Why Obama Failed To Create A Single-Payer and Universal Medicare-For-All Program In The United States

“Jeffrey B. Kindler, who retired as Pfizer's chairman and chief executive at the end of 2011, has joined Lux Capital as a venture partner...The hiring marks Mr. Kindler's most prominent business appointment since his contentious departure from Pfizer. He became the pharmaceutical giant's chief in 2006...His signature achievement was orchestrating the $68 billion takeover of Wyeth in 2009, kicking off a huge wave of health care mergers by drug maker...At Lux, Mr. Kindler will again be called upon for his deal-making skills, helping to find new health care investments and working with existing portfolio companies. The firm has already invested in the likes of Cerulean Pharma and Kala Pharmaceuticals….Besides his new post at Lux, Mr. Kindler works as a senior adviser to Paragon Pharmaceuticals and as a director at Starboard Capital Partners, a private equity firm.”

--from the August 8, 2012 issue of the New York Times

Why Obama Failed To Create A Single-Payer and Universal Medicare-For-All Program In The United States

In his 2010 book The Promise: President Obama, Year One, Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter indicated why a Single-Payer and Universal Medicare-For-All Program, similar to the Canadian health care system, was not established in the United States by the Democratic Obama administration between 2009 and 2012:

“…The [Obama health care reform] plan called for…winning support—or at least neutrality—from the insurance and drug industries (compensated by the arrival of 30 million new customers)…Obama…said the goal was `comprehensive health care reform by the end of the year.’…He warned `liberal bleeding hearts’ not to get…ambitious about universal coverage…Everything…([except] a single-payer plan, which he had ruled out in 2008…) was on the table…Jeffrey Kindler, the CEO of Pfizer, the drug giant, happens to be a Democrat…The industry would pay for the media to build public support for the plan…On May 11 [2009]…Obama met in the Roosevelt Room with industry…representatives…

“…The White House began cutting its own deals…Obama agreed to speak to the AMA convention—the first president to do so in a quarter century—and open the door to malpractice reform…in exchange for doctors’ not actively opposing him…All the claims of no quid pro quo couldn’t obscure the major deal cut in the Roosevelt Room in July [2009] between Rahm Emanuel and Billy Tauzin…representing the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, better known as PhRMA…The Drug industry…stood to gain billions from the legislation…

“On one level the loud public option debate was good for the overall prospects of the bill because it distracted media attention from…the mandates forcing individuals to buy insurance…Rahm…told anyone who would listen that a public option wasn’t necessary…Rahm…thought he could satisfy the base by having Obama lash out rhetorically at insurance companies, but it wasn’t enough. Liberals wanted to see the president fighting for them…”

Obama Advisor Axelrod's Vocera/CURE/Hospital Industry Connection?

In his 2010 book The Promise: President Obama, Year One, Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter noted that the wife of White House’s Senior Advisor to President Obama, former Chicago media/campaign consultant David Axelrod, “Susan, cofounded CURE, a nonprofit devoted to research on epilepsy.”

Coincidentally, less than 7 weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court declared an “Obamacare” reform bill constitutional, a board member of the Illinois Hospital Association and the for-profit Vocera health care industry firm, University of Chicago Medical Center President Sharon O’Keefe, became a member of the board of Susan Axelrod’s CURE [Citizens United For Research in Epilepsy] health care industry-related organization. Although CURE claims to be a “non-profit” organization, the total revenue collected by CURE in 2010 ($4,687,949) apparently exceeded CURE’s total expenses ($2,501,390) by $2,186,559.

