Guarantee Healthcare for All
A sobering report from the Commonwealth Fund released July 17 says a lot about the shameful state of our healthcare system and the abysmal failure of our elected leaders to enact meaningful reform.
The United States spends more than twice as much per person on healthcare as most other industrialized countries -- but it has plunged to last among those nations in preventing deaths through timely and effective medical care.
How many families does this touch? A shocking 101,000 fewer Americans would die prematurely if we matched the benchmarks of 18 other industrialized nations, 25 times the number who have died in Iraq.
No long waits
Remember all those horror stories about the long waits for care in countries like Canada and Britain? Less than half of Americans with health problems were able to get a rapid appointment with a physician when sick and were the least likely, among seven nations that measured it, to get after-hours medical care without going to the emergency room.
Notably, the Commonwealth study appeared one day after an NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey of two key election battleground states, Florida and Ohio.
That survey found that 28 percent of Floridians and one-fourth of Ohioans say they or a family member had problems paying medical bills the past year. Among that group, more than half self-ration care -- delaying or foregoing needed medical treatment or dental care, not filling prescriptions, cutting pills in half or skipping doses.
There's also a direct convergence of the healthcare and economic crisis. The same survey found 17 percent of Floridians and 14 percent of Ohioans have used up all or most of their savings in the past year to pay medical bills. One in 10 stopped paying other bills as a result.
Residents of both states ranked the economy as their No. 1 concern, and healthcare third (with the Iraq war in between).
But Sen. John McCain's health plan won't come close to solving the problem. Echoing the Bush administration, under whose watch the crisis has spun out of control, McCain favors tax credits of $2,500 per individual or $5,000 for families to encourage the uninsured to buy insurance. But that's less than half the cost of average premiums now, not counting all the co-pays, deductibles, and other ATM style fees.
Florida's 'high-risk pools'
For those with preexisting medical conditions whom the insurance companies won't touch, McCain proposes expanding federal support for state ''high-risk pools.'' But, in a devastating recent critique, The New York Times noted that the state plans are largely a failure. Almost all impose long waiting periods, up to a year, before allowing you to enroll, and all have very high costs for getting in. Florida closed its pool in 1991, and the current membership is just 313 people, rather a small percentage of the state's population. Moreover, McCain has no proposal to pay for a federal expansion of this train wreck.
Further, McCain wants more deregulation of the insurance industry with the dubious notion that would spur more competition to lower costs. But insurers compete by lowering their own costs, through denial of care, reducing services, or price gouging.
Sen. Barack Obama's plan would have more impact, with more subsidies for low and middle income families and tougher oversight of the insurers. He also says everyone should get the same coverage available to members of Congress. But Obama's plan, like McCain's, still gives the insurers too much control over our health.
Approve HR 676
There's a better way. All the industrial countries in the Commonwealth study -- except ours -- have a national or single payer healthcare system, one reason they can have better quality at half the cost. U.S. administrative costs, for example, are 30 percent to 70 percent higher -- all to feed the private insurers.
The public has figured it out. More than half of those questioned in Florida and Ohio in the NPR/Kaiser/Harvard survey say the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. HR 676 in Congress, which would strengthen and expand Medicare to everyone would do just that. That should be at the top of the agenda for the next president.
Malinda Markowitz is co-president of the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association.
Copyright 2008 Miami Herald Media Co.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
38 Comments so far
Show AllHamster:
"34 State Central AFL-CIO committees (that's out of 50) have already signed on as supporters of HR676."
Does this mean they will endorse the candidate who is for single payer? If not, what does such "support" actually mean? IMHO, without endorsing the candidate who's for single payer, such "support" doesn't mean much.
"health care for profit is a crime. Denying health care because it damages the bottom line is also a crime."
I wholeheartedly agree, and I refuse to support the present system in any way (if I have a choice), though this becomes impossible if I get sick. We should ask ourselves: what is keeping the majority from waking up to this ripoff? Fear? Demoralization? Someone pointed in another post that the vast majority of doctors are republicans (I do not necessarily equate this with being 'conservative') If so, that is quite telling, meaning their primary motive is not to cure sick people, but make money. If you are unable to pay, then you are unworthy of care--did another poster say this was 'Calvinistic'?
