Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: "Supreme Court Judges Have Access to Guaranteed Care, Shouldn’t You ?" by Rose Ann DeMoro.

Posted 2 years ago on March 31, 2012, 4:33 p.m. EST by shadz66 (19985)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"Supreme Court Judges Have Access to Guaranteed Care, Shouldn’t You ?"

by Rose Ann DeMoro.

March 30, 2012 "Common Dreams" ( http://www.commondreams.org/ ) --

~

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer did not have much in common during the three days of debate on the 2010 healthcare law before the Supreme Court March 26-28.

But they did share one essential characteristic. All four will never have to worry about guaranteed access to healthcare.

They won’t have to worry about being bankrupted by medical bills, about being denied needed treatment their doctor recommended because some insurance bean counter deemed it ‘experimental’ or ‘not medically necessary.’

They won’t have to worry about being barred from choosing the provider of their choice because they were ‘out of network’ or forced to keep an unwanted job to maintain their present employer-paid coverage.

Why? It’s not just because of their wealth, or even their federal paychecks or federal health plan.

It’s because all four are over 65, and thus eligible for Medicare – which gives the four justices the same guaranteed coverage that every other American at 65 has. The same coverage that all Americans need and deserve.

Regrettably, none of those roadblocks are removed under the law the judges spent so many hours debating.

More striking, this case which dominated the court’s agenda and massive media coverage this week did not need to be in front of the court at all. If, the Obama administration and the Democrats on the Hill had fought for the reform they should have pursued from the outset – lowering the Medicare age to zero.

For more than 45 years, Medicare has stood the test of time and law.

It works, even when its opponents try to underfund or privatize or destabilize Medicare.

Today Medicare remains a more efficient, cost effective, humane system for delivering healthcare, and guaranteeing it to everyone who is eligible, in a far superior manner to the broken dysfunction privatized insurance system that is based on profit and ability to pay, not on patient need.

Sure, the Affordable Care Act does have positive elements, including some restrictions on the abuses that characterize the insurance industry, and the provision that lets young adults up to 26 to remain on their parents’ health plan.

But even if Obamacare survives the court challenge – a prospect looking increasingly dim – it would leave millions of Americans out in the cold.

Despite its name the Affordable Care Act has done little to actually make healthcare affordable. Out of pocket health costs for families continue to soar. It does little to crack down on insurance companies denial of medical treatment they don’t want to pay for. It leaves 27 million Americans with no health coverage, according to a Congressional Budget office estimate in early March.

And for many who are covered, it further tethers them to a callous, insurance system that treats patients as commodities, not as individuals with individual needs.

Whether the law is overturned or left in tact, our healthcare crisis will continue. A mountain of statistics bear the ongoing nightmare faced by far too many. Just a few examples:

A February Pew Center report noted a 16 percent jump in the number of Americans heading to emergency rooms for routine dental problems, at a cost of 10 times more than preventive care with fewer treatment options than a dentist's office.

Medical bills for years have been the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. Increasingly they ruin people’s credit as well. A recent Commonwealth Fund report found that 30 million Americans were contacted by collection agencies in 2010 because of medical bills.

The percentage of adults with no health insurance at 17.3 percent in the third quarter of 2011 was the highest on record, up from 14.4 percent just three years earlier, Gallup reported.

On quality, the U.S. continues to lag far behind other nations.

More than 80 percent of U.S. counties trail life expectancy rates of nations with the best life expectancies, the University of Washington found last June. Some U.S. counties are more than 50 years behind their international counterparts.

There is an alternative, one that most of the other industrialized world has long embraced. One that should be back on the table whether the Court overturns the law or not.

Single payer, Medicare for all. If Medicare is good enough for grandma, and for Scalia and Breyer and Kennedy and Ginsburg, it ought to be good enough for all of us.

Rose Ann DeMoro is executive director of the 160,000-member National Nurses United, the nation’s largest union and professional association of nurses, and a national vice president of the AFL-CIO. Follow Rose Ann DeMoro on Twitter : http://twitter.com/#!/NationalNurses .

~

fiat justitia ...

~

[The article is copied verbatim under "Fair Use" from : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30948.htm / http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/30-0 .]

42 Comments

42 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Please allow five minutes in order take a little look at one American's view of Finnish Healthcare :

When a society is actually motivated by 'The Public Good' as well as 'reason and evidence' and 'love and logic' ... many myriad marvelous opportunities can open up !!!

per aspera ad astra ...

[-] -3 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

Any chance that plan involves us enforcing our immigration laws? The more the country fills with 6th grade drop-outs that only qualify for cleaning toilets, the more pressure our system comes under. Sorry, I know liberals don't like nasty interruptions of reality.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Casually racist, you're not sorry at all and in any case, you only have a rather tenuous grasp on "reality" actually, IF the wholly Corporate owned US News Networks (ABCNNBCBS-FUX SNEWz et al) are your only source of information. Perhaps your Corporate Overlords and you should refer to this pie-chart :

How come people who say things like "Universal Healthcare Is Unaffordable" NEVER seem to have any questions, critique or notion of The Massive US Military Empire and its Gargantuan Expenditures ?!!!

Do such expenses have an impact on domestic taxation and expenditure possibilities d'you think ?!!

If the government of The U$A was truly 'democratic', then its size wouldn't be the problem but as a pissant apology of a demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy prevales, whereby there only exists merely a "Government OF The 99% BY a 1% FOR a 0.01%" ... then in the very least, complaining if not actually demonstrating, protesting and 'Occupying' becomes a moral imperative for all people of conscience.

respice ; adspice ; prospice ...

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

Sorry, I didn't know I was going back and forth with a nut. Carry on.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're not. You're still spinning in circles.

Wheeee!!!!!

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You shouldn't expect politicians and representatives of the 1% to consider the needs of the proletariat

[-] 3 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

yes, we would be foolish to expect that.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

No, the people are too stupid to form a union like most all government employees have who bargain with themselves leaving The People to cough up whatever numbers government employees deem to be fair to themselves.

[-] 0 points by CCNN (8) from Walla Walla, WA 2 years ago

Obama care is simply the gateway to a single payer system. Quit worrying. Within a decade it will be here.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Medicare is NOT good enough for grandma and and it is NOT good enough for me. Sure, I'd like to have free benefits and I think YOU should pay for them.

[-] 0 points by TheTeacher (0) 2 years ago

No of course not did you graduate from law school. Only "A" class citizens get special perks

http://jamesdamiano.yolasite.com/

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Every one should have to deal with the same market as the average citizen. Perhaps then they would pay more attention. End the separation of government from reality. No special treatment care or free Insurance for anyone in government.

Let us all go forward to better universal health care for all, or for no one at all. Government should not be privileged to better care and service than the people whom it represents.

Perhaps it is the congressional presidential and judicial plan that should be extended to all Americans.

[-] -3 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

End the separation of liberals from reality and reason.

Members of the court are employees. Healthcare is part of their compensation, just like it is for many people with jobs.

Not all jobs pay the same. Shocking, huh? Just because someone occupies a high level government job isn't a reason for the entire population, no matter how useless, to get the exact same pay.

You're retired. How is it in life that you haven't been able to figure this stuff out by now by yourself?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Compensation? Yeah whatever. The fact of the matter is, the executives in government as in the private sector are given all kinds of gravy. Like in the private sector the main stream worker is screwed. There is disparity in government just as there is in the private sector. Those with the money are provided with many a free bonus that they could well afford to pay for for themselves. This is what is being recognized as wrong and unfair and UN-equitable. This is the artery clogging fat at the top of the system public and private.

[-] -3 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

No, not like anything. Different jobs pay different things. Just because someone has a senior level job in government doesn't green-light the entire country to have the same thing regardless.

Compensation is compensation, no matter the form. Fine, force all compensation to be cash and simply watch cash compensation go up so that total compensation remains about the same. Happy now?

Unequal is not in the least necessarily unfair.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Alright. I'm good with that, but here's the rub.

I don't want to hear a word from keyboard, spoken against public unions.

In fact, considering your statement, you should be in full support.

Either that, or you're a hypocrite.

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

Ahh, and why's that? This should be good. I'm in favor of employers offering what they want be it cash, coconuts or a combination of the two and employees accepting or rejecting the offers and deciding what they'll do and for whom. I'm also fine with different jobs paying differently.

Somehow that implies being pro-union? You got me.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's a perfect correlation. It doesn't surprise me you'd miss that.

I guess you prefer being a hypocrite.

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

Yeah, I missed it. It's hard to predict what sort of bizarre fucked up connections run around the head of someone not prone to reason.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I know, it's like trying to explain reason to someone that's been hit in the head.

I will expect you to continue to spin in circles, and not know which way is up.

Soldier on....................:)

[-] -2 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm#chart

Public Unions are inherently wrong from the absolute first step as The People have NO say in the bargaining and negotiations, only coughing up the money to pay them.

To say otherwise means you truly believe your 1%er owned DC represents you and continues to do so. We all know this isn't the case.

[-] 1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

They are wrong. They've unleashed a whole class of people that are relentless advocates for higher taxes and bigger government simply because they work there. Wisconsin lays absolutely bare how unions seek to hand pick their own bosses. They want to negotiate across the table with themselves to fuck the people.

