The Devastating Consequences of a Corporate Health Care Bill
Print This
By shamus cooke
OpEdNews
Sunday, Nov 29, 2009
Wading
through the endless debate over health care has exhausted the patience of most
Americans — the zigzags, obscure language, and long-winded discussion is
inherently repulsive.
But now
the dust is starting to settle, and the Congressional vision for health care in the U.S. is emerging. Instead of
being “progressive,” it will amount to a massive, corporate-inspired attack on
American workers, the elderly, and the poor.
After
months of confusion and delay, Congress has shipwrecked the popular energy over
health care onto the jagged rock of corporate interests. More spectacularly,
health care “reform” is being used as an opportunity to greatly advance
corporate influence over social spheres long-dedicated to the working-class —
seemingly harmless provisions carry with them enormous
implications.
These
devils hide in the details of the competing health care bills in Congress; both
contain debilitating right-wing policies hidden within a progressive shell.
Obama is indeed acting as the agent of change, to the great benefit of the U.S.
corporate elite.
And
although the final bill has yet to be crafted, there exists general agreements
as to what the end version will look like. Americans will be forced to
buy shoddy corporate insurance with no limit to the cost, no guarantee of
quality, with large premiums and other tricks to further gouge consumers.
If a public option emerges in the final bill — by no means a guarantee — it
will be shrunken enough to insure very few people (2 percent of the U.S.
population).
But it
gets worse. How this health care “reform” will be paid for has
implications that dwarf the above atrocities.
For
example, the Democrats were determined to pass a health care bill that “will
not add one cent to the deficit.” And they have succeeded: the House and
Senate health care bills both plan to reduce the deficit by over $100
billion. But a second-grader could do the math here: more service does
not equal less cost — a truism that dominates the for-profit health care
industry.
So how
does the government plan to save billions of dollars as they “help” millions of
people?
The two
biggest cost saving schemes are the most damaging. The first is the
enormous attack on Medicare. Since its inception, the corporate elite
wanted this program struck down. Now they have their man for the job — a
Republican could never get away with such obvious treachery.
The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate version of health care
would cut $404 billion from Medicare and Medicaid; the house version would cut
$570 billion. The final cut could be much more. Obama made the
ridiculous claim that only “wasteful” parts of Medicare would be cut. The
truth is far different.
One way
that both Congressional health care bills will gut Medicare is referred to as
“forced productivity gains” — cost saving measures essentially; trimming the fat.
What are
these savings? The most mentioned device — by politicians and media alike — is
the reduction of “wasteful tests” and procedures that doctors routinely
perform, an idea that the health care mega-corporations love. It will save them
billions, while having catastrophic effects on the health care of millions of
people.
For
example, the recent announcement that women will now be persuaded to cut back
on screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer have caused an uproar
nationwide: people are correctly making the connection behind Congress' “forced
productivity gains” and the new “recommendations” that will be used by
insurance companies to justify cutting these services, both of which will boost
profits. The general agreement behind rationing health care in this way
will be an attack on not only Medicare, but serve as the backbone of any health
care bill passed, negatively effecting everyone unable to afford luxury health
care.
Another
piece of Medicare that's being trimmed is Medicare Advantage, a favorite
program of the elderly because of its comprehensive services. Premiums
for this program are already rising drastically in anticipation of the health
care bill's passage, considered by Congress to be “wasteful.” Without
this program, Medicare will be greatly devalued and be more appropriately
named: “band-aides for
seniors.”
Finally,
The Senate health care bill attacks Medicare by reducing payments to doctors by
25 percent. If doctors receive such a drastic reduction in pay, they will
simply refuse to see Medicare or Medicaid patients; people will thus be insured
only on paper.The newly insured Medicaid patients under any new
congressional bill will be sorely disappointed.
Once
Medicare is undermined in the above ways, the corporate sponsored right-wing
will make a very convincing argument that “Medicare doesn't work”, leading to
future cuts that will further destroy the program.
The
second hidden disaster in financing a congressional health care bill is the tax
on so-called “gold-plated” or “Cadillac” health insurance policies that some
employers offer their workers. This tax is supposedly meant to apply to the
health care policies that “elite” employees receive.
And
while there should exist no complaints about taxing corporations, the motives
behind this particular tax are intentionally deceiving. As it turns out,
many, if not most workers in unions will be included in this tax, which, under
the Senate version, will include any plan worth more than $8,000 for
individuals and $21,000 for families. Hardly elite, considering the
still-soaring costs for health care.
If this
provision were to pass — and it's very popular in Congress — the immediate
reaction would be very predictable: employers would immediately drop their
health care plans, forcing workers into the now-forced purchasing of inadequate
health care. This is why unions oppose such a plan. California Democrat
Pete Stark agrees: “Employers and insurers will reduce their benefits to avoid
paying the proposed tax.”
Workers
fortunate to have union contracts will be heavily pressured to concede their
plans, which in the past they've sacrificed wage-increases to keep.
Ultimately, employers will have a new excuse not to provide health care to
workers.
Obama
again used his superb intelligence to totally obscure the issue in support of
the tax:
“I do
think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans
that don't make people healthier is part of the way that we're going to bring
down health care costs for everybody over the long term.”
Translation: he supports taxing the health care of union workers.
Overall,
a compromise bill between the Senate and House versions will create utter
disaster for the working-class. It will not signal a progressive “step in
the right direction,” as many liberals claim. At minimum, it will be a
step backward, though more likely such a bill will be an enormous regression,
to a time where health care was the exclusive privilege of the
wealthy.
The
right-wing attacks on “Obamacare” — along with the media's lack of questioning
— have shielded the Democrats from any serious debate about the above
questions, including many other concerns unmentioned here.
The
trash legislation that Congress is producing is the direct consequence of the
Democratic Party being dominated by giant corporations — in this case the
health care industry. The two-party system is the political system of the
corporate elite, who switch party affiliations when they find it convenient;
many of them throw equal money at both parties.
A
crucial prop in this broken political system needs to be removed and organized
under its own strength. If the unions took their support from the
Democrats, organized their members and resources into a new political party,
and aggressively pushed reforms that benefited the majority of working-class
Americans, U.S. democracy would be tremendously strengthened.
Medicare could not only be saved, but expanded to everyone from
birth to death and be considered a fundamental human right.
If you appreciated this article, please consider making a donation to Axis of Logic.
We do not use commercial advertising or corporate funding. We depend solely upon you,
the reader, to continue providing quality news and opinion on world affairs.Donate here