Yes, health care for profit is a crime. Denying health care because it damages the bottom line is also a crime. Sandra Day O'Connor was planning her retirement in 1993, because of her husband's illness. When Bill Clinton was sworn in, she changed those plans, she resolved not to retire until a Republican sat in the White House. Some blame Ralph for the 2000 election. I lay the entire blame at the feet of Sandra. To be fair, she created this personal hell for herself because her husband died soon after. I have no idea what her opinion of G.W. Bush is. Nobody's opinion of G.W. Bush is important to G.W. Bush. None of the people mentioned above really cares about your health care. Not one of these people wants anything but their own adoring crowd. This has been your political lesson for the day.
Single payer is a make or break for me - No single payer, No vote. We simply do not have time to fool around with the variations on a theme tinkering that the "major" candidates espouse. That is simply rearranging the deck chairs....
chessgames56 July 27th, 2008 12:11 am
I don't care much for Moore, but I have seen Sicko (and his others) He's got a bit of propaganda in there of course, but there was a lot of truth there....
Insurance companies.....now there we can have a real conversation about evil. There's a place that needs a good house cleaning. And not just in Medical care. They take advantage of the middle class and they rob the poor and disadvantaged blind. I just LOVE insurance companies.
You may be correct, Thomas. And every day, the for-profit insurance companies are allowed to play God. Whether you like Michael Moore or hate him, you should watch "Sicko," it is very revealing.
I was wondering about how much the staples of government services- health care, education, energy- have been suffering due to the financial burden the war has posed. Progressive Future has built a new tool on our website called the Invest in US Calculator which takes your 2007 income before taxes, calculates how many dollars of your tax money went to fund the war, and how many seconds of war that bought you (mine was .04). Then it tells you how many days of health coverage, Head Start education, renewable energy or Veteran's higher education benefits you money would have bought instead. It's pretty cool, so check it out and tell your friends: http://progressivefuture.org/invest-in-us-calculator?id4=BLCD
According to, Physicians for a National Health Program: http://www.pnhp.org (click on for more info.),
These are the Key Features of Single Payer:
Universal, Comprehensive Coverage(Only such coverage ensures access, avoids a two-class system, and minimizes expense)
No out-of-pocket payments(Co-payments and deductables are barriers to access, administratively unwieldy, and unecessary for cost containment)
A single insurance plan in each region, administered by a public or quasi-public agency(A fregmentary payment system that entrusts private firms with administration ensures the waste of billions of dollars on useless paper pushing and profits. Private insurance duplicating public coverage fosters two-class care and drives up costs; such duplication should be prohibited.)
Global operating budgets for hospitals, nursing homes, allowed group and staff model HMOs, and other providers with separate allocation of capital funds(Billing on a per-patient basis creates unnecessay administrative comlexity and expense. A budget separate from operating expenses will be allowed for capital improvements)
Free Choice of Providers(Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care provider, without financial incentives or penalties.)
Public Accountability, Not Corporate Dictates(The public has an absolute right to democratically set overall health policies and priorities, but medical descisions must be made by patients and providers rather than dictated from afar. Market mechanisms principally empower employers and insurance bureaucrats pursuing narrow financial
interest.
Ban on For-Profit Health Care Providers(Profit seeking inevitably distorts care and diverts resources from patients to investors.)
Protection of the rights of health care and insurance workers(A single-payer-national health program would eliminate the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people who currently perform billing, advertising, eligibility determination, and other superfluous tasks. These workers must be guaranteed retraining and placement in meaningful jobs.)
Nietzsche July 26th, 2008 4:13 pm
I don't think health care for profit is a crime. I think denying health care for lack of profit is assuredly a crime.
Allowing that kid to die for want of a few hours in the hospital and the services of some doctors that they could well afford, thats not just criminal, its murder. A bit harsh, but if the donor was available right there, its a crime of epic proportions.
I'm not a legal expert, but isn't it true that if you come upon somebody in desperate need of help which you could easily provide with no risk to yourself, if you refuse to help isn't that a crime?
If you offer to help in exchange for a thousand dollars which the person does not have, and you therefore refuse to help, isn't that a crime?
Even if these acts are not crimes, it must be obvious to any decent human that health care for profit is at the very least immoral.
