Why Is Universal Health Care ‘Un-American’?

[Tailgate]

Well, I don't know if I'm for the healthcare legislation (10,000 pages) but there's something seriously wrong with present healthcare. Recently, one student pummeled another student with a baseball bat while they were in the college dormitory room. The student (already dead) was taken by paramedics to local emergency room where staff tried 5 mins to revive him. The hospital billed the parents $29,000.00 for "sevices." Their son was five minutes in emergency room and parents get a bill for $29,000.00? People are just shaking their head over this one. Some of the costs are just ridiculous. We've all heard of the $50.00 aspirin, etc.

 

[Wavex]

It has has always baffled me why universal public run healthcare is such a
hot button issue in the US. You have government run fire depts, policing,
libraries...the list goes on and on. How is health care any less of a basic
human right in a modern western democracy?

It isn't and most Americans actually agree with that... the problem is that there are huge Insurance/drug lobbies in the US who have been spreading propaganda in the States on socialist healthcare for decades... so most Americans think "universal healthcare" = "socialist" = "communist" = "end of the World"... which is completely ridiculous... Then you have the extreme right in the US who are the people who are making themselves heard right now, making this new reform sound like it's Obama's conspiracy secret plan to destroy his own country... it's pretty ridiculous.

Read any forum allowing Political discussions right now and you will quickly notice that the people that engage in these threads are effectively right extremists, that echo the crap spewed by far right websites and radio shows... using the same arguments, even the same vocabulary, obviously aimed at scaring people and making ppl believe that Obama is a terrorist in disguise working for Osama...


The reality IMO is that Obama and his administration are trying to better this country (not destroy it like some ppl want to make you believe), by reforming the current healthcare system... The plan is certainly not perfect, nothing is, but let's work together to make it happen...

 

[Wavex]

We're far too quick to close our eyes and see America's poor sitting in front of their huts with the swollen bellies and the flies landing on their eyeballs. This isn't so. In the United States, people who truly cannot afford healthcare are elligible for Medicaid-type wellfare coverage. The coverage is good. I operate healthcare facilities and I can tell you that we, under law and oversight by CMS, do not give Medicaid recipients any less medical care than Medicare patients, private insurance, or private pay. The uninsured in America are those that have chosen not to pay for health insurance. We hear of denials due to pre-existing conditions.... that only applies if you didn't have insurance when the condition began. Why didn't you have insurance? When we hear about people losing jobs, there is something called COBRA and as long as you keep some insurance, there will not likely be denials due to pre-existing conditions. I had an employee come to me the other day and ask if she can be taken off of the schedule because she is working too many hours and is risking losing her welfare benefits. Is this what we've become? Should the taxpayer be responsible for the child's "free" lunch while the mother smokes $5.00 in cigarettes each day or should that mother be charged with child abuse? Do you sit in the lines at the grocery store and watch the name-brand foods being piled onto the conveyor belt while the obese woman with the blue-tooth in her ear and thousands of $$ of tats up and down the arms takes out the "card" (Ohio's equivalent to food stamps)?

There are some that can't fathom why we would be against universal healthcare. From afar, who can argue? But when you get your feet on the ground and you see what is really going on, you will see that America's poor aren't that poor in comparison. In general, they're victims of their own choices in life. Of course, I'm not speaking about those with disabilities... but they have programs that they can take advantage of. If one truly can't afford healthcare, Medicaid will be provided.... but you might have to show proof of your income, commit a certain amount of your income to the program, and you may just need to sell a few things around the house. We entitle ourselves to far more than others do globally.

The reality is that the current system is crap, and there are 50mil americans without proper healthcare coverage, that the US has convieniently forgotten a long time ago... Saying that these 50mil could get perfect healthcare if they just filled out the proper paperwork is bs IMHO...
If you're 65yo, live on $200 a month in a trailer somewhere and need to go to the dentist for an infected tooth/gum, you're in real trouble... imagine if you need to be treated for cancer, or any other horrible disease like that... just sign up to Medicaid and you'll be treated just like a top level Apple Executive... yeah... right....

I am a capitalist at heart... just not when it comes to the health of ppl... that shouldn't be made into a business... and the point to say "Gov runs it so it'll be sh*t" is ridiculous imo as well... Gov. runs the Military... is that organization crap as well? Gov. runs the Police, the post office, etc etc etc... what's wrong with all these huge agencies?

 

[Cuba]

It isn't and most Americans actually agree with that... the problem is that there are huge Insurance/drug lobbies in the US who have been spreading propaganda in the States on socialist healthcare for decades... so most Americans think "universal healthcare" = "socialist" = "communist" = "end of the World"... which is completely ridiculous... Then you have the extreme right in the US who are the people who are making themselves heard right now, making this new reform sound like it's Obama's conspiracy secret plan to destroy his own country... it's pretty ridiculous.

Read any forum allowing Political discussions right now and you will quickly notice that the people that engage in these threads are effectively right extremists, that echo the crap spewed by far right websites and radio shows... using the same arguments, even the same vocabulary, obviously aimed at scaring people and making ppl believe that Obama is a terrorist in disguise working for Osama...


The reality IMO is that Obama and his administration are trying to better this country (not destroy it like some ppl want to make you believe), by reforming the current healthcare system... The plan is certainly not perfect, nothing is, but let's work together to make it happen...

I think you have forgotten the vast majority of moderate Americans, on both sides of the aisle, that support healthcare reform but are demanding a plan that makes sense, is clearly stated, and well thought out. Currently we have a 2000 page document that no one fully understands, and that Nancy Pelosi has broken her pledge to post online 72 hours prior to a vote:

The Weekly Standard


TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?

PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.

The final language of this bill is unknown and very far from transparent. The issue of coverage for illegal aliens has not been discussed or finalized:

Immigration may threaten health vote - TheHill.com

But CHC members, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the group’s message was clear: Drop your insistence on preventing illegal immigrants from accessing the public exchange, even if their only option is to pay for insurance plans entirely out of their own pockets.

The budget neutrality promissed by Obama is equally unclear, the $1.2T price tag on the latest house bill exceeds the $1T original that was hundreds of billions shy of budget neutrality, yet the increased taxes have not been clearly defined. Since it would be impossible to increase taxes on any American making less than $250K a year in any way shape or form as promissed by Obama and Biden about a thousand times apiece, we are left with the question of who exactly will be paying for this. The "rich" certainly, but even increasing the tax levels for small business and successful individuals to 45% does not come close.

Nor has it been made clear where the $500 BILLION in medicare cuts will come from. Waste is a term thrown around in government every year for decades and yet NEVER have these supposed effeciencies been realized to any reasonable degree. Rationing? Denial of coverage? Restrictions on hospitals, doctors, procedures, and perscriptions? Where exactly is it coming from? Again, it has not been made clear where the supposed waste will be eliminated. I'm not saying this waste doesn't exist, but is there $500B worth, can why find it, can we reduce and eliminate it? Not clear.