Government should function for its people, not just its employees. It's a simple principle, but something liberals will argue all day.

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

100% spot on and you know when they see the light?

Maybe, and only maybe, when they push away from another man's trough and start their own business involving hired help.

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

The weird thing is how leftists support it. The line up behind the small number of entrenched "working families" that work for government, and against the more numerous "working families" that pay for it and that have had their services compromised by rigging the relationship between employee and employer.

They also side with retired government employees over working government employees. They'd rather fire a teacher than to ask for some compromise from a retired one.

The services they claim to love are being crowded out by retirement benefits run amok. They just haven't yet figured out this last part.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

See, sorry I don't see it that way. As a minimum wage worker I don't pay shit for taxes, at least what I do pay ain't enough for me to be up in arms over. I guess i am just not as greedy as my richer country men. No, the ones who are paying for gov't workers are the ones who hale from the class that pays me slave wages. So in the big scheme of things, highly taxed individuals are getting what they deserve. Maybe, if the job creators payed their employees more, stopped shopping for employment at temp services and shared the wealth, then maybe there would not be a need for all the gov't services that are financed with your taxes. I guess the beauty of our current predicament is that what goes around comes around.I guess since I am a wage slave, I really don't have time to fret over the fact that you feel that you are a tax slave. It is quite serendipitous if you think about it, don't you think? lol.

[-] 0 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

Do you think government jobs should be by lottery from pools of qualified individuals? No? Are you fine with nepotism too?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

That is a good question. I'd say I'm for meritocracy over cronyism any day of the week. But on a philosophical note, who is to judge who has merit and who is a rube? Or are our current metrics sufficient enough?

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

Who is to judge? Well that happens every time a new federalist crony is hired, over-compensated and set for life.

The federal government OFFICIALLY employs over 10% of the adult population.... unofficially the number is said to be closer to 25%. Is either number enough to suit you..... seeing as how government costs you nothing?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Why can't corporations compete with gov't salaries? Could it be because of the CEO's bloated salaries. I though corporate life was more desirable?

I don't buy your claim that a federal retirement package is the great blight of this nation. really, those ten percent are our greatest threat for the future? Why cant the private sector do what it is that they do so well and just buy them out. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, that was Walker's job.

Besides, what party do you believe contracted employees of the federal government Vote for? I guess from my point of view I'm keeping the feds fed and you are keeping the no bid contractors fed. we are both doing our civic duty, lol.

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

Backwards, how is it government can spend 4 million per employee on average?

A clue, it's not because of people like you that pay nothing into the system, it's because they do not have to operate like a business having only finite resources available.

So explain to me how it is you feed anyone other than maybe yourself.

[-] -3 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

No doubt. For you, government is free, so I get it that you simply want more. Maybe you aren't greedy, but then there's the other deadly sin to consider in your case: sloth.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I work six day a week, eight hours a day. How am I slothful?

[-] -3 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

You accomplish, apparently, very little. But that's for you to consider.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Why would I want to be an over achiever in a nation that exploits and nickels and dimes the people I grew up with? That would not make me a very good person. In fact that would make me a despicable person. Don't you think?

No, I think you really need to do some soul searching and reconsider what you have done with your life. How can you be proud to be rich in a nation that is notorious at exploiting the weakest among us?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

It's not a character assassination at all. Answer why an autistic downs adult should have a vote equal to mine, that of a working class, blue/white collar entrepreneur who has paid in far more than I will ever get out. In fact, explain to me why such a disabled person should even have the right to vote at all.

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

Woow "why should an autistic downs syndrome adult have an equal vote then mine" Sometimes it really surprises me the mindset conservative / libertarians total contempt for humanity. No wonder RP cant win one single state.

[-] -2 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

Why you ask? Should an autistic downs syndrome adult be able to vote? Nothing denies them this right which really speaks volumes about the whole joke of a process.

In many ways, I consider people with your mindset to be quite similar and your vote should not have the same weight as mine for many reasons I find quite valid.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

So what do you do that makes you so special that you get to judge my view as maleficent and lacking merit? Be mindful my perspective comes from reading more books than you probably have time to read in your high pace, high finance world that makes you the shit, presumably the only one mentally sufficient to pick leaders. Or is your character assassination the last vestige of an inarticulate argument?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

A Dominionist?

It figures.

[-] -2 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

It is a shame that just anyone breathing actually has a vote in these United States.

I cannot even remotely begin to relate to your perspectives and I'm pretty sure I never want to do so.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Why?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's correct. Only non breathing persons and corporations should be allowed to vote!!!!

Would that also include claymation persons? they don't breath either.