Jonathan Alter’s The Promise: President Obama, Year One also indicated how the “Obamacare” reform bill (that requires individuals to purchase costly, sub-standard health insurance coverage policies from for-profit insurance corporations and will likely provide increased profits for drug companies and for-profit health care industry firms) came to be:

“The [Obama health care reform] plan called for…winning support—or at least neutrality—from the insurance and drug industries (compensated by the award of 30 million new customers)…Obama…said the goal was `comprehensive health care reform by the end of the year.’…He warned `liberal bleeding hearts’ not to get…ambitious about universal coverage…Everything…([except] a single-payer plan, which he had ruled out in 2008…) was on the table…Jeffrey Kindler, the CEO of Pfizer, the drug giant, happens to be a Democrat…The industry would pay for the media to build public support for the plan…On May 11 [2009]…Obama met in the Roosevelt Room with industry…representatives…


“…The White House began cutting its own deals…Obama agreed to speak to the AMA convention—the first president to do so in a quarter century—and open the door to malpractice reform…in exchange for doctors’ not actively opposing him…


“All the claims of no quid pro quo couldn’t obscure the major deal cut in the Roosevelt Room in July [2009] between Rahm Emanuel and Billy Tauzin…representing the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, better known as PhRMA…The Drug industry…stood to gain billions from the legislation…


“On one level the loud public option debate was good for the overall prospects of the bill because it distracted media attention from…the mandates forcing individuals…to buy insurance…Rahm…told anyone who would listen that a public ooption wasn’t necessary…Rahm…thought he could satisfy the base by having Obama lash out rhetorically at insurance companies, but it wasn’t enough. Liberals wanted to see the president fighting for them…


“…Congressman Bart Stupak’s amendment…prevented abortions funded even by private insurers. Women’s groups called passage of the Stupak Amendment the worst setback for the pro-choice movement in a generation…It was more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment which barred any use of federal money for abortions (although 17 states allowed their Medicaid programs to fund it)…Stupak settled for an executive order reaffirming the Hyde Amendment banning federal funding for abortions…”

Village Residents in NYC To Rally For Hospital On April 30, 2011

Physicians for a National Health Program: `Health Care Reform Bill Hype Is False'

The Big Media has been promoting the health care reform bill that was passed recently by the Democratic Congress as some kind of solution to the health care system crisis that still exists in the United States. Yet as the leaders of the Physicians for a National Health Program indicated in a March 22, 2010 statement, the Democratic Obama Administration's health care reform bill apparently only provides "a false promise of reform." Following is the text of their statement:

"As much as we would like to join the celebration of the House's passage of the health bill last night, in good conscience we cannot. We take no comfort in seeing aspirin dispensed for the treatment of cancer.

"Instead of eliminating the root of the problem - the profit-driven, private health insurance industry - this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of Americans to buy private insurers' defective products, and turn over to them vast amounts of public money.

"The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:

"About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.

"Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.

"Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.

"The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.

"People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.

"Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.

"The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017.

"Women's reproductive rights will be further eroded, thanks to the burdensome segregation of insurance funds for abortion and for all other medical services.

"It didn't have to be like this. Whatever salutary measures are contained in this bill, e.g. additional funding for community health centers, could have been enacted on a stand-alone basis.

"Similarly, the expansion of Medicaid - a woefully underfunded program that provides substandard care for the poor - could have been done separately, along with an increase in federal appropriations to upgrade its quality.

"But instead the Congress and the Obama administration have saddled Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new taxes on workers' health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today.

"This bill's passage reflects political considerations, not sound health policy. As physicians, we cannot accept this inversion of priorities. We seek evidence-based remedies that will truly help our patients, not placebos.

"A genuine remedy is in plain sight. Sooner rather than later, our nation will have to adopt a single-payer national health insurance program, an improved Medicare for all. Only a single-payer plan can assure truly universal, comprehensive and affordable care to all.

"By replacing the private insurers with a streamlined system of public financing, our nation could save $400 billion annually in unnecessary, wasteful administrative costs. That's enough to cover all the uninsured and to upgrade everyone else's coverage without having to increase overall U.S. health spending by one penny.

"Moreover, only a single-payer system offers effective tools for cost control like bulk purchasing, negotiated fees, global hospital budgeting and capital planning.

"Polls show nearly two-thirds of the public supports such an approach, and a recent survey shows 59 percent of U.S. physicians support government action to establish national health insurance. All that is required to achieve it is the political will.

"The major provisions of the present bill do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to "wait and see" how this reform plays out, we cannot wait, nor can our patients. The stakes are too high.

"We pledge to continue our work for the only equitable, financially responsible and humane remedy for our health care mess: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for All."