The question of what this plan will do to premiums of those with private coverage is equally unclear. You are taxing the entire health care industry, yet expect none of this to be passed on? Where is the discussion on what the effect on private insurance premiums will be under this plan? Down? By how much and by what criteria are you using to estimate this? The insurance industry has released their own answer and it was that they will skyrocket, that's strange. Why has this been dismissed and not discussed when the people that are analyzing these bills for their own survival are saying it will increase their costs and that this will be passed on to the consumer?

What specifically has been done to reduce the waste, the over perscription, the inefficiency in our system that is so widely known as the root of the problem? No tort reform is included, so how are we reducing the cost by adding tens of millions who will have no out of pocket expense into a system that by the president's own admission we cannot afford as it is?

These are real concerns and the answers are unclear. I am by no means an obstructionist nor am I a right wing extremist. I am a moderate registered as a republican who has never pulled the party lever. I am deeply concerned about healthcare costs as a finance director for a small business that is facing massive increases in premiums. I want healthcare reform that will reduce the costs but I am not at all convinced that this is what we are getting from the Pelosi bill. It is an increase in cost passed on to seniors in the form of reduced coverage, small businesses and wealthy individuals in the form of massive tax increases, and it is entirely unknown where the rest will come from, but my guess is anyone with private insurance or that works in the healthcare industry- those greedy doctors and nurses. One place it won't be coming from are the lawyers who make a living suing those doctors. I don't have the answers, but neither do they. Until they do I don't want to see this happen. If it takes a year, fine. Get it right. Moderate democrats are running for the hills here, Lieberman, Snowe, the blue dogs (there are 86 of them I believe I heard) are not on board with this and it isn't for lack of caring about healthcare reform, it is for fear that we don't have it right and would be setting ourselves up for failure in the bill's current form.

I truly believe that cost has nothing to do with Pelosi and the far left's push for reform, it is the single payer system. If this passes and then fails to curb the cost and becomes unsustainable it will be the openning for single payer. The problem with this is that the majority of Americans do not want a single payer system, and they certainly won't trust those that destroyed the healthcare system to be the one's to get it right. That only works with Obama's economic team. 10.2%.

 

[wrightme43]

The reality is that the current system is crap, and there are 50mil americans without proper healthcare coverage, that the US has convieniently forgotten a long time ago... Saying that these 50mil could get perfect healthcare if they just filled out the proper paperwork is bs IMHO...
If you're 65yo, live on $200 a month in a trailer somewhere and need to go to the dentist for an infected tooth/gum, you're in real trouble... imagine if you need to be treated for cancer, or any other horrible disease like that... just sign up to Medicaid and you'll be treated just like a top level Apple Executive... yeah... right....

I am a capitalist at heart... just not when it comes to the health of ppl... that shouldn't be made into a business... and the point to say "Gov runs it so it'll be sh*t" is ridiculous imo as well... Gov. runs the Military... is that organization crap as well? Gov. runs the Police, the post office, etc etc etc... what's wrong with all these huge agencies?

I am a capitalist at heart... just not when it comes to the health of ppl... that shouldn't be made into a business... and the point to say "Gov runs it so it'll be sh*t" is ridiculous imo as well... Gov. runs the Military... is that organization crap as well? Gov. runs the Police, the post office, etc etc etc... what's wrong with all these huge agencies?[/QUOTE]????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Oscar54]

We're far too quick to close our eyes and see America's poor sitting in front of their huts with the swollen bellies and the flies landing on their eyeballs. This isn't so. In the United States, people who truly cannot afford healthcare are elligible for Medicaid-type wellfare coverage. The coverage is good. I operate healthcare facilities and I can tell you that we, under law and oversight by CMS, do not give Medicaid recipients any less medical care than Medicare patients, private insurance, or private pay. The uninsured in America are those that have chosen not to pay for health insurance. We hear of denials due to pre-existing conditions.... that only applies if you didn't have insurance when the condition began. Why didn't you have insurance? When we hear about people losing jobs, there is something called COBRA and as long as you keep some insurance, there will not likely be denials due to pre-existing conditions. I had an employee come to me the other day and ask if she can be taken off of the schedule because she is working too many hours and is risking losing her welfare benefits. Is this what we've become? Should the taxpayer be responsible for the child's "free" lunch while the mother smokes $5.00 in cigarettes each day or should that mother be charged with child abuse? Do you sit in the lines at the grocery store and watch the name-brand foods being piled onto the conveyor belt while the obese woman with the blue-tooth in her ear and thousands of $$ of tats up and down the arms takes out the "card" (Ohio's equivalent to food stamps)?

There are some that can't fathom why we would be against universal healthcare. From afar, who can argue? But when you get your feet on the ground and you see what is really going on, you will see that America's poor aren't that poor in comparison. In general, they're victims of their own choices in life. Of course, I'm not speaking about those with disabilities... but they have programs that they can take advantage of. If one truly can't afford healthcare, Medicaid will be provided.... but you might have to show proof of your income, commit a certain amount of your income to the program, and you may just need to sell a few things around the house. We entitle ourselves to far more than others do globally.

Yup C-Bus you are absolutely right!

Everyone on welfare is a cheat and is gaming the system. The health care crisis is a sham made up by Liberal, Socialist, Commies who only want to destroy America. No one starves in America, and there are enough good paying jobs to employ everyone who wants to work! This whole economic collapse was an illusion orchestrated by the Socialista!

I don't know why I didn't see it before! Thank you for your enlightenment!

 

[wrightme43]

Health Care FARCE Voted Up Last Night - The Market Ticker

Do we live in a Constitutional Republic any longer?
The 16th Amendment made lawful the income tax - that is, a direct tax on Americans.
But nowhere in The Constitution is the power found to force people, under penalty of law (including fines and imprisonment), to pay private parties for services they do not desire to purchase.
Yet that is in the bill passed last night.
Yes, we have Congressfolk - both men and women, and all Democrats (save one Republican) who voted for this.
This sure appears to be blatantly unconstitutional - and, I would argue, those who voted for the bill know it.
If you watched CSPAN yesterday you heard the speeches. All those who rose in favor of the bill talked not about The Constitution and how this bill was a solution to the problems facing America's Health Care System - a system that consumes some 17% of our GDP - but rather it appealed to how individuals with specific circumstances would be helped.
But a desire to help someone is not the test for legislation. All legislation by definition is designed to help someone. The test is whether whatever is being proposed comports with the black-letter requirements of The Constitution, and the even-blacker-letter requirements of the laws of mathematics.
This bill meets neither essential test of all legislation; it instead proposes to destroy our Constitutional system of government.
Yet despite member after member rising last evening in opposition and stating that these mandates were unconstitutional not one rebuttal of that point was made by those in support.
The "Holy Grail" for the so-called "private" insurance businesses is forcing everyone onto one of their plans. This is due to the problem of "adverse selection" - that is, you would not buy insurance until you got sick if it is quite (or very) expensive. The more expensive the insurance gets the worse this problem becomes and the "insurance" ceases to be insurance at all. Remember, "insurance" is a thing you buy to protect against an unlikely outcome - if you're already ill or believe you will become ill the outcome isn't unlikely - it is either probable or known.
Yet the desires and demands of private business do not give license to use The Constitution as toilet paper.
But the extra-constitutional game didn't stop there. Oh no. This 1990 page monstrosity goes much further. It mandates that employers not only cover everyone they hire and pay at least a specific percentage of their premiums (or face a fine) it also mandates that said employer cover all members of that employee's family. While it is unlawful to discriminate against people based on their family status, what do you think is going to happen to salaries across the board to cover the risk of someone showing up for a job interview and having eight kids?
Does Octomom become permanently unemployable - or does every employer in the nation reduce your salary offer now and forever to guard against the possibility of another Octomom showing up for a job interview?
You know the answer here - nobody is going to take the risk of a multi-million dollar discrimination lawsuit. Your salary offer will be reduced, and if you are currently employed, you can forget about raises for a long time.
There are Constitutional solutions to this mess. I have posted about them before. My chronicle of those posts in The Ticker is found here; it encompasses a reasonably small set.
Left un-addressed (intentionally, by the device and drug lobbies) are the reasons we spend so much on health care in this country. Put simply, America pays for the development of every advanced treatment in the world and has for the last 30 years, yet every other nation's citizens get to enjoy those advancements for free.
That's right. The Pharmaceutical and Device industry has managed to get legislation enacted prohibiting the re-importation of devices or drugs sold overseas. These overseas markets demand price controls on the drugs and devices sold there, and get it. We, on the other hand, have a "price at what the market will bear" system.
The result is that the heart stent that is used in Canada costs a tiny fraction of what the same stent costs in The United States even though they are made by the same company.
Normally such distortions are instantly corrected by cross-border arbitrage. That is, if I sell a widget in Canada for (US) $1.00, and for $10.00 here in the United States, someone will order 10,000 of them in Canada and ship them across the border back to the US, driving the price in the United State back down close to the Canadian price.
In general, once I own a thing I have the right to dispose of it as I see fit. Nobody would accept the idea that by purchasing a car I can not then sell it at some later point for whatever price I desire. Nor would they accept this in the price of houses, lawn mowers, life jackets, boats, toothpaste, books or Christmas decorations.
Yet today it is not lawful for me to buy 100,000 doses of Viagra in Canada (where they sell for a fraction of the US price) and then ship them back to the United States. This "unlawfulness" has been artificially created by the drug and device manufacturers, who claim concern for "purity" and "counterfeits" - a red herring and in fact a false claim. There has never been a right to import or sell a counterfeit product; what these manufacturers have managed to prevent is the importation of lawfully-produced and properly labeled drugs and devices made in their own factories!
The fact of the matter is that if the world is to benefit from the innovation of US companies they should pay the same price as everyone else does - including the United States. The solution to this sort of improper and outrageous forced subsidy by the American Consumer and Taxpayer is to remove the laws that bar importation of lawfully-produced and properly-labeled drugs and devices - that is, to enforce the general principle of common law that once I buy a thing to whom I resell it and under what terms is a right that I acquired in exclusivity through my original purchase.
But fixing this distortion - one that costs Americans hundreds of billions of dollars annually - means removing a "special law" that is used by drug and device companies to screw Americans out of that money, and serves to force medical spending to the moon - all for the profit of a few oligarchs in the medical industry.
Also left unaddressed in The House Bill (again, intentionally) are two other factors that serve to together comprise more than half of our spending on medical care. These are:

• The fact that 90% of your health care spending happens in the last year of your life. We must have a societal conversation on this issue, and determine what society's responsibility is for that last year. I argue that the answer to that question is in fact zero - we all begin to die the moment we are born, and yet none of us know exactly when the clock will expire in advance. As a consequence a perfect separation at that "last year" is not possible, but there are some realities we can - and must - face. First among them is that when you are in declining health, irrespective of your age, you do not have the right to impose your desire for additional hours, days or months of life on the back of others. You have the absolute right to expend any or all of your own resources in pursuit of that goal, but you have no right to reach into my or anyone else's pocket to do so. There are literally thousands of instances every day across this nation where persons who are in their waning hours or days - persons where the outcome is, within medical certainty - known - are hooked to machines and monitors in hospital beds that cost tens of thousands of dollars a day, simply because they do not have to pay for that last hour out of their own resources. This must end. We are a compassionate nation, but this is not compassion - it is barbarism. When my time comes I should be offered as much pain medication as I desire to take, including a sufficient amount to render me unconscious either in effect or fact - but I should have no right to expend any amount of society's funds beyond that pallative medication and care. While this would not save 90% of the nation's health care expense, it would save 30% or more, and we can do it right now, without any impact whatsoever on treatment and care that has a reasonable chance of resulting in a cure of the patient's condition.
• Tort reform. Simply put, we call it "practicing" medicine. There's a reason for that. The law must change, even though this will outrage attorneys and their lobbying interests. A right of suit and recovery must remain for those cases in which gross negligence is shown; we have all heard of cases where the wrong arm or leg is amputated, the perfectly-good eye operated on rendering the patient totally blind, and other similar outrages. No society can or should accept outrageously negligent activity as "the cost of doing business", including ours. But most so-called "malpractice" isn't of that form. It is instead a lawsuit due to a bad outcome - an outcome that was known to be in the realm of possibility by the patient prior to the procedure, or due to an unforeseen risk. Medicine is not a science; it is an art. As an art we must accept that there is always the choice to do nothing and accept whatever outcome God (or Darwin if you prefer) ordains; it is by man's intervention that one attempts to change that natural course of events. Such an attempt will not always be successful. Defensive medicine to avoid the possibility of lawsuit costs hundreds of billions of dollars, all occasioned not by medical necessity but rather by documenting evasion of all reasonably-foreseeable risks - a ridiculously expensive practice for which we all pay. This must end.

If we cannot have a reasonable set of reforms as I have outlined in my "Wake up Washington" Ticker in September then we should instead pass a single-payer system such as exists in Canada, but (unlike Canada) let those who choose pay in cash for "excess services." No, it's not perfect, and yes, it is rationing. But so is what The House passed - they're just hiding it in their 1900+ page mess so you can't easily find it. A Canadian-style system, funded by general revenues, is Constitutional, unlike the outrage passed last night.
Either of those outcomes would produce marked improvements in the system we have now along with driving down costs dramatically - perhaps as much as 50% - from what is spent today.
The House Bill not only fails to address the problem but is an outrageously-broad and, I would argue, an unconstitutional reach into Americans most private parts. The Administration's own spokespeople admit this bill will cost us some 5.5 million jobs - on top of the 8 million we've already lost in the present economic malaise since the peak of employment in the summer of 2007. My "back of the envelope" computations are similar - I come up with 5 million jobs lost with a 20% variance and 95% confidence level - that is, somewhere between 4 and 6 million should be the total. Darn close, given that I'm not privvy to the Administration's facts and figures and am forced to work off published information.
When Pelosi and her gang of thugs took their place behind you they didn't even bother to snap on a glove first.

 

[Wavex]

blah blah blah... the house voted the plan, so hopefully it will go through the rest of the process...

The US is the ONLY occidental country without proper healthcare for its own people! Finally something is moving in the right direction...

I see this debate as the debate on the war in Iraq... at the beginning all the proponents (you know who you are, most likely the same ppl against the healthcare reform) had that same extremist speech about how we HAVE to go take out that dangerous dictator and bomb the middle east... that it was a question of life or death for the US... suddenly, a few years later, most of these ppl took a step back and realized it was stupidity from the beginning, and that they were fed propaganda all along...

About the healthcare reform, give it a few years and ppl will look back and realize what Obama had done... finally a president with the balls to carry this necessary reform through (it had been 100 years and no-one was able to do it until now)... in 50 or 100 years, this will be looked upon like a great turn in US history... for now of course you have to deal with the ppl who are scared, the ppl who love to complain (no matter what you do, these will find crap to complain about), the people who were waiting for excuses to express their hate of Obama, the people that believe in the world "conspiracy", the people who are victim of the propaganda, the ppl who are simply from the right and swore to do everything they could to destroy Obama simply because he is a moderate democrat... etc... etc...

wrightme43, Cuba, sorry but I didn't even read your copy/paste responses which are always the same crap imo... links to the same websites, with the same oh so obvious exaggerated and ridiculous arguments about specific points in the plan taken out of context and manipulated to make a point... You all think this horrible plan will sink the US, right? So let's wait a few years and see if you are right or wrong... I bet that the US will be just as fine as all other occidental countries that ALL have had some kind of universal healthcare for its people for a long while... BTW, this plan is going to cost about what was spent in Iraq so far... something like 1 trillion USD, right? Were you guys such fervent opponents to the 1 trillion war back when Bush decided to go? So wasting that kinda of money on a fake war is OK, but not on your own fellow American compatriots?

 

[Cuba]

Here are a few of those "specific facts" that you don't find important enough to read. Here are just a few effects on business, I'm using my own as an example since I am doing the cost projections today: Under the new plan our federal tax rate jumps a full 10% to 45%. We are responsible for paying 72.6% of our employees healthcare coverage, up from the 50% we have voluntarily paid for decades. Failure to pay 72.6% results in a payroll tax penalty of a full 8%. This is of course is not including the already impending rate increases of our current coverage which the company has agreed to pay for until we successfully renegotiate with another provider, nor the increases expected to come from the taxes on the healthcare industry included in the bill. Also under this plan we will no longer have any choice in the type of healthcare plan we can provide, this decision will be in the hands of the federal government and will eliminate our ability to choose for ourselves. If our current plan does not mirror what the federal government decides will be the only choice for us, we will be forced to switch. They will not announce the mandatory coverage plan until AFTER it is signed into law. This may very mean that the doctors we have been using for years are no longer available under the new coverage and we will be forced to find new ones that are. So much for keeping the coverage you have.

This bill will drastically increase both the cost of healthcare AND the tax burden for businesses. Small businesses that fall into these categories will be devasted. If this bill were to pass as is we would be going through the very painful process of layoffs and salary cuts just to maintain. This is a job killer plain and simple. Funny how Obama's entire reason, the crisis at hand, was the crushing cost of healthcare yet his solution is drastically increasing the cost! This would show in the unemployment figures, it would show in the revenue figures, and it would show in the debt figures. It is mind boggling to listen while they stand there with straight faces telling us that this will somehow solve the crisis. So much for releiving the economic burden of our out of control system.

The nice thing though is that like cap and tax there is no way it will pass the senate as is. It passed the house by 2 votes and had 39 democrats voting against it. It will not even make it to a vote in the senate, Lieberman himself can hold it up single handedly but he won't need to as every republican and close to a dozen moderate democrats are against the public option. They tried to kill it but we are actually seeing bipartisanship here, bipartisan opposition to a terrible bill.

 

[wrightme43]

blah blah blah... the house voted the plan, so hopefully it will go through the rest of the process...

The US is the ONLY occidental country without proper healthcare for its own people! Finally something is moving in the right direction...

I see this debate as the debate on the war in Iraq... at the beginning all the proponents (you know who you are, most likely the same ppl against the healthcare reform) had that same extremist speech about how we HAVE to go take out that dangerous dictator and bomb the middle east... that it was a question of life or death for the US... suddenly, a few years later, most of these ppl took a step back and realized it was stupidity from the beginning, and that they were fed propaganda all along...

About the healthcare reform, give it a few years and ppl will look back and realize what Obama had done... finally a president with the balls to carry this necessary reform through (it had been 100 years and no-one was able to do it until now)... in 50 or 100 years, this will be looked upon like a great turn in US history... for now of course you have to deal with the ppl who are scared, the ppl who love to complain (no matter what you do, these will find crap to complain about), the people who were waiting for excuses to express their hate of Obama, the people that believe in the world "conspiracy", the people who are victim of the propaganda, the ppl who are simply from the right and swore to do everything they could to destroy Obama simply because he is a moderate democrat... etc... etc...

wrightme43, Cuba, sorry but I didn't even read your copy/paste responses which are always the same crap imo... links to the same websites, with the same oh so obvious exaggerated and ridiculous arguments about specific points in the plan taken out of context and manipulated to make a point... You all think this horrible plan will sink the US, right? So let's wait a few years and see if you are right or wrong... I bet that the US will be just as fine as all other occidental countries that ALL have had some kind of universal healthcare for its people for a long while... BTW, this plan is going to cost about what was spent in Iraq so far... something like 1 trillion USD, right? Were you guys such fervent opponents to the 1 trillion war back when Bush decided to go? So wasting that kinda of money on a fake war is OK, but not on your own fellow American compatriots?

Please then if you are not going to read them, or even think of any viewpoint other than your own, go away. If you are completely unable to have any discourse other than your own view with immediate dismissal of any opposing viewpoint with out even a coursory examination or the chance of even thinking outside what you have predetermined to be correct why are you even here?????????


It says a whole lot about your charecter, and personality, none of it good.

 

[wrightme43]

Also calling Iraq as you say a "fake" war devalues the lives lost and forever changed. You have actually made me not like you.

 

[C-bus Biker]

Yup C-Bus you are absolutely right!

