Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCan't Get No Health Care Satisfaction
A Fox News anchor said Saturday that if Mick Jagger was from the United States he'd finally qualify for Medicare.
She's kidding -- right?
The anchor made a pretty lame attempt at highlighting the rock star's advancing age. She did, however, do a good job of pointing out how backward the U.S. health care system is.
See, Mick Jagger's from the United Kingdom and he's had universal government medical benefits since he was five. That's because 60 years ago the United Kingdom instituted their National Health Service.
George Bernard Shaw once said that "England and America are two countries separated by a common language." And that distinctive terminology doesn't just lend itself to cute little linguistic differences like how they say "lorry" when we say "truck."
There is also the language used in the U.S. that doesn't have corresponding lingo in the UK. One example of jargon unique to the U.S. is the term "redlining." In the U.S., redlining is when an insurance company denies you health care coverage because of a pre-existing condition. In the UK, redlining doesn't exist.
In fact, according to Health Affairs, "the number one cited health policy journal devoted to publishing original, peer-reviewed research and commentary," medical redlining is quantified as the "denial rate among applicants for non-group coverage." Health Affairs lists conditions frequently redlined and the rates at which people are denied access to further coverage. Two of the patient subsets most commonly redlined are breast cancer survivors, 43 percent of the time and HIV patients 100 percent of the time.
There's a neat organization in the world. It's called the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. The group consists of 30 member countries that embrace the notion of "democracy" and support a "free market" economy. It used to be called the Organization for European Economic Cooperation and it began as a result of the Marshall Plan - America's effort to rebuild Europe after World War II. The OECD compiles statistics: Statistics that illuminate the economic conditions and comparatives among their representative democracies.
OECD statistics state that in 2003, the per capita out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare in the U.S. were $722; while in the UK they were only $208.
The Brits aren't just saving money, they're living longer. Again, according to OECD, folks in the UK live about 11 months longer than folks in the U.S. This means that in Mick Jagger's lifetime, with numbers extrapolated for inflation, the average resident of the UK would have saved somewhere around $30,000 over their U.S. counterpart. Think of it as money they could use to live on during that extra year of life.
But that's just the difference in out-of-pocket expenses. Out-of-pocket costs are nothing compared with a nation's overall medical expenses. Here the numbers get really staggering.
Again, according to the same smart data-gathering agency that we created under the Marshall Plan, the 2005 per capita cost for health care in the U.S. was $5,290 while in the UK it was only $2,230. That's $3,060 per person per year. Over the course of a lifetime that sort of money adds up. In simple terms it means that Mick Jagger's lifetime health needs will cost his society about $180,000 less then our own John Mellencamp will cost us.
All together, between out-of-pocket and regular health expenditures, some London rocker's health care is almost a quarter of a million dollars cheaper -- again adjusted for inflation -- than our rock star from Seymour, Ind.
But those expenses are national averages. Ordinary people aren't as capable of making up the difference as rock stars are. Statistics show that middle income folks still chip in their share of health care costs but go without needed services.
According to a 2002 survey of U.S. taxpayers earning between $25,000 and $50,000 per year conducted by National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, 22 percent of middle class Americans postponed receiving care. Twenty-three percent had problems paying for the care they did receive and 13 percent did not get necessary drug prescriptions filled.
Remember Mick Jagger singing, "Mother's little helper?" In the U.S. it isn't just a "drag" getting old -- it's also a little less likely and enormously more expensive.
Pat LaMarche of Yarmouth is the spokesperson for the Evergreen Mountain Resort & Casino referendum campaign. She's the author of "Left Out in America" and may be reached at PatLaMarche@hotmail.com.
© 2008 Bangor Daily News
55 Comments so far
Show AllJust about everyone seems to agree that our current "healthcare" system doesn't deserve the name.
And there seems to be general agreement that HR 676, or any legislation that would set up the same system that it proposes - Medicare for all, would be a good idea, not to mention the agreement we seem to have as to who the opponents of such a remedy are, the motivation for their opposition, and how it is playing itself out in the political process.
The disagreements seem to be about whether it is possible at all, and if it is, how to achieve it.
Truthie, I tend to share you anger at, and cynicism concerning, Michael Moore. When he backed Wesley Clarke instead of Kucinich in the last Dem primary, he lost whatever credibility he may have had with me, but Sicko is a pretty good movie and, I think, advances the cause. Moore himself, however, continues to lack credibility so long as he fails to openly support a candidate who openly avows single payer - without such support, it is not unreasonable to accuse him of simply using the sad state of our system and the widespread anger that it engenders as just another way to make some money off a film.
As an aside, but I think an important one, I think it would be a good idea if we could agree, if we don't already, on some terms. "Universal Healthcare" conjures up a concept that I think everyone agrees with. Shucks, I'll bet if you asked even Bush he would say. "Sure I think everyone should be able to get healthcare." If you stopped there, you might even be impressed (if you had been off planet for the last 8 years). But if you went a bit further, however, you would know that Bush's idea of getting health care is "going to the ER if you had to" because "we all know" that "they have to care of you there." I.e., the devil is in the details. So I think it is important that if we say we do want everybody to be able to get healthcare whether they can afford it or not, we are very clear that we understand that though the major candidates talk about "Universal Healthcare" as something they are in favor of, they have absolutely NO PLAN to provide it, nor do they intend to provide one, for reasons that have been well laid out in previous posts. So if healthCARE for all is important to you, do not confuse a plan that actually proposes "Health INSURANCE for all" with what you want - they are Not the same by a long shot, as too many poor souls have discovered the hard way.
With that in mind, it seem to me that the Gordian Knot of healthcare can be solved in no other way than to sever the connection between it and "insurance". While the "major" candidates dance around it stroking their chins, there are others who have the courage to wield the sword that will undo this knot. That is whom we must pick, for we will not get there until we do.
alaskamaid,
I know all about that policy. And try to get a quote from a doctor's office. I had a visit scheduled earlier this year and called the day before to find out what it would cost me. I was transferred around to several people on staff, most of whom said they dealt with insurance policies only. One asked, "Are you self-pay?" When I answered yes, she transferred me yet again to a voicemail. I left a detailed messaged that I was self-pay, uninsured, and would like to know how much the office visit would cost the following day. Someone else phoned back and left a voicemail that she would have to find out and get back to me. No one ever told me how much my exam would cost.