What originally made me think of this is when not too long ago I saw a collection bottle in a local gas station asking for donations for a teenage boy who was dying of leukemia. His brother was a perfect match for a bone marrow transplant, but the hospital wouldn't perform the procedure unless a $50K down payment was made. Eventually, the fifty thousand dollars was raised, but by that time it was too late and the teenager died. I have subsequently learned that hospitals make a fortune from performing such procedures, so I have since have had second thoughts about donating my organs.
chessgames56 July 25th, 2008 3:03 pm
I never thought of that. What a good point to make. Not that someone still shouldn't donate anyway. But thats something that should be brought out emphatically.
suzyishere July 25th, 2008 9:38 pm
I hope you don't believe that. I certainly care, most of the posters at CD care I assure you. Most of America cares. We have been blindsided too often on this by business and cowardly politicians.
"Nietzsche July 26th, 2008 10:26 am
What I want is a single payer health care plan, government sponsored, that covers all doctor visits, surgery, dental, eye care, drugs"
Nietzsche has it right and I hope we get it soon enough to help you. Or at least enough of it.
I think since big business has decided its a good idea we shouldn't have any trouble after removing the two stooges.
God bless you suzyishere. And I'm sure the atheist's and agnostic's here wish you well in the same way.
No, I don't think they (the ruling class and their lackeys in congress) want us to live longer.
At last dick and I have something in common: "So?" I don't give a damn what they want.
What I want is a single payer health care plan, government sponsored, that covers all doctor visits, surgery, dental, eye care, drugs, with no copays.
Obama and an all Democratic congress is our best bet, like it or not.
Good grief! I tried and tried and waited for my pathetic little two cents to post and it wouldn't. And then when it posted it four times I couldn't edit them away. Sorry folks.
to Dream joe hill:
Labor is on board.
34 State Central AFL-CIO committees (that's out of 50) have already signed on as supporters of HR676.
Meanwhile only 90 congress critters are cosponsors of 676. That's because they aren't listening.
As for doctors, 90,000 belong to Physicians for a National Health Plan (staunch advocates of single-payer). Their website, pnhp.org is a great place to study and support this issue; also healthcare-now.org is a more grassroots group. Beware of the new and much-hyped Health Care for America Now, a MoveOn supported umbrella group which is touting "universal health care" but in a watered down Obama-type plan, which leaves private insurance in as major players and is not single payer.
You people seriously think they want people living longer? LOL. Maybe once people figure out the Democratic Party is part of the problem there can be change. Something tells me 2-3 years into Obamas Presidency progressives will finally start waking up, by then it will be too late. As a former Republican, I have long recognized the Republican party is toasted as well. We need another party that represents the majority non-corporate constituents. Both Dems-Republicans are bought and do not represent you. The people are as much as without representation as they were in 1776, perhaps more so, and taxes are much much higher.
This ain't gonna happen with a President Obama. He's for HMO run health insurance.
Daniel,
How can we pressure the Democrats if they know that they absolutely, positively own our votes no matter what?
I know all to well about the healthcare in this country. I have lupus and am dying from it. I also have no healthcare. No one cares. I could scream from the rooftops tomorrow and no one would care. I can't even get Medicaid from the state of Georgia becouse lupus isn't considered life-threatening. No one cares.
Because it's the right thing to do.
Right, I know we are conditioned to believe that. Now, if we could only get the doctors and medical profession to believe that it's not right to refuse people in need only because they cannot pay huge sums up front.
Good play on those words, realdim. :o)
Nevertheless, we may have the power to do more than we think to effect change.
realdim (6:54 p.m.)--
Of course, you're correct.
"Seven Little Words" (to borrow from another CD post in order to address universal access to health care in this country):
Because it's the right thing to do.
chessgames56 July 25th, 2008 3:03 pm wrote:
"The twist of irony here is that, even if a cure is found, those in low income brackets without health insurance are not likely to benefit, though their tax dollars were helping fund this research."
Ironic indeed. And it`s not just health research: medical education is heavily subsidised by tax dollars as well. Millions of Americans are effectively subsiding care for the wealthy (and profits for the insurance corps) while reaping no benefits themselves. Unfortunately, they are often the same people who fall for the insurance corp propaganda about massive waitlists and lack of choice of provider in Canada.
"I may be wrong in this thinking, but if I am uninsured or underinsured and therby not eligible for an organ when I need one, why should I donate mine?"
Because it`s the right thing to do.
chessgames said:
"One way to put a fire under doctors' butts to push for national health care is for large numbers of organ donors to remove their names from donor lists, unless and until national coverage is proffered."