Everyone on welfare is a cheat and is gaming the system. The health care crisis is a sham made up by Liberal, Socialist, Commies who only want to destroy America. No one starves in America, and there are enough good paying jobs to employ everyone who wants to work! This whole economic collapse was an illusion orchestrated by the Socialista!

I don't know why I didn't see it before! Thank you for your enlightenment!

Ahhh. Another victim. People make choices. Choices have consequences. We bail out those poor choices on all socio-economic levels in this country.

 

[Oscar54]

Here are a few of those "specific facts" ....:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: ...terrible bill.

Well you can thank yourself and your Republican buddies for you plight!

You could have had Universal Single Payer that would have taken your company off the hook for paying the ridiculous rates the insurance companies charge to deny your employees coverage. Everyone in the US would have been treated as one pool or group, we all would have paid the same rate for a solid reasonable health care coverage policy with low administration costs (Medicare runs at 3% while private insurance runs in the double digits) through the tax system. And if you happened to be laid off or too ill to work you wouldn't have to worry about losing your coverage. And if that wasn't good enough for you or the Uber Elite, there would still be private policies available to supplement.

But that was not good for the Insurance Companies or their Politician's coffers so they came up with this.

So you can complain about it all you want, but you and everyone else who has been bad mouthing universal single payer as Socialism, and as ruining the "Greatest Health Care System in the World" are responsible for it.

Oh, and it will pass the Senate, only worse, in that it will be mandatory for your company to provide or subsidize health insurance for its employees, mainly for the benefit of the insurance companies though the coverage will still be capriciously applied and expensive.

So enjoy the fruits of your labor.

PS: for your information, the Republicans don't give a RA about small businesses, have you been to a mall lately? Mom and Pop shops everywhere right?

Worrying about small businesses is nothing but a tag line they use to make it sound like they care about the little guy.:BLAA:

 

[Cuba]

Well you can thank yourself and your Republican buddies for you plight!

You could have had Universal Single Payer that would have taken your company off the hook for paying the ridiculous rates the insurance companies charge to deny your employees coverage. Everyone in the US would have been treated as one pool or group, we all would have paid the same rate for a solid reasonable health care coverage policy with low administration costs (Medicare runs at 3% while private insurance runs in the double digits) through the tax system. And if you happened to be laid off or too ill to work you wouldn't have to worry about losing your coverage. And if that wasn't good enough for you or the Uber Elite, there would still be private policies available to supplement.

But that was not good for the Insurance Companies or their Politician's coffers so they came up with this.

So you can complain about it all you want, but you and everyone else who has been bad mouthing universal single payer as Socialism, and as ruining the "Greatest Health Care System in the World" are responsible for it.

Oh, and it will pass the Senate, only worse, in that it will be mandatory for your company to provide or subsidize health insurance for its employees, mainly for the benefit of the insurance companies though the coverage will still be capriciously applied and expensive.

So enjoy the fruits of your labor.

PS: for your information, the Republicans don't give a RA about small businesses, have you been to a mall lately? Mom and Pop shops everywhere right?

Worrying about small businesses is nothing but a tag line they use to make it sound like they care about the little guy.:BLAA:

Your response is odd given that you are apparently agreeing with me, that this is a terrible bill and will harm business big and small, yet throwing this back as if I supported the measure. Not sure what altered reality you are living in but I have very clearly stated my position on this many times and that position has not changed. We need reform that works and reduces the cost, what we are getting is reform that increases the cost, and so I strongly opposed the current "solution" to the problem stated by Obama as the reason for reform- the economic impact of the cost. Single payer was never proposed by the dems, it has never been on the table. I believe the far left wants it and see this as a trojan horse to get it one day, but your statement that the republican opposition of single payer is what led us to this terrible bill is patently false. Single payer was never on the table, even with massive majorities and control of the executive and legislative branches the dems never brought it into serious consideration, they could have, but did not.

You apparently have not read my statements, or you are incapable of following this debate. I stated that our company already subsidizes 50% of all healthcare coverage available to all of our employees and always has- from senior management down to the field crews we are all in the same boat. I also stated that the house bill contains manadatory coverage by the employer at 72.6%, so this statement:

Oh, and it will pass the Senate, only worse, in that it will be mandatory for your company to provide or subsidize health insurance for its employees,

Shows either your lack of understanding of the issues at hand, or your reading comprehension. Read first, understand, then say something. It works better that way I promise you. The effect of the 22.6% increase on businesses in this economic cycle is simple, either reduce headcount or wages. This is a job killer.

You admit that the Pelosi bill will increase cost and hurt small business, yet you still support it? Explain. We all know that you are for a single payer system, and we all know that you support this administration blindly and without question, so what exactly are you saying here? That you are excited that they have come up with a terrible solution to health care reform that does not satisfy either of us? Are you intoxicated? Your malicious attitude towards me, my employer, and the plight of my employees facing massive increases from this legislation speaks volumes. You are a nasty person more interested in hating people that disagree with you than in actually supporting your own stated goals. If the republicans suddenly came up with a brilliant solution that would reduce costs, expand coverage to all, and improve our economy you would oppose it out of spite. Case in point: we are a green company, we treat our employees very well, we subsidize their healthcare and pay for their life insurance equally from top to bottom, we are adding jobs, we have an entire division on the fore front of the green movement that is actively reducing carbon emmissions and energy usage for our customers saving them money while helping the environment in the process, and the majority of products we sell are recycled and recycleable green products made right here in the US, but we're the bad guys? Because I want a solution that will allow us to continue adding jobs and expanding our efforts towards what are generally accepted as very liberal goals? Rather than laying people off or reducing salaries as a direct result of this bill? Yes I admit it, I want to continue to provide careers and health care to our employees while doing something good for my customers and the environment. I am very bad indeed. Sad state of affairs knowing that there are people like you in the world, that have the same vote as I do

This bill will not pass the senate anywhere near its current form. Harry Reid has already signalled that they won't pass anything this year, giving enough time to actually analyze the house bill. Like the "stimulus" this 2000 page mostrosity is full of holes, only now we will have time to discuss them before it comes to a final vote. Lieberman and not only the moderate dems but the liberal ones are all against the bill in its current form. The liberals because it doesn't contain government funding for casual abortions (non rape/incest/medical reason abortions), and the moderates because it does nothing to reduce costs and will become a massive unsustainable burden on their children. Snowe is out thanks to the public option, which will have to be dropped before it has a chance of passing the senate. We shall see.

 

[Wavex]

Please then if you are not going to read them, or even think of any viewpoint other than your own, go away. If you are completely unable to have any discourse other than your own view with immediate dismissal of any opposing viewpoint with out even a coursory examination or the chance of even thinking outside what you have predetermined to be correct why are you even here?????????


It says a whole lot about your charecter, and personality, none of it good.