When you have insurance, the companies will wheel and deal with the medical offices to get a better price (if they decide to cover your procedure/test/exam/whatever). Those of us with no insurance have no one going to bat for us and we usually pay more.
Thanks for illustrating my point, NMlib. Did you ever notice how the people who blame "poor planning" dodge the question whenever you ask them what constitutes "good planning"? I find that they usually say something like, "Stop expecting the government to bail you out!" (Oh, you mean, like Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and all the other big businesses with their overpaid executives?)
I guess when the average working person in the U.S. (who's had to struggle with stagnant wages and reduced benefits for the last 20 years) needs a $100,000 medical procedure, no problem, just put it on your Visa or MasterCard.
You're right, a lot of people in the USA don't listen to reason. In fact, I think a lot of people in this country are just plain stoopid. Why else would they consistently vote for politicians who destroy their livelihoods?
Oh and one more thing, most people are not aware that it is POLICY for many health care providers to bill private pay patients at a higher rate than they bill patients with insurance coverage for exactly the same services / procedures !
fivecomers,
You bring up an interesting point. It reminds me of a friend of my mom's, who keeps insisting that if we lack healthcare, it's a result of "poor planning." So, if you have a job with health insurance, you should be able to keep it (for life) without ever having to worry about the premiums, copays and deductibles going up, and without worrying that your company might "downsize" or pack it up and move to China or India. I have reminded this woman over and over that Medicare hasn't always existed in this country and that she now reaps the benefits of the program. These people don't listen to reason.
GwNorth said:
"Not only are there wiaitng lists in America, some longer then those canadians expierienced, but the people who have no coverage at all are not "measured" in waiting list statistics in the US."
I have been living with chronic pain, almost debillitating at times, for more than half of this year. It is interfering with my quality of life and preventing me from doing many of the things I enjoy, not to mention causing depression. And it is exhausting to deal with daily pain. I already have medical debt from another condition for which I did seek treatment, though uninsured. Indigent funding only covers so much (they don't cover any physician's fees). During my last doctor's visit I was told I would need more diagnostic tests (estimated cost $2,000) in order to find out the source of the pain and recommended round of treatment (which could run into the hundreds if not thousands). I've been waiting months now, hoping my condition will just go away on its own, worried about what might happen if I continue to delay treatment. Yet, my "socialist" fearing acquaintances (and family members) continue to advise me about the waiting times, delay in care, and high tax costs to patients in these other countries with "socialized" medicine. I've also heard about all of the illegal immigrants getting "free" healthcare, which in turn drives up costs of healthcare, forcing hospitals to close, etc.
It is next to impossible to get these idiots to recognize the real causes of the problem and to support an overhaul of America's healthcare "system."
I wonder how many people who fought against the passage of the Medicare legislation in 1965 are now receiving its benefits.
I haven't had health insurance for six years--can't afford it. I'm too disabled to work but I can't pay for the tests to prove it, so I can't get any assistance. The result is that I can't get treated for a host of medical problems. How not getting treated results in upping the premiums for someone with coverage is a mystery to me (maybe the politician who claimed that is an ignoramus, like the rest of them). The doctors are waiting for me to turn 65 in a few months. By then, fixing me up will cost a bundle, which is a pretty stupid way to run a government, but these same politicians don't seem to care. Arguing whether "Sicko" is a hoax or not is moot while people are dying.
Returning to topic :
From the tribute article to Lina Newhauser -- her husband Craig Brown, editor of Common Dreams, is in the midst of the insurance nightmare right now, having incurred major medical debt during Lina's illness. The story is at www.tellthebees.org
It's one thing to chat about this online, it's another to grok the real situations people are dealing with as a result of our health-care-for-profit system . . .
I think we should all be very afraid not to vote for Obama. You want to be afraid of something, be afraid of McCain.
I wouldn't argue with any of you that he is not a corporate lackey. You are probably right, we just don't know for sure. Maybe I'm believing what I need to believe, but I just can't convince myself that he is as bad as McCain.
Truthie
I think you've hit several nails on the head.
Have you seen the sickening 'open letter' to Obama offered at the Nation? Talk about [donkey]-kissing!
Obama is a liar and a hypocrite.
His very candidacy proved him a liar: he promised to finish out his term in the U.S. Senate, should he be elected, no matter how good the chances for a successful run for the presidency looked. (No one has attempted to answer my question: Why would anyone have asked him that question in the first place? I have my suspicions...)
He repeats that he was against the Iraq invasion from before its perpetration, but since he has been in the Senate, how has he voted on funding the war? (His constituency probably had much to do with his anti-Iraq invasion stance. Obama will say whatever he thinks will help him.
Health care? What we have is health care industry care, and Obama has no intention of changing that; his plan would expand it. When politicians talk about subsidising health insurance premiums for low-income people, we need to keep reminding ourselves that the real recipients of those subsidies will not be the 'insured,' but rather the insurance companies. ["Here you are: if you haven't enough money to give the insurance company, we'll give it to you, to give to them - but we wouldn't think of putting up a lesser amount to guarantee real health care."]
Obama was no real alternative to Clinton: two right-leaning corporatists.
Hamster wrote : "You're an intelligent guy"
There is a patronizing statement. So you imply if I don't agree with what you are about to say I am an idiot.
Hamster wrote : "you should know that sicko was not a hoax"
Sicko is a hoax. HR676 is dead legislation. If the DemocRATS had any brains and any guts instead of running from the issue in an election year they would be campaigning on it FRONT AND CENTER ! With that one issue the DemocRATS could totally neutralize Ralph Nader and his Campaign and ride their way in to the White House in a Landslide that would make the 64 Election look like a horse race.
Hamster wrote : "that Michael Moore has come out publicly in favor of HR676"
Why isn't he saying anything now ? The fact of the matter is Moore is a weasel ! He ran like a coward from the Nader Campaign in 2000 in the closing weeks when the DemocRATS threatened him. He hasn't changed a bit.