I wonder if there's a way to make an exception to this in a will, stating that the organ can only be donated to a poor/working class individual who doesn't have health insurance or wealth. No organs will be donated to rich individuals, Congresspeople, or anyone else with access to healthcare that is not available to everyone, without exception, in the population.
I was watching a news report on CNN the other day where McCain and Lance Armstrong were going to promote cancer research. The twist of irony here is that, even if a cure is found, those in low income brackets without health insurance are not likely to benefit, though their tax dollars were helping fund this research.
One way to put a fire under doctors' butts to push for national health care is for large numbers of organ donors to remove their names from donor lists, unless and until national coverage is proffered. Ditto for donations to medical research funds.
I may be wrong in this thinking, but if I am uninsured or underinsured and therby not eligible for an organ when I need one, why should I donate mine?
Much appreciated.
Ezeflyer: "If you want to get a point across, you may want to stop the nastiness. Acting like a condescending…"
Mea culpa
Daniel David, "What are you knocking me for"
Daniel David, I was trying (and failing obviously) to needle you, i.e. make a joke. I still haven't mastered the art of using those "emoticons" that show whether one is being funny or not.
I will take this opportunity to say that you have always conducted yourself, in your Daniel David virtual incarnation, on these pages in a respectful and reasonable manner; I appreciate this. Please in future, don't mistake my over exuberance or my sense of humour for mean spiritedness.
jlocke sez:
"(are you still with me or am I going too fast, Daniel David?)"
If you want to get a point across, you may want to stop the nastiness. Acting like a condescending asshole never convinced anyone.
jlocke123,
Yes, I'm "with you". I like your four steps. What are you knocking me for? The only thing I have ever cared about on this (or any) blog site is unelecting the Republican remnants that make your four steps impossible. Democrats are the only ones with numbers sufficient to do that, you know.
"How many families does this touch? A shocking 101,000 fewer Americans would die prematurely if we matched the benchmarks of 18 other industrialized nations, 25 times the number who have died in Iraq."
OK, what I am about to tell you is a closely guarded secret, known only to me and millions of others throughout the industrialized world.
The Secret To Guarantee Healthcare To All!!!
Step One: Government taxes citizens to spend on efficient universal healthcare.
Step Two: patients go to doctors of their choice.
Step Three: doctors sends invoices to government (are you still with me or am I going too fast, Daniel David?)
Step Four: government pays the doctors' bills.
I realize it is SO much more complicated than the Democratic party plans but we have learned to live with it.
Electing Democrats is one necessary step, but only because we have no real working class political party to represent the American Masses.
After we hold our noses and vote for the Democrats, the next step is not to SCREAM YOUR AGENDA. The next step is to organize a broad coalition to support a single payer government health plan that eliminates the private insurers.
Millions of Americans and their families have been hurt by our broken health care system, and millions more live in fear of getting sick. If trhese people can be mobilized, they will be unstoppable. The strongest political movements are composed of people who have a strong personal stake in the movement's issues.
As our finacial system collapses, the nature of politics in this nation will change dramatically and will present tremendous opportunities for the creation of an actual populist movement on the left.
One question: Are the unions ready to back universal health care. In the past many have opposed it because they did not want to lose their good private plans. thsi may be changing as employers stick the worker with more and more of the health insurance bill. Health care has been a major issue in so many recent contract negotiations. It may be time for labor to get on board.
Right as usual, DD! Sure, Obama is WAY too centrist for me (because I'm a democratic socialist) -- but there isn't a chance in hell that we'll get Medicare for All without a Democrat as President and a LARGE majority in both houses, like FDR had in the Depression.
Nobody but filibuster-proof Democrats are ever going to pass anything even remotely like HR 676, and nobody but a Democratic president is going to sign it. Even then, the Democrats would have to be prodded by screaming progressives.
So elect first, you keyboard screamers, and then do what you do best, SCREAM YOUR AGENDA. (Unless you elect the liberals first, though, you're down, out and done until the next cycle---at which time you might have a Supreme Court willing to declare national health care thoroughly unconsitutional.)
"No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
And if you try sometime you just might find
You get what you need"
The Rolling Stones
But, over the past couple day's Obama-Euro-lovefest, do you think Obama spent even a minute looking into or asking questions about the health care (and many other social protections) that Europeans enjoy, and how the US could, to put it mildly, learn a thing or two about it?