I see that name calling is still a reserved right in this section... only some ppl can do it huh! .................

lol I could care less if you think my character and personality are "not good"... but thanks for the personal attack, it's nice of you... and I am here because I want to... if you don't like it too bad.

Also calling Iraq as you say a "fake" war devalues the lives lost and forever changed. You have actually made me not like you.

awww you don't like me... I am sad now.... you've just ruined my day :rof:

That war was stupid imo, and the US should never have started it based on bogus reasons... if you think that devalues the lost lives, then so be it... ppl dying in a war doesn't automatically make that war "right".... and BTW, if the US had listened to the rest of the occidental world, all of these Soldiers would still be alive today, but obviously, you don't care because it seems you still think that war was a necessity...

 

[Wavex]

Your response is odd given that you are apparently agreeing with me, that this is a terrible bill and will harm business big and small, yet throwing this back as if I supported the measure. Not sure what altered reality you are living in but I have very clearly stated my position on this many times and that position has not changed. We need reform that works and reduces the cost, what we are getting is reform that increases the cost, and so I strongly opposed the current "solution" to the problem stated by Obama as the reason for reform- the economic impact of the cost. Single payer was never proposed by the dems, it has never been on the table. I believe the far left wants it and see this as a trojan horse to get it one day, but your statement that the republican opposition of single payer is what led us to this terrible bill is patently false. Single payer was never on the table, even with massive majorities and control of the executive and legislative branches the dems never brought it into serious consideration, they could have, but did not.

You apparently have not read my statements, or you are incapable of following this debate. I stated that our company already subsidizes 50% of all healthcare coverage available to all of our employees and always has- from senior management down to the field crews we are all in the same boat. I also stated that the house bill contains manadatory coverage by the employer at 72.6%, so this statement:



Shows either your lack of understanding of the issues at hand, or your reading comprehension. Read first, understand, then say something. It works better that way I promise you. The effect of the 22.6% increase on businesses in this economic cycle is simple, either reduce headcount or wages. This is a job killer.

You admit that the Pelosi bill will increase cost and hurt small business, yet you still support it? Explain. We all know that you are for a single payer system, and we all know that you support this administration blindly and without question, so what exactly are you saying here? That you are excited that they have come up with a terrible solution to health care reform that does not satisfy either of us? Are you intoxicated? Your malicious attitude towards me, my employer, and the plight of my employees facing massive increases from this legislation speaks volumes. You are a nasty person more interested in hating people that disagree with you than in actually supporting your own stated goals. If the republicans suddenly came up with a brilliant solution that would reduce costs, expand coverage to all, and improve our economy you would oppose it out of spite. Case in point: we are a green company, we treat our employees very well, we subsidize their healthcare and pay for their life insurance equally from top to bottom, we are adding jobs, we have an entire division on the fore front of the green movement that is actively reducing carbon emmissions and energy usage for our customers saving them money while helping the environment in the process, and the majority of products we sell are recycled and recycleable green products made right here in the US, but we're the bad guys? Because I want a solution that will allow us to continue adding jobs and expanding our efforts towards what are generally accepted as very liberal goals? Rather than laying people off or reducing salaries as a direct result of this bill? Yes I admit it, I want to continue to provide careers and health care to our employees while doing something good for my customers and the environment. I am very bad indeed. Sad state of affairs knowing that there are people like you in the world, that have the same vote as I do

This bill will not pass the senate anywhere near its current form. Harry Reid has already signalled that they won't pass anything this year, giving enough time to actually analyze the house bill. Like the "stimulus" this 2000 page mostrosity is full of holes, only now we will have time to discuss them before it comes to a final vote. Lieberman and not only the moderate dems but the liberal ones are all against the bill in its current form. The liberals because it doesn't contain government funding for casual abortions (non rape/incest/medical reason abortions), and the moderates because it does nothing to reduce costs and will become a massive unsustainable burden on their children. Snowe is out thanks to the public option, which will have to be dropped before it has a chance of passing the senate. We shall see.

Per you guys, this bill will kill the US (lol)... so let's just wait and see!

The good news is that it will pass and 50mil Americans (your fellow country men) currently dying/struggling without health coverage will be able to get the help they need.
The bad news is that the American people will have to pay a bit more than the current crappy system, but that's to take care of your own people so it'll work out... and it won't be anywhere near the "Armageddon" scenarios you guys are trying to feed us (typical far right/left technique to scare ppl into doing whatever you want them to... that technique seems to still work well on some ppl though, don't you think Oscar!!! ).

 

[Wavex]

The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States

Outline of Talk Given To The Association of State Green Parties, Moodus, Connecticut on June 4, 1999

By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.



Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive
Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services
Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US

Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.

Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)

Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.

Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%

Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.
Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice
Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits

Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer

Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind

Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.

Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved
Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public
Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.

Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)

Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country
Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient
Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.

Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more

Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care

Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).

Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.

Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised

Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.
Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?
Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

What you can do about this through your state Green Party
Work to pass a single payer, universal health care bill or referendum in your state. State level bills and referenda will be most effective because a federal health care system might in fact be too bureaucratic, and because it is not politically realistic at this time.

Bills or referendum must be written by and supported by health care providers for the legislature to take them seriously. It is thus imperative to form an alliance with provider groups. The most effective provider group to go through is Physicians For A National Health Program which has chapters in every state (see hand out for partial listing of contact people). A number of states already have organized single payer efforts: Massachusetts, California, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Maryland. Join with them.

A first step is to contact state representatives from PNHP and offer to join with them to write and support a bill bringing single payer, universal health care to your state if this has not already been done. The Connecticut and Massachusetts Bills can be used as models to make this task easier (email us at [email protected] and we will send you copies of the bills). A referendum is another way to go, in which case the California referendum can be used as a model.

A second step is to contact state legislators and find a group who are willing to sponsor such a bill.

A third step is to create a coalition of groups to work together to support and publicize this work, or to try to bring together existing groups to work together on this project. Labor unions, progressive democratic groups, Medicare/Senior Advocacy groups, the Labor Party, the Reform Party, UHCAN, existing health care advocacy groups, and state health care provider groups are all imporatnt to work with and get to join such a coalition. The state medical society and state hospital association are critical to work with in order to get any legislation passed. Try to get them to work with you to design a new model for health care delivery. They will be particularly concerned about who will control the system, and be very mistrustful of government. A public trust model with participation by providers, hospitals, business, the public and government is like to be much more acceptable to them than a pure government system. Emphasize doing away with managed care, and get them to try and work with you to find other ways to control costs (necessary to convince politicians) such as quality assurance standards, which will also protect them from malpractice

A fourth step is to give talks in support of your bill or referendum where ever possible. Senior groups, medical staffs, church groups, high school assemblies, and labor unions are particularly good sources. Excellent materials including slides, a chart book and videos are available through PNHP.

A fifth step is to raise money through fund raisers, contributions and benefits held by entertainers. Benefits are particularly useful in bringing out people who you can inform about single payer, universal health care and your efforts.

A sixth step is to develop media access. The creation of videos that can be shown on local cable access TV stations is very effective. Newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and articles by the press are critical. Radio interviews and radio talk shows are important.

Getting the public to write and call their state representatives in support of a proposed bill is critical, as is coordinating testimony at a public hearing.

Because the data about single payer universal health care are so revealing of the problems with corporate America, and because the US citizenry is so concerned and dissatisfied with our health care system these efforts may yield surprisingly positive results and be helpful in establishing the Green Party in the US as a party of the people, by the people and for the people.
We would be happy to help you. Contact us by email at [email protected], by phone at 860-354-1822, or by mail at 88 Cherniske Road, New Milford, CT 06776

 

[Cuba]

The entire reason for this reform, as stated by Obama during the campaign and the beginning of the push, was that the system is unsustainable and already crippling our economy. That the reform must control the cost and that is it's main purpose. Since then it has been abandoned and instead we are simply expanding the problem. Here is a quote from Senator Warner (D-VA), one of the members likely to kill this bill until it actually solves the problem it was intended to, the cost:


Freshman Sen. Mark Warner, Virginia Democrat, said Tuesday that President Obama has misplayed his attempt to reform U.S. heath care by focusing on insurance coverage instead of explaining that the current system is headed toward a financial meltdown.

"I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade," Mr. Warner said. "Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate."

Mr. Warner, 54, made millions investing in technology ventures before he became Virginia's governor from 2002 to 2006 and helped cut the state's $6 billion deficit through a tax package.

On Tuesday, he told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show the key points of the debate should be that the largest contributor to the U.S deficit is federal spending on health care, Medicare will go bankrupt in the next seven years and the average American family will spend 40 percent of its disposable income on health care insurance.

He also said the cost of insurance on U.S. businesses is increasing their costs, making them less competitive in the worldwide market.

"As a former business guy, I believe America has to stay competitive in the global economy," Mr. Warner said.

The effort by the Democrat-controlled Congress to fulfill Mr. Obama's goal of reforming health care in his first year began this summer, with contentious debates on Capitol Hill, then in town-hall-style meetings across the country.

The House last week passed a reform bill, but the Senate has yet to hold a full vote. Among the major issues are cost, a potential government-run system and now abortion funding.

Mr. Warner also said Tuesday that he, along with some Republicans and fellow Democrats in Congress, think the economy will never fully recover from the recession unless the roughly $1.4 trillion federal deficit is brought under control.

He said old methods are not working and advocated for a bipartisan commission to make a new set of regulations on which Capitol Hill lawmakers could vote only "yes" or "no."

"I'm a new senator, but I don't see how we're going to get the deficit under control if we do it through the regular order in the Senate in which people can add and protect their own programs."

He said some Democrats also are saying they might not vote to extend the ceiling on the debt without a commitment to create the commission.

Also, where are you getting the 50 million people number? It is incorrect, this bill does not cover the 16 million illegal immigrants nor does it cover 100% of those without insurance. It won't cover anyone until 2013. No one is saying this is armeggeddon, just that it is a terrible bill, a job killer that will hurt our already heavily damaged economy, it will increase the cost when it's stated goal is to decrease the cost, and that it will be unsustainably expensive. Glad you aren't disputing this. That was my point, the stated goals and reasoning from the left are a lie, they do not seem to care about the fact that this bill does nothing to solve the cost issue or that it is an unsustainable expense, they just want everyone to have coverage no matter the cost. Let's be honest.

 

[Wavex]

Universal Health Care IS Possible in the United States

Health Care: It's What Ails Us

by Doug Pibel, Sarah van Gelder
posted Jul 19, 2006
For Joel Segal, it was the day he was kicked out of George Washington Hospital, still on an IV after knee surgery, without insurance, and with $100,000 in medical debt. For Kiki Peppard, it was having to postpone needed surgery until she could find a job with insurance—it took her two years. People all over the United States are waking up to the fact that our system of providing health care is a disaster.

An estimated 50 million Americans lack medical insurance, and a similar and rapidly growing number are underinsured. The uninsured are excluded from services, charged more for services, and die when medical care could save them—an estimated 18,000 die each year because they lack medical coverage.

But it's not only the uninsured who suffer. Of the more than 1.5 million bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year, about half are a result of medical bills; of those, three-quarters of filers had health insurance.
Businesses are suffering too. Insurance premiums increased 73 percent between 2000 and 2005, and per capita costs are expected to keep rising. The National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC) estimates that, without reform, national health care spending will double over the next 10 years. The NCHC is not some fringe advocacy group—its co-chairs are Congressmen Robert D. Ray (R-IA) and Paul G. Rogers (D-FL), and it counts General Electric and Verizon among its members.

Employers who want to offer employee health care benefits can't compete with low-road employers who offer none. Nor can they compete with companies located in countries that offer national health insurance.

The shocking facts about health care in the United States are well known. There's little argument that the system is broken. What's not well known is that the dialogue about fixing the health care system is just as broken.

Among politicians and pundits, a universal, publicly funded system is off the table. But Americans in increasing numbers know what their leaders seem not to—that the United States is the only industrialized nation where such stories as Joel's and Kiki's can happen.

And most Americans know why: the United States leaves the health of its citizens at the mercy of an expensive, patchwork system where some get great care while others get none at all.

The overwhelming majority—75 percent, according to an October 2005 Harris Poll—want what people in other wealthy countries have: the peace of mind of universal health insurance.

A wild experiment?

Which makes the discussion all the stranger. The public debate around universal health care proceeds as if it were a wild, untested experiment—as if the United States would be doing something never done before.

Yet universal health care is in place throughout the industrialized world. In most cases, doctors and hospitals operate as private businesses. But government pays the bills, which reduces paperwork costs to a fraction of the American level. It also cuts out expensive insurance corporations and HMO's, with their multimillion-dollar CEO compensation packages, and billions in profit. Small wonder "single payer" systems can cover their entire populations at half the per capita cost. In the United States, people without insurance may live with debilitating disease or pain, with conditions that prevent them from getting jobs or decent pay, putting many on a permanent poverty track. They have more difficulty managing chronic conditions—only two in five have a regular doctor—leading to poorer health and greater cost.

The uninsured are far more likely to wait to seek treatment for acute problems until they become severe.

Even those who have insurance may not find out until it's too late that exclusions, deductibles, co-payments, and annual limits leave them bankrupt when a family member gets seriously ill.

In 2005, more than a quarter of insured Americans didn't fill prescriptions, skipped recommended treatment, or didn't see a doctor when sick, according to the Commonwealth Fund's 2005 Biennial Health Insurance Survey.

People stay in jobs they hate—for the insurance. Small business owners are unable to offer insurance coverage for employees or themselves. Large businesses avoid setting up shops in the United States—Toyota just chose to build a plant in Canada to escape the skyrocketing costs of U.S. health care.