Hamster wrote : "and that single payer is NOT dead."
Only because the people choose to keep the heat on. If it was left up to Washington Single Payer will never see the light of day in congress ever again.
Hamster wrote : "While it is true that politicians are not moving forward with single payer, the idea and the movement is very much alive, and HR676 is the template"
It won't be if Obama has his way.
Hamster wrote : "You are also correct that Obama's plan is a watered down mush that has little or no resemblance to single payer."
It is NOT watered down. Obama's plan is nothing more than injection of money into the present system in order to subsidize the profits of the insurance industry in the hopes the consumer will get cheaper issurance rates. In essence Obama's Healthcare plan can best be described with an aphorism used by Ronald Reagan. IT'S A TRICKLE DOWN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. I think that is a very fitting description considering the way Obama keeps bringing up Reagan. What will be the end result of this proposal. Those that can afford to buy insurance will get a discount and everybody else will be out in the cold. And when the Democrats get kicked out the republicans will have one more arrow in their quill to assail government involvement in the economy of the US. BTW the Obama system as proposed will exacerbate the up coming Medicare Crisis.
Hamster wrote : "Single payer goes against the grain of typical American style capitalism and it will take a major paradigm shift in America to bring that about."
Is the American Brand of Capitalism better than any of the others ? Even the liberals want to get in on this action of impuning ones patriotism for calling in to question government policies.
As I pointed out in previous posts the signs of a paradigm shift are clearly visible. The nature of entenched power is such that traditional institution, like the DemocRAT Party, are corrupted to point they refuse to acknowledge the shift.
Hamster wrote : "But HR676 is something tangible that people can rally around that represents a part of that paradigm shift."
Only if the people choose to keep it alive and and seize every opportunity to shuv it in the face of their elected officials.
Hamster wrote : "It will happen some day, we just don't know how long it will take,"
Gee Whizzz Isn't that something "Everything slow and in its time" is your motto and the motto of your fellow liberals like Michael Moore. You do know that was the same attitude that Roman Leaders had towards abolishing slavery ?
CHANGE ONLY COMES WHEN PEOPLE GET UP AND PUSH FOR IT !
The fact of the matter is this country needed a Single payer Health Care System YESTERDAY !
In 1994 the state of California fielded a ballot measure that would have converted the state to a Single Payer Healthcare System. With little money and minimal organizing that Initiative got 28% of the vote. And condition back then in Southern California were paradise compared to what we have now. According to the Nightly Business report certain communities in LA have 40% of their residence are uncovered when it comes to insurance. What does this mean. Well if the individual stories of horror don't get to you maybe the macro-effects will. In LA many Trauma Centers and an increasing number of Hospitals are shutting down because they are piling up Unperforming Bad Debt. Communities that once had hospitals now have no medical centers for 10s of miles. Can these people wait for "SOMEDAY" ?
Hamster wrote : "or if the USA will have to collapse before it can happen."
Yeah that's a lovely solution but I doubt if the US were to collapse in to anarchy that health care would be the first thing on the to do list. Just look at Iraq. Did anarchy solve their situation ?
Vote Obama or McCain and continue to suffer.
I am a Canadian so can give some perspective on what I feel some of the greatest oftimes not mentioned advantages of Universal care.
If I am sick and lose my job I am covered. If I am laid off I am covered. If I want to improve my education so I can go into a more lucrative Career I am covered.
If i want to change where I live to be closer to my folks, or to other family, or just to be in a different part of the country I am covered.
If I need downtime between jobs I am covered. If I work for a firm where the boss/owner are people I can simply no longer work for I can quit, and am covered.
If a person is Black , Hindu, a sexually harassed female..and find they are being discriminated against, they do not have to put up with the crap because they fear they will lose their jobs.
A mother or father wishes to be with their child in that childs early years, covered.
All of these things means more freedom for the persons so covered.
A recent survey of both countries that the Median net worth of Canadians is actually higher then in America. They also show Canadians take more vacation days, work less hours per week, spend more time with family and are overall happier having less stress and debt.
I suggest a great part of that has to do with Universal Coverage. Too many get trapped in the "waiting lists" fallacy which is in fact a totally bogus arguement. Not only are there wiaitng lists in America, some longer then those canadians expierienced, but the people who have no coverage at all are not "measured" in waiting list statistics in the US.
That is not to say there are not groups and peoples in Government up here trying to emulate the American suystem and erode all those advantages. These groups (Such as the fraser Institute) tend to have that same money behind them that perpetuates that "Greatest Health Care system" in the world, south of the border.
Truthie,
You're an intelligent guy, you should know that sicko was not a hoax, that Michael Moore has come out publicly in favor of HR676, and that single payer is NOT dead. While it is true that politicians are not moving forward with single payer, the idea and the movement is very much alive, and HR676 is the template, the gold standard, for what that legislation should look like. You are also correct that Obama's plan is a watered down mush that has little or no resemblance to single payer. Single payer goes against the grain of typical American style capitalism and it will take a major paradigm shift in America to bring that about. But HR676 is something tangible that people can rally around that represents a part of that paradigm shift. It will happen some day, we just don't know how long it will take, or if the USA will have to collapse before it can happen.
Nietzsche.....I was kidding. I am sorry for your situation--that I am not in such a situation myself is a matter of pure luck and nothing else. It is such a common one and such an outrage. Sometimes I can only stay sane by spewing some portion of that outrageous mountain of crap that poisons the mind of the body politic, turning it against itself.
In the USA thou shalt live in fear of unknown healthcare costs. For example, thou shalt not know dentistry costs until after procedures are finished. If you search "dentistry prices" in english language Google, you get a pile of cosmetic dentistry links, a couple of dental tourism sites (costa rica and thailand) and one that says:
"A polite telephone survey to a few dental offices can give you a general idea of the range of fees found in your area. Many dental offices, however, will be somewhat put off by such inquires, primarily for two reasons. The first reason is that most dentists want to develop a continuing relationship with their patients. They are interested in helping patients overcome their current dental problems and then continue on with periodic checks so to help them maintain their oral health. A phone call from a person who is only interested in how much a dental crown will cost often does not fit this ideal.
