allow patients the freedom to choose wherever they want to go
for health care and will allow patients and their caregivers to
determine which care is best without denials by insurance
administrators.
* It will restore the physician-patient relationship and bring
satisfaction back to the practice of medicine so that more doctors will
stay in or return to practice.
* It will allow our people in our nation to be healthy and productive and able to support themselves and their families.
* It will create a legacy for your administration that may someday
elevate you to the same hero status as Tommy Douglas has in Canada.
Mr. President, there are more benefits, but I believe you get the
point. I look forward to meeting with you and am so pleased that you
are open to our ideas. The Medicare-for-All campaign is growing rapidly
and is ready to support you as we move forward on health care reform
that will provide America with one of the best health systems in the
world. And that is something of which all Americans can be proud.
With great anticipation and deep respect,
Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Congressional Fellow, Physicians for a National Health Program
[This article originally appeared in OpEd News: https://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-Still-Time-For-Re-by-Margaret-Flowers--100127-703.html ]
Keep reading...Show less
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
Despite 100% Pentagon Audit Failure Rate, House Passes $883.7 Billion NDAA
"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex," said Defense Spending Reduction Caucus co-chairs.
Dec 11, 2024
Despite the Pentagon's repeated failures to pass audits and various alarming policies, 81 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted with 200 Republicans on Wednesday to advance a $883.7 billion annual defense package.
The Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025, unveiled by congressional negotiators this past Saturday, still needs approval from the Senate, which is expected to vote next week. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Wednesday that he plans to vote no and spoke out against the military-industrial complex.
The push to pass the NDAA comes as this congressional session winds down and after the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) announced last month that it had failed yet another audit—which several lawmakers highlighted after the Wednesday vote.
Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairs and co-founders of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, said in a joint statement, "Time and time again, Congress seems to be able to find the funds necessary to line the pockets of defense contractors while neglecting the problems everyday Americans face here at home."
"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex with even more unaccountable funds," they continued. "After a seventh failed audit in a row, it's disappointing that our amendment to hold the Pentagon accountable by penalizing the DOD's budget by 0.5% for each failed audit was stripped out of the final bill. It's time Congress demanded accountability from the Pentagon."
"While we're glad many of the poison pill riders that were included in the House-passed version were ultimately removed from the final bill, the bill does include a ban on access to medically necessary healthcare for transgender children of service members, which will force service members to choose between serving their country and getting their children the care they need," the pair noted. "The final bill also failed to expand coverage for fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), for service members regardless of whether their infertility is service-connected."
Several of the 124 House Democrats who voted against the NDAA cited those "culture war" policies, in addition to concerns about how the Pentagon spends massive amounts of money that could go toward improving lives across the country.
"Once again, Congress has passed a massive military authorization bill that prioritizes endless military spending over the critical needs of American families. This year's NDAA designates $900 billion for military spending," said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), noting the audit failures. "While I recognize the long-overdue 14.5% raise for our lowest-ranking enlisted personnel is important, this bill remains flawed. The bloated military budget continues to take away crucial funding from programs that could help millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet."
Taking aim at the GOP's push to deny gender-affirming care through TRICARE, the congresswoman said that "I cannot support a bill that continues unnecessary military spending while also attacking the rights and healthcare of transgender youth, and for that reason, I voted NO."
As Omar, a leading critic of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, also pointed out: "The NDAA includes a provision that blocks the Pentagon from using data on casualties and deaths from the Gaza Ministry of Health or any sources relying on those statistics. This is an alarming erasure of the suffering of the Palestinian people, ignoring the human toll of ongoing violence."
Israel—which receives billions of dollars in annual armed aid from the United States—faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court last month issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The NDAA includes over $627 million in provisions for Israel.
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who voted against the NDAA, directed attention to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), set to be run by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
"How do we know that DOGE is not a good-faith effort to address wasted funding and unaccountable government? The NDAA passed today," Ramirez said. "Republicans overwhelmingly supported the $883.7 billion authorization bill even though the Pentagon just failed its seventh audit in a row."
"Billions of dollars go to make defense corporations and their investors, including Members of Congress, rich while Americans go hungry, families are crushed by debt, and bombs we fund kill children in Gaza," she added. "No one who voted for this bill can credibly suggest that they care about government waste."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who also opposed the NDAA, wrote in a Tuesday opinion piece for MSNBC that he looks forward to working with DOGE "to reduce waste and fraud at the Pentagon, while strongly opposing any cuts to programs likeSocial Security, Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."
"We should make defense contracting more competitive, helping small and medium-sized businesses to compete for Defense Department projects," Khanna argued. "The Defense Department also needs better acquisition oversight. Defense contractors have gotten away with overcharging the Pentagon and ripping off taxpayers for too long."