All of this adds up to a less healthy society, more families suffering the double whammy of financial and health crises, and more people forced to go on disability.

But the public dialogue proceeds as if little can be done beyond a bit of tinkering around the edges. More involvement by government would create an unwieldy bureaucracy, they say, and surely bankrupt us all. The evidence points to the opposite conclusion.

The United States spends by far the most on health care per person—more than twice as much as Europe, Canada, and Japan which all have some version of national health insurance. Yet we are near the bottom in nearly every measure of our health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) ranks the U.S. health care system 37th of 190 countries, well below most of Europe, and trailing Chile and Costa Rica. The United States does even worse in the WHO rankings of performance on level of health—a stunning 72nd. Life expectancy in the U.S. is shorter than in 27 other countries; the U.S. ties with Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Slovakia for infant mortality—ahead of only Latvia among industrialized nations.

The cost of corporate bureaucracy

Where is the money going? An estimated 15 cents of each private U.S. health care dollar goes simply to shuffling the paperwork. The administrative costs for our patched-together system of HMO's, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, and government programs are nearly double those for single-payer Canada. It's not because Americans are inherently less efficient than Canadians—our publicly funded Medicare system spends under five cents per budget dollar on administrative overhead. And the Veterans Administration, which functions like Britain's socialized medical system, spends less per patient but consistently outranks private providers in patient satisfaction and quality of care.

But in the private sector, profits and excessive CEO pay are added to the paperwork and bureaucracy. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry averages a 17 percent profit margin, against three percent for all other businesses. In the health care industry, million-dollar CEO pay packages are the rule, with some executives pulling down more than $30 million a year in salary and amassing billion-dollar stock option packages.

Do those costs really make the difference?

Studies conducted by the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and various states have concluded that a universal, single-payer health care system would cover everyone—including the millions currently without insurance—and still save billions.

Enormous amounts of money are changing hands in the health-industrial complex, but little is going to the front line providers—nurses, nurse practitioners, and home health care workers who put in long shifts for low pay. Many even find they must fight to get access to the very health facilities they serve.

Doctors complain of burnout as patient loads increase. They spend less time with each patient as they spend more time doing insurance company mandated paperwork and arguing with insurance company bureaucrats over treatments and coverage.

Americans know what they want

In polls, surveys, town meetings, and letters, large majorities of Americans say they have had it with a system that is clearly broken and they are demanding universal health care. Many businesses—despite a distaste for government involvement—are coming to the same view. Doctors, nurses, not-for-profit hospitals, and clinics are joining the call, many specifically saying we need a single-payer system like the system in Canada. And while we hear complaints about Canada's system, a study of 10 years of Canadian opinion polling showed that Canadians are more satisfied with their health care than Americans. Holly Dressel's article shows why.

Although you'd never know it from the American media, the number of Canadians who would trade their system for a U.S.-style health care system is just eight percent.

Again, the public dialogue proceeds from a perplexing place. Dissatisfied Canadians or Britons are much talked about. But there's little mention of the satisfaction level of Americans. The Commonwealth Fund's survey, for instance, shows that, in 2005, 42 percent of Americans doubted whether they could get quality health care. At a series of town hall meetings in Maine, facilitators asked participants to discuss dozens of complex health care policies but excluded single-payer as an option. (See Tish Tanski's article.) Only after repeated demands by participants was the approach that cuts out the corporate middle-men allowed on the list.

The same story played out across the country at town meetings convened by the congressionally mandated Citizens' Health Care Working Group. In Los Angeles, New York, and Hartford, participants simply refused to consider the questions they were given about tradeoffs between cost, quality, and accessibility. They insisted that there's already enough money being spent to pay for publicly funded universal health care.

But it's not only about the money. Comments from participants in the town meetings, from Fargo to Memphis, from Los Angeles to Providence, revealed an understanding that this is about a deeper question. It is an issue of the sort of society we want to be—one in which we all are left to sink or swim on our own or one in which we recognize that the whole society benefits when we each can get access to the help we need.

Likewise, when we asked readers of the YES! email newsletter what would make you healthier, nearly all answered in terms of “we.” Any one of us could get sick or be injured. Any one could lose a job and with it insurance. Our best security, they said, is coverage for all.

What form might this take?

As elections near and the issue of health care tops opinion polls as the most pressing domestic issue, various proposals for universal health care are circulating. The bipartisan NCHC looked at four options: employer mandates, extending existing federal programs like Medicaid to all those uninsured, creating a new federal program for the uninsured, and single-payer national health insurance. All the options saved billions of dollars compared to the current system, but single payer was by far the winner, saving more than $100 billion a year.

Meanwhile, the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, which held those town meetings around the country, has issued interim recommendations. They state the values participants expressed: All Americans should have affordable health care, and assuring that they do is a shared social responsibility. Sadly, that bold statement is followed by inconclusive recommendations: more study, no preference for public funding, and a strong commitment to get everybody covered by 2012—but with no means to do it. The commission will make final recommendations to the president and Congress, and is accepting public comment through the end of August.

What is the obstacle?

With all the support and all the good reasons to adopt universal health care, why don't we have it yet? Why do politicians refuse to talk about the solution people want?

It could be the fact that the health care industry, the top spender on Capitol Hill, spent $183.3 million on lobbying just in the second half of 2005, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com. And in the 2003–2004 election cycle, they spent $123.7 million on election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Politicians dread the propaganda barrage and political fallout that surrounded the failed Clinton health care plan. But in the years since, health care costs have outpaced growth in wages and inflation by huge margins, Americans have joined the ranks of the uninsured at the rate of 2 million each year, and businesses are taking a major competitiveness hit as they struggle to pay rising premiums.

Healthcare-Now (Healthcare-NOW! – Organizing for a National Single-Payer Healthcare System) is holding town hall meetings throughout the United States (they've held 93 so far), and people are pressing their representatives to take action. Over 150 unions have called for action on universal health care, and polls show overwhelming majorities of Americans feel the same way.

Some political leaders are pressing for universal health care. Remember Joel, who was kicked out of the hospital with $100,000 in medical debt? He started giving speeches about the catastrophe of our health care system, and eventually got hired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) to head his universal single payer health care effort. Conyers' "Medicare for All" bill now has 72 co-sponsors. Rep. Jim McDermott's (D-WA) Health Security Act has 62.

Around the United States, state and local campaigns for universal health care are making progress. (See Rev. Linda Walling's update).

One of these days, the lobbyists and their clients in government may have to get out of the way and let Americans join the rest of the developed world in the security, efficiency, and quality that comes with health care for all.

 

[Wavex]

Interesting chart: Current US cost per capita = twice what it is in other countries with universal healthcare...

Health Care Options at a Glance from Single-Payer to Buy-in Option