The other problem is that dental office personnel realize that phone inquiries often result in "apples and oranges" comparisons. Without an examination by their dentist it is impossible for the dental office staff to know exactly what work is needed, and thus it is impossible for them to give you an accurate idea of treatment costs."
In contrast, a well-built German price comparator site said:
"Do you know what you approximate cost for a dental treatment reckon? Then you simply browse the more than 10,000 price comparisons, we have in recent months for patients who have - and we have legally insured patients an average savings of 59% (relative to the equity share).
If your dentist reduce costs, you can create your personal, free price comparison. Based on experience from many reports of other patients find the dentists, that gives you a very good price-performance ratio. Our goal is to provide patients the dentist costs and the performance of dentists transparent way."
Does anyone think that when Obama was in Europe, Obama asked a single question about their health care (and their free Univ. education, $17/hr min wage, 1 month vacation, mandatory generous sick leave, up to one year PAID maternity/family leave, etc...etc.
As Scholar alluded to, there are bigger reasons for the US style of health care than just the political power of the insurance companies. Lack of universal health care is part of a larger pattern of denying US workers many mandated benefits that workers in other industrial nations enjoy. The lack of universal health care and dependence on employer-provided health care is just part of a seamless system to keep US workers in an appallingly servile bargaining position with their employers. This keeps US wages down, saving employers many billions of dollars every year.
As a 52 year old, losing my and my wife's insurance, or having to pay $1,500 per month for COBRA insurance while out of work, it the absolute #1 thing that keeps me kissing my bosses ass as I count the days to retirement and Medicare eligibility - and I earn a comfortable, well above-median wage.
And make no mistake about it - Business organizations trade associations, and chambers of commerce, notably the US Chamber of Commerce all work very hard to maintain this RAW DEAL on the US worker. Even if, to fantasize a bit, politicians stopped taking bribes from corporations tomorrow, and started passing pro-worker laws, the business interests would simply engineer an overthrow of the US government.
Recall the barely-thwarted Wall Street organized coup against FDR because of his new deal for teh worker, in 1933.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
John Locke or should I say jlocke wrote: "Joneden, arbeit macht frei."
So we have a member of the Owning Class watching us.
For those that are unfamilar with the quote check this out.
http://www.spectacle.org/695/arbeit.html
We are getting close to something big folks !
I formerly worked at UMDNJ - the State medical school of New Jersey. I had Stete Employee medical and dental insurance. Blue cross blue shield was free. Aetna was 26.50 per pay peropd (26 a year). I had three times my salary in life insurance (free). The dental (aetna) had a MAXIMUM charge on ortho of $1000. The state paid almost twice as much to my pension as I did. My prescrition plan had a $5.oo deductible. Did I mention this covered myself and my wife and two children?
Now my question is - if NJ can get this deal for its employees, why can't it get it for its residents and add the premium to state income tax. Then everyone is covered, employees don't have to worry? people have job mobility....
just a thought
Joneden, you are forgetting the self-employed. We DO work, but our options for health care coverage are both extremely limited and very expensive. And many of the self-employed perform vital tasks (for example, we run a small farm and there is nothing more vital than that), but we are seriously considering going without coverage because we are tired of paying thousands and thousands of dollars per year for NOTHING. That is extortion, using the leverage of fear that we may lose everything we have worked for if something catastrophic should happen.
But it gets to the point where you think, why should I pay this money up front when I could just as well put it in an account and use it to pay after the fact if necessary ? The whole system is ass-backwards and, as Scholar says (2:39 pm), one of the dirty little secrets is that health care coverage is what keeps workers on the treadmill.
One of my friends is baby-sitting her new twin grandbabies full time because the mother (her daughter) had to go back to work TWO WEEKS after having a C-section because otherwise she would lose her health insurance. I can't imagine what it would be like, trying to be an effective employee after being up half the night with newborn twins, night after night. That is just crazy, but seems to be the status quo.
Scholar (3:56 pm), I don't speak for my daughter as well, however she was raised in an environment where pretty much the only time doctors were consulted was in time of dire need, which was very infrequent and usually involved stitches or bone setting as I myself am not that great a fan of much of the alleopathic, reductionist medical mentality. She did ask me, when she was interviewing for medical schools, what my response to a common question asked by interviewers would be : How (in three minutes or less) would you fix the health care crisis ? So I told her what I posted above (3:15 pm) and she said, "mom, I can't say that !" to which I said "I know, dear, which is why we don't go to doctors much."
Also, you are assuming that nurse practitioners and PA's are ultimately the doctor's responsibility. Once again the doctor is the deity, when in fact for many situations I would put more trust in an experienced nurse practitioner . . .
"Does that explain it?"
Yes, a very good answer.
Joneden wrote: "There is nothing wrong with our health care system–it is the best in the world."
Oh Yeah care to give us a comparative numbers that would justify that ludicrous claim. Like numbers about Life Span in the US compared to other industrialized nations. Or infant mortality ? The fact of the matter is the US Fee for Service Healthcare System flunks miserably.
Joneden wrote: "The problem is with our deficit of personal responsibility in this country. Everyone here expects the cradle to grave socialism Europeans enjoy, and socialism is so last century."
Actually Socialism is alive and well in the Halls of Congress today. Actually it has never been stronger ! The Federal Government is bailing out banks weekly. It has become a Sunday Night Ritual these last few weeks of the Federal Reserve stepping in and taking over failed banks at the expense of the American Tax Payer. The FDIC is going to pump 5.6 TRILLION Dollars into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in order to keep them afloat. The money spent on a Single Payer Healthcare System amounts to a pittance in comparison to what the taxpayer has to shell out because of wanton speculation. If you don't believe what I say read this :
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader07172008.html
Joneden wrote: "Quit whining Americans, go to work, and then you will be able to avail yourself of the great care this great nation has to offer."
The fact of the matter is Joneden that Americans are working longer hours than they ever have before. Yet their standard of living is decreasing. Wrapping yourself in "this great nation" and the rest of your empty Super Patriotic BS is nothing more than a canard. What you advocate Joneden is Class Warfare, brutal Class Warfare. The empoverishment of the many for the gains of a few.
Can we have a Single Payer Healthcare ? No is your response
Can we have a publicly funded Higher Education System ? No is your response
Will the government spend money to construct a Nationwide High Speed Rail System ? No is your response.
But there is all sorts of money to be found when it comes to bailing out speculators.
And there is all sorts of money to be found when it comes to buying bombs and bullets for the war Department. Here is an interest datum. During the Cold War the American People were told that the War Budget was so high because of the godless commies. People were genuiniely outraged that Bombs and Bullets took up 30% of the budget. And when it was all over the American People could expect a "Peace Dividend". Well since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 Defense spending as a portion of the overall budget has increased from 30% to 50%. And it's not because the overall budget is shrinking, it has grown immensly since then. So the godless commies was just another ploy to hoodwink the America out of their hard earned tax dollars.
Joneden the American People are getting hip to the Owning Classes gig and it won't last for long. Want proof ? Check out this clip from George Carlin on You Tube. He recorded it a couple of years ago in his "Life is worth Loose special for HBO". It's all over the internet in many forms and will serve as a legacy to Carlin.
Yeah that's right even comedians are learning how sneek class analysis in to their routines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg
GOOD POINTS: ROCKER BABE, H20, & SCHOLAR.
It would be interesting to see a political cartoon of several key leaders crossing over and standing before some form of heavenly tribunal, one equipped with a fiscal ledger as PROOF of its rendered "judgment" call.
So let's see, you have x billions alloted to weapons' programs, but x millions alloted to public health care? (This being the TIP of the iceberg, list-wise!)
joneden, I hope you are joking.
I just got home from picking up four very commonly prescribed drugs for Eighty Dollars! I have Medicare AND supplemental insurance. I doubt that it cost the drug companies more than ten dollars to make them.
The insurance premiums are expensive. The drugs are expensive. The R&D costs that the drug companies whine about is sometimes less than the cost of the commercials that push their product.
It's a real racket. Big Pharma collects from me AND the insurance company (or so they tell me). National Security concerns probably would prevent me from finding out the truth.
Insurance is a racket too. They keep my premiums if I stay healthy and use them to hire financial wizards to show them how to refuse more and more legitimate claims.
Health care for profit is an outrage. Health insurance for profit is criminal.
jlocke123:
you asked above why someone thought America could not get single payer. I do not know if your question was answered directly but most of the elements were included in the posts above. To whit:
1) private insurance companies and other for-profit health concerns are making ever so much money off the current system, most of which would disappear under a single payer system.
2) they use a portion of these profits to fund the campaigns of our "elected" representatives for the sole purpose of, at best, making sure leg. like HR 676 never gets to the floor and, at worst, having legislation passed that actually funnels funds out of what limited public system we have (Medicare) into their pockets - Medicare Part D (whereby Medicare subsidizes the absurd price of drugs while having no ability to bargain for lower prices) and Medicare Advantage (whereby Medicare contracts payment services to private insurance companies at a price higher than Medicare would have to pay if it simply performed the services itself - roughly 13% higher if I am not mistaken) are the 2 examples that come to mind.
3) the Pres candidates of both major parties are benefiting, through campaign funding, from the profits the private insurers are making off the system and neither has an interest in biting a hand that feeds them. If you ask them directly "Why don't you support a single payer system?", the Rep. will spout the nonsense about "socialized medicine" and "private is always better", etc,. etc. The Dem response is a bit more nuanced - "It's not politically feasible right now," which is absurd because repeated surveys have shown that a majority of the public, physicians, etc. wants it. "Not politically feasible" is code for "the insurance companies don't want it and will crucify me if I support it". The plans of both involve various degrees of rather ill disguised gov't subsidies to private insurers.
4) McCain has never been for single payer, as far as I know, but Obama is interesting in that regard. In '03, he publicly stated he was for "single payer universal healthcare". His plan now nowhere near approaches it both with regard to the single payer and to the universal. If you check out www.opensecrets.org, I think you will be able to figure out what changed his tune. Or perhaps in '03 he was just saying what he thought his audience wanted to hear. In any case he knows which side his bread is buttered on, now.
5) Any third party candidate that has the courage to advocate for single payer is, at best, marginalized, at worst, demonized, by these major parties, some of whose advocates you have met on this site.
Does that explain it? I agree it is quite appalling but something that could in fact be remedied if people would simply elect those individuals who would champion the remedy. But for some reason, people here continue to have loyalties to political entities that do not serve them. Unfortunately, it appears that things will have to get much worse before we wise up. For all our intelligence, we Americans are not very smart.
Healthcare in this country is on life support, but the only "argument" between the leaders of both major parties seems to about the best way to euthanize it.
I've lived SICKO and found out in the end in my experience with Holston Valley Medical Center in Kingsport, Tn. ( A Wellmont Health System ) Exactly what is defended as an acceptable standard of care vs. what they advertise. That's SICK !
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/timmullins
Joneden, arbeit macht frei.
There is nothing wrong with our health care system--it is the best in the world. The problem is with our deficit of personal responsibility in this country. Everyone here expects the cradle to grave socialism Europeans enjoy, and socialism is so last century. Quit whining Americans, go to work, and then you will be able to avail yourself of the great care this great nation has to offer.
JaneM wrote: "Truthie, it's just too depressing. Can we banish all lobbyists? I think they are probably the most corupting influence on our government…"
JaneM you are sinking back in to your conditioning. Name calling gives people permission to stop thinking critically. And that is not to say "Lobbyists" haven't contributed to the situation as it exists today. But it is the "Liberal Elected Officials" that lie at the root of the problem. They are the only people that have the power entrusted to them to tell the lobbyists the Insurance Companies are going to get their Piggy Little Faces out of the trough they have been eating out of.
Do you see that in John Conyers ?
Do you see that in Pete Stark ?
Do you see that in Barack Obama ?
And the second batch of punks that need to get their ears pinned backed are the enablers of such congressional inaction. I am referring to the Liberal Elites who wait hand and foot on the Pelosis, the Conyers and the Starks as they slither around the Halls of Congress. Specifically Norman Solomon, Katrina Vanden Huevel and her bunch at the Nation, Matthew Rothschild and his gang at the Progressive, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jeff Cohen and their ilk never pass up the opportunity to tell "progressives" that their expectations have gotten a little bit to high for Democrats to deal with. Well who set those expectations Norman, who set the expectations Barbara ? Huh !!!!!!
JaneM you will never get change voting for a DemocRAT ! What you will get is a more comfortable Jail Cell ! And a Jail Cell is not what I'm interested in. As far as I'm concerned if we get McCain this Fall MAYBE THE FROG WILL FINALLY JUMP OUT OF THE POT !
But there are some very encouraging signs. Did you see Andrew Kohut's Editorial in the New York Times blasting Nader this morning ? The editorial wasn't much more than the same old rehashed liberal drivel attacking Nader. The encouraging part was the slew of nasty responses by the readers to the premise of Kohut's piece. This is purely spontaneous. No one is being poked and prodded to get behind their keyboards. And it is plainly obvious as these types of responses happen more frequently the Liberal Pundits who are always willing to derail the hopes of the people of the nation in their service to the Democrat Party have come to the end of their rope.
So find a candidate that represents your views, in this case legislating a Single Payer Healthcare, and supporrt their candidacy with either money, work or both. Find out if your Congression Representative cosponsored HR-676 and if they didn't tell them that your vote hinges upon receiving a firm commitment to pass such legislation in the NEXT session. Tell them that Barack Obama's Healthcare plan sucks and until he adopts a single payer system you are voting for Nader !
But what ever you do don't fall victim to the Liberals' hysterics about civilization collapsing if another Republican is elected. That is a tactic used to keep your mind in chains. The fact of the matter is the Democrats told us that Ronald Reagan was the second coming of Ghengis Khan. We survived 8 years of that ! We can survive anything !
SallyUUKent - You haven't ever had a gynecological exam? There's a Planned Parenthood in Kent - downtown - I pass by it all the time. Call them. I don't buy that you can't afford even that. Tell the Planned Parenthood people the situation and you'll get that physical exam. I did volunteer work at Planned Parenthood in Denver - they work very closely with every patient they serve, including the financial.
Alaskamaid, you make excellent points.
In fact, I suspect that if a hospital or medical practice *led* with the notion of a nurse practitioner or physician assistant making house calls -- especially for children, for seniors and for chronically ill patients -- it really would motivate most people to support that approach.
What's ironic is that you identify yourself as the parent of a med school student, thus implying that you speak for your daughter, as well. I suspect, however, that physicians would be most opposed because they'd continue to be responsible for supervising C-NPs and P.A.s, but they'd no longer be just down the hall if those folks were making housecalls. Thus, it would be another set of headaches for physicians. I agree, though.
A similar issue is that so many young physicians are choosing specialties, in part due to the higher pay in order to pay off those loans. We're quickly developing a shortage of primary care physicians in the U.S., at least outside of major metropolitan areas. And plenty of specialists in major populations centers who want to practice and do so.
Nothing is more useless than insurance that doesn't cover you.
How much are we paying annually for all insurances? It reminds me of the maffia and how they "sold" insurance to people they brutalized.
One big reason jobs are leaving the US is the employers cost for insurance.
America's preexisting condition is:
1) Stupidity.
2) An historic tendency toward scamming.
3) Our National Motto is: F#%* You!
4) All of the above.
All the talk about single payer and decoupling health insurance from jobs and etc. is good and necessary BUT it is only part of the equation. Other parts are equally important and no one is talking about them.
My daughter is in medical school and she is realizing how quickly potential doctors get sucked into the system as it is due to having to take on such HUGE student loans in order to make it through. (They also get sucked into having to follow that career path whether or not it turns out to be right for them, just to pay off those loans). THAT is one important way that Big Pharma hooks into the medical system.
What we lack is a midlevel of care, where routine checkups, preventive care and education (as mentioned above, so important and so not available), and minor problems are treated by nurse practitioners or other practitioners who are not full-fledged doctors but competent in their own right. I would like to see a nurse practitioner clinic associated with every elementary school in the country. AND they would make house calls.
AND they would be affordable.
Continuing to rely on doctors for all our health needs only serves to prolong the current crisis. And anyway, when you go to a clinic, often you are already treated by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant. But since they are necessarily employed by doctors, the costs are still way too high. What's with that ?
In some ways, it would be much easier and more effective to change the service aspects of our health care system than the financial aspects.
Plus the whole mentality is bizarre. My daughter is worried about missing even a day of class due to illness because she will fall 'behind'. What a weird world, where potential doctors are not allowed a day off to be sick !
We ourselves are self employed and pay bookoo bucks for catastrophic only health insurance, which disappears into a black hole and does absolutely nothing for us unless we (hopefully never) actually need it.
Our Health Insurance is a fear based scam.
We need Health Care, not health insurance.
chessgames56,
Gee, a new name on my ever-growing list.
Truthie, it's just too depressing. Can we banish all lobbyists? I think they are probably the most corupting influence on our government...
Nmlib, you are being perfectly clear. Deciding whether to "risk" seeing a doctor is a position no one should be put into. I wish you good luck.
Here's one of the dirty little secrets about decoupling jobs and health insurance:
Maintaining those benefits keep most workers on the 5-day, 40-hour treadmill (if not more) because there's no options.
If health care (and other benefits, such as retirement) were decoupled, and folks were working for wages only, you'd see workers attempting to negotiate alternative arrangements.
For instance, a worker who's 50-something and has managed to pay off the mortgage and get the kids through college might suddenly realize he (or she) doesn't need all of a 5-day 40-hour wage and will attempt to negotiate a 3 or 4 day work week in order to have more leisure time.
Granted, not everyone is so lucky. But we are talking millions of employees, and that would introduce a whole new set of issues into the U.S. economy.
JaneM wrote: "If you haven't seen Michael Moore's "Sicko" yet, be sure not to miss it."
I have news for you Jane . Michael Moore and Sicko are actually working to undermine the prospects for a Single Payer Healthcare in this country.
Most of the Documentary Sicko focused on a specific piece of legislation HR-676 the Medicare for All initiative authored by John Conyers and cosponsored by 88 other Congresspeople. The legislation as written is exactly the type of Single Payer System that Ralph Nader has outlined in his campaign. The Dominant Party Candidates, including Barack Obama, have rejected this idea to advance two different flavors of a Fee for Service System that keeps the blood sucking insurance industry in place.
Returning to HR 676 it seems very odd that a Bill with 88 Cosponsors was not brought to the floor of the House for debate much less voted on. The fact of the matter is HR-676 was left by John Conyers Chair of the House Judiciary Committe and Pete Stark Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee to die in committee.
JaneM why don't you ask John Conyers why HR-676 was not renewed this legislative session ? Why don't you ask Michael Moore where his outrage and camera poking ways are now that it is shown that "Liberal Democrats" did little more than instigate a cruel hoax on the American People in the form of HR-676.
HR-676 is dead !
Sicko is a HOAX !
Obama wants to keep the insurance involved the health care system gobbling up the hard earned savings of millions of Americans.
If you want a Single Payer Health Care System get out and work for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. That is the only way you will get it.
jlocke,
Sorry, it appears I am unable to write very clearly today. When I say they can deny coverage, I mean if you have a "pre-existing condition," the insurance company can choose not to cover services for it. They are, after all, insurance companies. I haven't read the companies' policies, but based on the names (Lovelace, Presbyterian) I know that they don't operate any differently than other health insurance companies.
I can't really speak for my friend. He's a very intelligent, well-educated individual, but I think he believes that most Americans aren't doing without healthcare; therefore, they're not really pushing for radical change.
And no, I am actually not healthy at the moment, but I'm reluctant to risk seeing a doctor and having a condition added to my records that might prevent me from getting coverage when I'm finally eligible.
penscot: I still have acquaintances who insist that it's people's own fault if they don't have, or can't afford insurance. Poor planning; they should just get a job that offers health insurance; if they didn't get insurance, they should have saved up the money to see doctors when needed. These people, like the majority of elected officials, are out of touch with reality. One woman I know, who is eligible for Medicare, says she doesn't believe in people "getting something for nothing." And if we want healthcare like they have in other countries, we should move to those countries rather than try to change our current system. I reminded her that America didn't always have Medicare and Social Security, for that matter. She ignored those comments.
The US needs a single payer system, just like many of the European countries; that way everyone gets care when they need it, not when they are so sick, the illness cannot be ignored. I have heard about the griping regarding the cost, but given what the average American already pays in monthly health insurance premiums, out-of-pocket cost [deductibles, co-pays, etc), the taxes paid to fund Medicare, Medicaide, VAMC and governmental employees' insurance programs, Americans would NOT have to pay anymore to cover everyone not already covered!
A universial healthcare systems would:
1. take the profit motive out of the industry. Just maybe patients could actually afford to get the care they need. There is no excuse for executives in the healthcare industry [most of whom have never even provided direct care to patients] getting 6 figure salaries + bonus for denying care to patients [some of whom actually die as a result of theis denial].
2. would improve overall productivity of employees if they didn't have to worry about how to afford the rising out-of-pocket expenses and premiums.
3. lots of people like myself could then actually afford to work independently as consultants or contractors. Currently if you have a pre-existing condition, then getting an individual healthcare policy is almost impossible at any cost! I could make twice as much money if I didn't have to worry about getting medical insurance; but, I can't get a policy on my own, so for an employer I will have to work until I am eligible for Medicare.
4. universial healthcare would also take the pressure off the employers's rising cost, the politicans' rhetoric and the media's madness.
5. A single payer system would also reduce the need for healthcare and drug company lobbist to induce Congress to be corrupt. Then maybe we could do away with grants, filing for assistance rpograms, robbing Peter to pay Paul methods of dealing with out-of-control costs and regulation.
6. Universial healthcare would reduce the numbe of conflicting regulations and regulatory bodies any institution would have to deal with on a daily basis! Think about it! Nurses, dietitians, MD, PT, OT, SLP, RPh, etc who could actually service the public instead of the government and NGO surveyors! My heavens! All of us clinical practitioners would probably be lost having to provide care to patients instead of kissing some regulator's arbitary ass!
7. Any politicians who support for-profit healthcare and druggie companies are not fit to serve in the legislature and should be booted out!
This particular problem, as well as similar problems such as the subprime mortgage debacle, are traceable back to the fact that nationally elected officials -- Congressmen and Senators -- are influenced by, if not beholden to, the corporations that contribute to their campaigns.
Job No. 1 for any elected official is to get re-elected. At present, that motiviates them to spend a great deal of time and effort raising money. Then, they're reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them because they'll be up for re-election again in two or four our six years. So it's a vicious circle with enormous consequences.
If we had public financing, then elected official's primary motiviation to get re-elected would be to please as many of the voters as possible, rather than to satisfy the special interests with deep pockets.
Unfortunately, plenty of ordinary folks remain dead-set against publicly funded elections because they can picture the costs -- $$ from the public treasury, but they can't see the gains as clearly.
If nothing else, we-the-people should require TV and radio to provide a certain amount of free air time to bona fide, major party candidates. We-the-people own the airwaves, and it could be required as a means of renewing annual licenses.
The stations all would lose a great deal of money, true. But so long as it was imposed fairly, no station or company would be put at a competitive disadvantage relative to any other.
Had insurance. Had a gall bladder that needed coming out. Cost me $3300 in copayments. Used to have space on the credit cards. Now I'm still paying off the medical bills, but at least we still have the house.
Who the hell actually calls this health insurance? Why not call it by its proper name.
A gamble.
The United States MUST get away from the employer provided health care and on to a single payer, portable system. That will make US businesses far more competitive once they do not have to shell out too much of their already stretched budgets to pay for health care for their active and retired employees.The reason that so many US jobs have been shipped overseas is cheap labor, and by that I mean, not having to pay health care costs for their employees, which has become an increasing financial strain on many US businesses in both the public and private sectors.
I work in the public sector, have health insurance, and yet ultimately end up spending most of my health care costs out of my own pocket because of our ridiculously high deductible. My prescription costs are $100 a month because I am on two medications that are not available in generic. I cannot get preventive health care because my insurance won't pay for it, so I haven't had a complete physical since I was 18 and I am now 51. I haven't had a gynecological exam yet because I can't afford it. It doesn't make sense to me that insurance would deny preventive care but will pay if I end up getting sick, which ultimately costs more to pay for.
This country needs to put MORE emphasis on preventive medicine, not less. Proper preventive care for all can save untold millions or even billions of dollars in wasted health care costs. We also need to engage a full scale battle against increasing obesity among children and adults, one of the leading causes of high health care costs. Obese people need far more health care as a result of their conditions and doctors need to be far more proactive in assisting their patients in losing weight with proper medical supervision. They also need to be very blunt with their obese patients and tell them straight up to lose weight or suffer the consequences.
For those of us who DO work out and take care of ourselves, well, until we have a single payer system in place, we ought to be receiving breaks on our insurance with lower premiums and lower deductibles. That would serve as a real financial incentive to overweight people that there is a reward for keeping your weight down. That would go a long way toward helping motivate the 56% of the employees in my workplace who are morbidly obese to start thinking about losing that weight that they are carrying around. Ultimately, it would help my employer to pay lower premiums and to keep more of its money to hopefully be able to give us cost of living raises, something we've not seen in far too long of a time. Oh, they give us a pittance each year that isn't enough to cover the rapidly rising costs we face, but really, we deserve so much more that what we're getting.
So I say, tell your legislators to sign on to supporting the Conyers-Kucinich bill, H.R. 676, for national health care for all. Call and write to them and urge them to help US businesses to become more globally competitive by not having to pay health care premiums for their active and retired employees. It's a win-win proposal and the US has nothing to lose by enacting this bill and signing it into law.
Until then, lose that spare tire! Quit eating heaping portions served at restaurants. Know when to walk away from the table. Get out from behind that computer and take a brisk 20 minute walk each day. Support your local farmers and eat locally grown - and hopefully organic - produce. Make sure that you know your blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar numbers and leep them at good, low levels. Stop spending every night lumped on the sofa in front of your several thousand dollar home theatre systems and go do something physically active. Find a buddy to go walking with or working out with - always easier when you've got someone else to keep you on track! Don't let your weight be a drag on your health and a drag on the entire health care system in general. You have one body to take care of for your entire life - don't waste it being obese and saddled with lifelong health problems.
Nmlib, I hope you stay healthy.
"they can cap or limit services or deny coverage if they choose to do so" That is crazy isn't it? You have insurance until you get sick, and they cut you off.
That is not how public health insurance works around the world. Single payer systems cover you "womb to tomb" not unless you get sick, but especially if you get sick.
I'm curious to hear why your friend thinks America can't shift to single payer. Is it "just because" or is there a specific "hitch" that stops you from getting from here to there.
How is the campaign for Saint Obama going Danny boy? Still, you're biggest argument in favor of Obama is 'lesser evilism.' Fear the bogey man McCain. Do you really believe that Obama will seriously take on insurance companies? Right. Whatever the big "O" does will likely promote their corporate agenda. Many of us here are just not that gullible, sorry DD.
The two next potential obstacles in the way of socialized health care in America are:
1) Another president who talks against it and would veto anything passed by Congress that is disliked by the insurance industry. That's McCain.
2) A Supreme Court that would declare unconstitutional anything that somehow diminished the "rights" of corporations selling either care or "insurance." That's the effect of McCain-style appointees in the "mold of Alito and Roberts" as McCain has PROMISED.
If we're asked to name the most important reason for electing Obama, the one actually affecting the most real people, the five words are FUTURE STRUCTURE OF HEALTH CARE.
C'mon Ignoramuses. I know you're out there. I know several of you by name. C'mon. Make fools of yourselves.
Knock Obama on this one too. Tell us how you know McCain is better because you hate DEMS.
Oops. First line, above, should have read "I don't have health insurance yet."
jlocke,
Actually, I do need health insurance yet. I think my point is that America needs a single-payer plan, but perhaps I didn't state it clearly. Incidentally, NM currently has State Coverage Insurance, available to the self-employed and those individuals whose jobs don't provide healthcare. You still pay premiums (if you're able) and have deductibles and copays. You have a choice of three different policies. The insurance company would still maintain control, meaning they can cap or limit services or deny coverage if they choose to do so. A friend says it's a start; he doesn't believe America can shift overnight from the current system to single-payer. I say the longer we let the insurance companies and Big Pharma lobby on behalf of their bottom line, the less likely it is that we will see universal coverage in our lifetimes.
Nmlib, Well maybe you don't need health insurance but I'm sure you are unique in that respect. As you must know, with public health insurance, the cost to businesses is zero. This gives businesses a great advantage. Another plus is of course, the insurance moves with the worker, so changing jobs is not an issue.
The Lt. Gov. of my state is out and about this week to meet with citizens about their issues of concern. She said the number one concern has been healthcare. In a meeting with a small group of community leaders, one person expressed concern about the rising cost of health insurance for small business owners. The Lt. Gov. concurred that this is a major issue and reminded everyone that our state tried, but failed, to pass legislation requiring everyone to have health insurance. Then she actually stated, "Let's face it; those of us who have insurance are paying for the uninsured. Our healthcare costs keep rising because of the uninsured." Here we go again, politicians blaming everyone but the greedy health insurance companies for rising healthcare costs. The proposed "solution" always seems to be finding a way to extend health insurance coverage to all. More insurance is not the answer!
Perhaps you will get public health insurance one state at a time. Which state is the least beholden to the drug/insurance industries? The neighbors will see how much cheaper and effective it is and clue into it one by one. The federal government couldn't stop that could they?
If you haven't seen Michael Moore's "Sicko" yet, be sure not to miss it. We think we're so hot here in the US - our healthcare ranks 37th among developing countries. Even Cuba has a better healthcare system than we do! It's really disgusting. More than 50% of families declaring bankruptcy did so due to healthcare costs. Amazingly enough, 73% of them HAD HEALTH INSURANCE! Having health insurance is no guarantee that you can't go broke if you have a major illness. Once you lose your job, if you're too sick to work, you lose your insurance and then everything goes downhill from there. It is a total embarassment, and we are being laughed at by Europe and other countries, including El Salvador, which ranks higher than us.