On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Chuck Grimes <cgrimes at rawbw.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:48 -0700, ken hanly wrote:
>> How did he rat out the CBC? I thought that Obama might take a moment to correct the constant misrepresentation of the Canadian system on US TV ads.
>>
>> Is it even true that a single payer system would disrupt the health care people already have, except perhaps to make it cheaper and more efficient?
>> It would certainly disrupt the vested interests that make the US system so expensive and inefficient.
>
> Is it true single payer would distrupt...? No. You`re right. That went
> straight passed me. I missed that. What a slime.
>
> On the CBC. I tracked down a Glen Ford (Black Agenda) video of one of
> the women members who gave a House floor speech yesterday before Obama
> spoke. She implied the CBC would vote against any plan without what she
> called a `robust' public option and that didn't address `health equity'
> Even after listening to Barbara Lee (another member of CBC) I can't
> exactly tell what `robust' means. And I am still unclear how `health
> equity' is addressed. (See below for more of my difficulties*)
>
> Here is the video of the floor speech:
>
> http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/black-caucus-and-obama-one-way-loyalty
>
> Here is Glen Ford's short essay that helps explain what's going on:
>
>
> ``Despite Obama’s dismissal of progressives on issues of peace and
> social justice – issues still dear to a core of Caucus members – Black
> lawmakers still feel that history demands their allegiance to this
> president.
> Obama, however, takes such loyalties for granted, and has left the Black
> Caucus with little ground to stand on as they try to prop up his
> presidency. On health care, he has become a heavy burden for even the
> Black Caucus to bear, as he searches constantly for allies on the Right.
> Among the 64 progressivesthat vowed in August to vote against any health
> care bill that does not include a strong public option, 25 are Black.
> Under the leadership of California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the Black
> Caucus issued a letter last week expressing “deep concern” that “a
> robust public option and myriad health disparity elimination provisions…
> may be stricken” in order to cut the cost of the legislation. Lee
> emerged from a conference callwith the White House still insisting on a
> public option and emphasizing the need for measures to eliminate
> disparities in health care, through better data collection, greater
> diversity in the health care workforce, and more community health care
> workers. Yet the White House seems prepared to jettison health equity,
> to appease the Right. If that happens, the Congressional Black Caucus
> will utterly lose face.
>
> The Black Caucus has made the health equity issue its own. In recent
> years the Caucus has dedicated resources and prestige to documenting the
> huge racial disparities in health outcomes, and exploring ways to
> confront the problem. This April, the Caucus held a health equity forum,
> at which Georgia Congressman John Lewis spoke of the need to launch a
> “health equity movement” to ensure that the issue is “an integral
> component of health care reform.” But the Caucus will be in no position
> to lead a “health equity movement” or anything else if it allows Obama
> to discard the equity issue without a fight.
>
> As an institution, the Congressional Black Caucus has no choice but to
> resist the first Black president, or submit to voluntary irrelevance on
> an issue they have told their own constituents is vital to the
> community.
>
> In their letter to the president, the Black lawmakers assured him they
> are “committed allies and partners in the fight to reform America's
> broken health care system.” It is Obama's commitment that is so very
> much in question.''
>
> *Poor and low income families have more health problems all around
> including more disabled kids. Race, immigrant status, and non-English
> speaking all act like multipliers. In addition, the Medicaid income
> scales are so low you lose coverage or go on a sliding scale if you have
> even a marginal income. Most of these low income jobs do not have any
> benefit package or one that is too expensive to sign up for, or even if
> provided is worthless. Adding family members is extra and each child
> extra. Most of these plans have high deductible, like 2000/yr, at least
> 20% co-pays after the deductible is met. There are no dental or eye
> glasses in the basic plans. And the plans have preferred providers, i.e
> the doctor or service provider they specify.
>
> So these are some of the `health equity' issues Lewis and Lee are
> talking about.
>
> But the devil is always, especially in health care in the exact details
> that never seem to be exposed to the light of day, until it's too late.
> For example, I just realized what Lee meant by Medicare linked
> providers. It may not be as much as I thought and wanted. It may only
> mean that whoever is providing health services is on the Medicare
> provider list. That only means her plan is not like an HMO who all have
> preferred providers. I sure hope there is more than that.
>
> I guess I need to add that the last time I knew the figures the majority
> of poor, low and moderate income people in the US were non-hispanic
> white. Even if the figures have changed to a non-majority, whites
> make-up a significant percent. So, the point is that Lee, Lewis, Ford,
> et al. are addressing the conditions of a large number of whites, who
> mostly don't realize it.
>
> CG
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk