home / subscribe / donate / books / t-shirts / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Inside the New Print Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
New York Times Director Probed for "Breach of Trust"
To the Sulzberger family that controls the New York Times he has been the ultimate Good German. High-flying Thomas Middelhoff took New York by storm, buying Random House for Bertelsmann, invited onto the NYT board, a member of its compensation committee. Read Eamonn Fingleton’s exclusive on how Middelhoff has crashed to earth and how the NYT has buried the story. Amid New York’s savage fiscal crisis, guess what? The city ponies up $50 million for a nice new park for rich people in Manhattan. Read Carl Ginsburg on the High Line. PLUS Elyssa Pachico on how rural revolution in Colombia has gone digital. PLUS co-editor Cockburn on how, in Obama Time, the Israel lobby is carrying all before it. What a surprise. Get your new edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and t-shirts make great presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
Meet & Debate (Perhaps Even Date) CPers Online at CounterPunch's New Facebook Page
|
Today's Stories August 27, 2009 Doug and Andrea Peacock August 26, 2009 Gareth Porter Dave Lindorff Dean Baker Laura Carlsen Paul Craig Roberts Laura Raymond / Jordan Flaherty Jonathan Cook Robert Bryce Danny Weil Cindy Sheehan John V. Walsh Website of the Day August 25, 2009 Gabriel Kolko Danny Weil Martine Bulard Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Bélen Fernández August 24, 2009 Danny Weil Neve Gordon John Ross Open Letter to Kenneth Roth Dan Bacher August 21-23, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Ray McGovern Carl Ginsburg Dave Lindorff M. Shahid Alam Ron Jacobs Eric Walberg No War on the Moon! Gilad Atzmon Crawdad Nelson David Yearsley Justin Frew Website of the Day August 20, 2009 Eugenia Tsao Dave Lindorff Yonatan Preminger Wajahat Ali Website of the Day August 19, 2009 David Michael Green Paul Craig Roberts Marshall Auerback Franklin Lamb John Ross Marjorie Cohn August 18, 2009 Michael Hudson Mary Lynn Cramer Jonathan Cook Uri Avnery Ralph Nader Bill Quigley & Davida Finger August 17, 2009 Ray McGovern Andy Worthington Patrick Cockburn Don Fitz P. Sainath Helena Cobban August 14-16, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Peter Linebaugh Esam Al-Amin Marshall Auerback Mike Whitney Paul Krassner Saul Landau Nikolas Kozloff Henry A. Giroux John Ross Jonathan Cook Isabella Kenfield David Rosen Ron Jacobs Wajahat Ali David Macaray Greg Moses Charles R. Larson David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend August 13, 2009 Eduardo Galeano Joanne Mariner Michael Donnelly Norman Solomon Russell Mokhiber Tim Wise Brian M. Downing Dave Lindorff David Manning / Miriam Cotton: Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day August 12, 2009 Michael J. Watts Bouthaina Shaaban Ricardo Alarcón Binoy Kampmark Paul Craig Roberts Alan Farago James Ridgeway Dave Lindorff David Macaray Niranjan Ramakrishnan Website of the Day August 11, 2009 Ricardo Alarcón Marshall Auerback Reza Yavari Winslow T. Wheeler Tim Wise Uri Avnery Deepak Tripathi Greg Moses Benjamin Dangl Dave Lindorff Website of the Day August 10, 2009 David Price Mike Whitney Alan Farago Conn Hallinan Russell Mokhiber Paul Krassner Sousan Hammad Jonathan Cook Ira Glunts George Wuerthner Website of the Day August 7 - 9, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Mike Whitney Elaine C. Hagopian Carl Ginsburg Miguel Tinker Salas Saul Landau John Ross Anthony DiMaggio Obama and the Israel Lobby: Origins of Power John Stanton Christopher Brauchli Legal Absurdities: Outing Three Strikes Wajahat Ali Ron Jacobs Franklin Lamb Bruce E. Levine Michael Winship David Macaray Stephen Fleischman Robert Bryce Robert Dodge, MD: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered Mark Seth Lender David Yearsley Ben Sonnenberg Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend August 6, 2009 Ishmael Reed Paul Craig Roberts William Blum Assassinations and Coups: Keeping Track of the Empire's Crimes Michael Donnelly Jonathan Cook Dave Lindorff Ellen Brown Website of the Day August 5, 2009 Dedrick Muhammad / Norman Solomon William Blum Gareth Porter Mary Lynn Cramer Jim Goodman Nadia Hijab Gretchen Kroth Steve Macek / Sarah Lazare Website of the Day August 4, 2009 Mike Whitney Dave Lindorff Patrick Cockburn Jonathan Cook Jeff Sher Dean Baker Andy Worthington Uri Avnery Mark Weisbrot Alvaro Huerta Website of the Day
|
August 27, 2009 Expanding MedicareWe Already Have a Public OptionBy MARSHALL AUERBACH Senator Charles Schumer indicated earlier this week that Democrats were fleshing out plans to pass health legislation, particularly the option of a new government-run insurance program, with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes that would ordinarily be needed to overcome a filibuster. Typically for the party that still seems to suffer from an acute case of “Stockholm Syndrome”, the Democrats continue to agonise about using their substantial majorities in Congress to fight for what they really believe in and question whether to use a budget reconciliation procedure to incorporate a public health insurance option in the legislation. We’ve got a better idea for the Democrats, which will enable them to pass a bill without resorting to controversial Parliamentary procedures, whilst still incorporating a public health care option: Expand the provisions of Medicare. In the words of NY Congressman Anthony Weiner, “Medicare for all Americans”. Since its inception in 1965, Medicare has covered almost all citizens over age 65, and it is one of the most popular government programs existing today. Individual state-managed health programs with low reimbursement to caregivers cover additionally most children with congenital malformations and children with many other disorders. For low-income families, the combined federal and state-managed Medicaid program is available for the majority of medical disorders that are not primarily cosmetic. Why not expand its role to incorporate citizens not covered in any of the existing private health insurance plans? Why not, in fact, allow Medicare to compete against private health insurance companies in order to keep them honest? The implicit presumption underlying the arguments of opponents of a public health insurance component is that it will add another layer of complex bureaucracy to an already overencumbered health care system, and offer a “consumer unfriendly” service, vastly inferior to supposedly consumer friendly private health insurance plans. (Private plans tend to be “consumer friendly” until the consumer attempts to exercise his/her right to comprehensive medical supposedly paid for by the increasingly exorbitant health insurance premiums.) But even if we accept the logic that a private health insurance program is invariably more efficient than a government administered option (which we don’t, for the record), why do these very same health insurance providers argue that a government run health insurance options will create “unfair competitive advantages”? In fact, few Americans rail against Medicare or characterize it as a nefarious “socialistic” takeover of the health care system. As a program, it has great political legitimacy and is as strongly entrenched in the American political landscape as our Social Security system. In 1963, most elderly Americans had no health insurance. Few retirement plans provided any such coverage. The poor had little access to medical treatment until they were in critical condition. Only wealthier Americans could get the finest care, and only by traveling to a few big cities like Boston, Chicago or New York. In 1966, 19 million were enrolled in Medicare; in 1998, 39 million, according to former HEW Secretary, Joseph Califano. Today, 43 million of Americans are covered by the program, yet seldom does one hear a senior citizen complain about struggling under the burden of “socialistic health care”. The program, while not without its flaws, has displayed significantly less cost inflation than private insurance. At 4% per annum its administrative costs less than half of most private insurance companies and polls consistently show very high satisfaction among its participants. So why does Senator Kent Conrad continue to suggest that there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass a public option for health insurance? It would be interesting to see what would happen to Senator Conrad’s polling numbers in his own state were he to suggest that the government disband its existing public option – Medicare – in the interests of costs savings. Even the Republicans aren’t dumb enough to make that proposal, which makes one wonder why the Democrats don’t do the obvious and simply incorporate the program into a broader health care reform measure. Why introduce a whole new layer of bureaucratic complexity into an already fiendishly complex health care system, when the foundation for a government run health care option lies right in front of our faces? To maximize profits and shareholder confidence, insurance companies, healthcare providers and drug companies have manipulated the system beyond comprehension. As healthcare costs rise at double-digit rates, fewer and fewer manufacturers and small businesses can offer comprehensive coverage to their employees. More than the UAW, health care was the legacy cost which likely doomed General Motors in its earlier incarnation. Healthcare gets complicated when it's built around profits rather than care. Private insurance companies largely generate profits by carefully screening applicants to identify those with a high risk of needing expensive treatment, and either rejecting such applicants or charging them higher premiums. But such screening is itself expensive. Furthermore, it tends to screen out exactly those who most need insurance. Most advanced countries have dealt with the defects of private health insurance in a straightforward way, by making health insurance a government service. Through Medicare, the United States has in effect done the same thing for its seniors. There are a number of incrementalist ways this could be expanded so as to alleviate the inevitable insecurities associated with any major kind of reform, particularly in the emotive area of health care. One suggestion by Rick Fonkalsrud, M.D., and economist Michael Intriligator of UCLA proposes “Medicare Expansion,” would build a national care system by expanding on the existing Medicare program for citizens over the age of 65 years, with a gradual phasing out of the very uneven and underfunded state-administered Medicaid programs:
Incrementalism does have its virtues. With Medicare as a model, we can fill the growing gaps in health coverage and ultimately weave together a stable, comprehensive, affordable system for Americans of all ages, one which ties the end user directly to the health care provider, without the interposition of a private sector employer provided benefit (which remains dependent on you retaining your job), or a private health insurance company. Sometimes, simpler really is better. President Obama, please take note. Your presidency might depend on it. Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and commentator. He is a brainstruster for the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Intitute. He can be reached at MAuer1959@aol.com
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Yellowstone Drift: Spell Albuquerque: Waiting for
Lightning
|