"Another area where we can work with DOGE is reducing the billions being spent to maintain excess military property and facilities domestically and abroad," he suggested. "Finally, DOGE can also cut the Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile program."
The congressman, who is expected to run for president in 2028, concluded that "American taxpayers want and deserve the best return on their investment. Let's put politics aside and work with DOGE to reduce wasteful defense spending. And let's invest instead in domestic manufacturing, good-paying jobs, and a modern national security strategy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Another US Security Council Veto, UN General Assembly Votes for Gaza Cease-Fire
The General Assembly also voted 159-9 with 11 abstentions in favor of a resolution supporting UNRWA.
Dec 11, 2024
Following yet another United States veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities in Gaza, members of the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Wednesday in favor of an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent cease-fire" in the Palestinian enclave, where Israeli forces continued relentless attacks that killed dozens more Palestinians, including numerous children.
The veto by the United States, a permanent Security Council member, came during an emergency special session and was the lone dissenting vote on the 15-member body. It was the fourth time since October 2023 that the Biden administration vetoed a Security Council resolution on a Gaza cease-fire.
"At a time when Hamas is feeling isolated due to the cease-fire in Lebanon, the draft resolution on a cease-fire in Gaza risks sending a dangerous message to Hamas that there's no need to negotiate or release the hostages," Robert Wood, the United States' deputy U.N. ambassador, said ahead of Wednesday's vote.
The 193-member U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) subsequently voted 158-9, with 13 abstentions, for a resolution demanding "an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire, to be respected by all parties," and calling for the "immediate and unconditional release of all hostages" held by Hamas.
The nine countries that opposed the measure are the United States, Israel, Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and Tonga.
In a separate vote Wednesday, 159 UNGA members voted in favor of a resolution affirming the body's "full support" for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. UNRWA has been the target of diplomatic and financial attacks by Israel and its backers—who have baselessly accused the lifesaving organization of being a terrorist group—and literal attacks by Israeli forces, who have killed more than 250 of the agency's personnel.
Nine UNGA members opposed the measure, while 11 others abstained. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, while General Assembly resolutions are not, and are also not subject to vetoes.
Wednesday's U.N. votes took place amid sustained Israeli attacks on Gaza including a strike on a home sheltering forcibly displaced Palestinians in Deir al-Balah that killed at least 33 people, including children, local medical officials said. This followed earlier Israeli attacks, including the Monday night bombing of the al-Kahlout family home in Beit Hanoun that killed or wounded dozens of Palestinians and reportedly wiped the family from the civil registry.
"We are witnessing a massive loss of life," Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia,
toldThe Associated Press.
Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, at least 162,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, maimed, or left missing by Israel's bombardment, invasion, and siege of the coastal enclave, according to officials there. More than 2 million others have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened by Israel's onslaught.
Israel's conduct in the war is the subject of a South Africa-led genocide case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as one Hamas leader, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Bill Would Stop Companies From Placing Shareholder Paydays Over Worker Rights
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," said the senator, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Dec 11, 2024
Aiming to confront "a root cause of many of America's fundamental economic problems," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled a bill to require corporations to balance growth with fair treatment of their employees and consumers.
The Massachusetts Democrat introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, explaining that for much of U.S. history, corporations reinvested more than half of their profits back into their companies, working in the interest of employees, customers, business partners, and shareholders.
In the 1980s, said Warren corporations began placing the latter group above all, adopting "the belief that their only legitimate and legal purpose was 'maximizing shareholder value.'"
That view was further cemented in 1997 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents chief executives across the country, declared that the "principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners."
Now, Warren said in a policy document, "around 93% of American-held corporate shares are owned by just 10% of our nation's richest households, while more than 40% of American households hold no shares at all."
"This means that corporate America's commitment to 'maximizing shareholder return' is a commitment to making the rich even richer, while leaving workers and families behind," said Warren in a statement.
The Accountable Capitalism Act would require:
- Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," obligating executives to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just investors;
- Corporate political spending to be approved by at least 75% of a company's shareholders and 75% of its board of directors; and
- At least 40% of a company's board of directors to be selected by employees.
The bill would also prohibit directors of U.S. corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.
Warren noted that as companies have increasingly poured their profits into stock buybacks to benefit shareholders, worker productivity has steadily increased while real wages have gone up only slightly. The share of national income that goes to workers has also significantly dropped.
"Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations' shareholders make out like bandits," said Warren told The Guardian. "We need to stand up for working people and hold giant companies responsible for decisions that hurt workers and consumers while lining shareholders' pockets."
The senator highlighted that big business interests invested heavily in November's U.S. presidential election.
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," she said, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular