Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSingle-Payer Health Care Would Stimulate Economy
There is an unhealthy tendency on the part of politicians and journalists to see discussions about economic recovery and health care reform as separate debates.
In fact, one of the most important steps on the road to economic recovery - or, more precisely, toward a new, responsible and sustainable prosperity - involves the fundamental reform this country's broken health care system.
But it must be the right reform: the establishment of a national single-payer style healthcare reform system by expanding the existing Medicare system to cover all Americans. According to a new "Single Payer/Medicare for All: An Economic Stimulus Plan for the Nation" study released today by the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association, such a reform would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues into the economy. This reform would, according to the study, add $100 billion in wages to the currently sputtering U.S. economy.
Indeed, notes the NNOC/CAN, the number of jobs created by a single-payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008. "These dramatic new findings document for the first time that a single payer system could not only solve our healthcare crisis, but also substantially contribute to putting America back to work and assisting the economic recovery," says NNOC/CAN c o-president Geri Jenkins, RN.
Specifically, notes Jenkins, expanding Medicare to include the uninsured, and those on Medicaid or employer-sponsored health plans, and expanding coverage for those with limited Medicare, would:
1. Create 2,613,495 million new permanent good-paying jobs (slightly exceeding the number of jobs lost in 2008) -- and jobs that are not easily shipped overseas
2. Boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues
3. Add $100 billion in employee compensation
4. Infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues
"Through direct and supplemental expenditures, healthcare is already a uniquely dominant force in the U.S. economy," says the study's lead author, Don DeMoro, who directs the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, the NNOC/CNA research arm. "If we were to expand our present Medicare system to cover all Americans, the economic stimulus alone would create an immense engine that would help drive our national economy for decades to come.
The union is highlighting its "Single Payer Job Recovery" plan with a major rollout today and activists with Progressive Democrats for America and other groups that support single payer are staging a national call-in to Congress Thursday. Here's the PDA Action Alert on the new push for single payer:
Congressman John Conyers will reintroduce HR 676, his single-payer healthcare bill in the 111th Congress. Please ask your representative to cosponsor the bill and actively work with Rep. Conyers to gain additional cosponsors. In order to ensure HR 676 is part of the healthcare discussion in Congress, we need 150 cosponsors by the end of February.Former Sen. Tom Daschle, President-Elect Obama's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, called for "a government-run insurance program modeled after Medicare" in testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions as part of the solution to our healthcare crisis. His plan also includes health insurance corporations. Only HR 676 would implement a sustainable, fair, and efficient solution to the healthcare crisis as well as providing economic stimulus.
While single-payer healthcare proponents have made good headway in the House, there is still no companion bill in the Senate. Urge Sen. Edward Kennedy to sponsor a companion bill to HR 676 in the Senate.
100 Comments so far
Show All"There is an unhealthy tendency on the part of politicians and journalists to see discussions about economic recovery and health care reform as separate debates." Lets get really serious and add overpopulation to the debate.
All right lets control overpopulations by supplying free condoms, birth control, and morning after pills over the counter. Any body that wants them can just simply go into a pharmacy and get them for free, no questions asked.
Bring back mandatory sex education for all adolescents. Religious fanatic parents can sign a waver excusing their young adults to skip this.
Rickster
Health care reform: Ha, ha, ha.
Have a nice day. You voted for Mr. Obama and got his Clinton, Bush retreads. Suckers.
SINGLE PAYER NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
DOESN'T THAT SOUND...... LIKE THE GREATEST THING YOU HAVE EVER HEARD.
SAY IT TO YOUR SELF AGAIN.
SINGLE PAYER NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
DOESN'T IT ROLL OFF YOU TONGUE LIKE A KISS.
SOMETHING YOU'VE ALWAYS HEARD THAT OTHER MODERN COUNTRIES HAVE - SINGLE PAYER NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM- MANY OF THEM FOR DECADES - BUT YOU AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN HAVE NEVER HAD IT.
Now seriously let us talk strategy to actually accomplish a single payer nationalized health care system here in the United States.
If all social CHANGE ORGANIZATIONS nation wide deliberately joined forces so to speak BY ACTIVATING THEIR MEMBERS OVER THIS NEXT 100 DAYS OR NEXT 6 MONTHS on this one issue to pressure every single Senator and Congress person, Governor, and Bureaucrat to create and ENACT A SINGLE PAYER NATIOANLIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM or else THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY and we actally accomplished it wouldn't we really get some where for once in say 38 years (end of the Vietnam War).
I REQUEST THIS FROM EVERY GROUP THAT POSTS TO COMMON DREAMS. EVERY READER WHO BELONGS TO ANY NON-PROFIT. I MEAN ANY NON-PROFIT WHETHER IT BE ENVIRONMENTAL, LABOR, RELIGIOUS, HUMAN RIGHTS, OR PEACE.
CAN WE SING IN UNISON FOR A SINGLE PAYER NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM NOW!
IF NOT NOW THEN WHEN?
Perhaps in turn we could maintain our alliances in an official way and accomplish all the things that are in our hearts..... Justice, Freedom, Sustenance and shelter for all species of the universe ...... among other earthly things.
WE CAN WIN THIS ONE (and others) IF WE ALL BELIEVE. BELIEVE IN THE IDEA THAT THIS COULD BE THE ULTIMATE FULFILLMENT OF ALL HUMAN DREAMS.
I am a boomer and am concerned about the number of my friends who do not have and cannot afford healthcare.
Why does Obama and congress only seem interested in passing legislation to help children?
The boomers are already paying for the previous generations healthcare and when we are quoted a price from insurance ours is higher than the older people.
I get pretty irritated when congress will jump at the chance to provide free healthcare for illegals to have children.
As boomers all we get to do is pay for everyone elses.
running short on kindness today are we? compassion not in our vocabulary?
Please be specific.
The problem is our laws regarding citizenship.
Specifically the law that says "if you are born on US soil you are a citizen".
This is the one idea the USA has that few other nations adopt.
And it's the one that allows women who would otherwise be ineligible for benefits to come over and start claiming some portion of them even though they might be illegal.
But even this too is illegal. I have known people who have given birth to US citizens and were STILL denied entry into the USA, even though they were raising US citizens....so the machinery to keep them out exists...the question is whether or not it needs fixing or expansion.
Without these kinds of specifics your comments can be mistaken for a typical conservative racist rant about all the benefits illegals are entitled to when they get here....most of which are actually lies.
physicscitizen
Let me be specific.
"Specifically the law that says "if you are born on US soil you are a citizen".
"This is the one idea the USA has that few other nations adopt."
I know of no other nation that has this law. It was adopted after the civil war to protect ex slaves.
Illegal aliens do not collect welfare, that is "typical conservative (racist) rant," though to characterize those who oppose illegal immigration or to oppose illegal aliens accessing government benefits meant for American citizens as "racist" is flat dishonest. I won't let this kind of open borders rhetoric go unchallenged. Anyone that uses it is doing so for the purpose of diversion. Its the same as calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers." Dishonest language is only needed if the intent is dishonest (this is not a personal comment to you)
The problem of illegals using "anchor babies" is those already here, not someone trying to come in. Being the parent of a US citizen does not give you the right to come here or to citizenship.
Illegal immigrants access benefits through their children by obtaining food stamps, Medicaid and education among other benefits. But you can't punish children for the criminal acts of their parents, so it will continue as long as we allow illegal immigration.
Yes, there are instances where illegal immigrant adults obtain benefits directly, for example Chips Peri-Natal which allows a pregnant illegal alien to receive free pre natal care under the CHIPS funding which is meant only for children and only for citizens.
If the Senate passes the SCHIPS bill that the House just passed then you will have illeal alien children provided with medical care directly with SCHIPS funding.
This is a very complicated problem with far reaching costs to Americans. It will come up again this year I believe because the main concern of everybody is our economy and this is a top economic problem.
It is also something that cannot be discussed in its entirety, but must be discussed point by point. But most importantly, honestly discussed.
>>I know of no other nation that has this law. It was adopted after the civil war to protect ex slaves
Canada has the same law. So without doing any searching of other countries I will submit other countries have the same laws.
Recently , as example., a woman from Kenya was in an aircraft that was in Canadian Airspace and gave birth. The Child was considered a Canadian Citizen under the law.
Thanks. I was unaware of that fact. So in probability there may be others.
We must make up an enemies list, along with the stooges they use in the House and Senate. We should paint them as the cruel idealogues they are.Further, we should make ourselves knowledgeable, vis-a-vis the structural dynamics of the health care system we want and fight the fight tooth and nail until Americans are freed from the scalpel-to-the-juglar-vein, extortion racket our medical services delivery system is today. We must hang together or we will most likely, hang seperately. Give 'em hell!
But what about ADD, ADS, ADH, and all those other 'diseases' that really just amount to 'growing up'?
I need those psychotropic drugs to keep my children calm so that I can work my 80 hour week and leave my kids home alone because I cannot afford day-care.
And I know I need them because I see commercials for them on TV all the time.
And now you tell me your gonna raise my taxes!!!????
I work hard dammit.....I ain't gonna go fer nun of that tax raisin'!!!
If you going through that to make ends meet I don't think your taxes will change. What you need is a living wage limited to a thirty hour work week. I like the idea of a thirty hour work week. Every body especially the rich need to spend more time raising their families. Most of the wealthy kids I've had to deal with over the years are freaks. Spoiled little brats that need their back ends spanked. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating. One is cruel the other isn't.
Rickster
Bill Walz
Yes! Yes! Yes! It is the most amazing phenomenon to me that this obvious and necessary action is not a no brainer on its way to passage. It just shows how hostage America is to corporate interests intruding into the most fundamental right of the citizenry - their health. We're talking 100% coverage for 100% of the population, the health care burden taken off employers and individuals, costing a fraction of what the US now puts into this bloated profits hog called health care, real cost manageability because there is one pool of consumers connected to one pool of providers, covered by a graduated tax that is completely affordable. What stands in the way? Those profit hogs who have ruined the economy from top to bottom with their greed. Obama do what is right and necessary. End this blackmail of the American people with their health care. And dissenters --- get over your hysteria about socialism. It is time America joined the rest of the civilized world and realized that health care is a social responsibility - it is the job of the government. Profit has no place in it. Good incomes can be made by health care professionals. It is taking the leeches out of the system who don't provide care, they just rig the system for their own profit. And yes - I have an interest in this. I am a private educator who is covered by no corporation or government bureaucracy. I can only afford an expensive high deductable, high copay policy that is really bankruptcy insurance against catastrophic illness. Since I never meet the deductable, every dollar of my health care comes out of my pocket, while I still pay thousands of dollars every year to an insurance company. I do not have health care available to me because I am an independent and creative person. It has long felt like the health care situation in this country is deliberately designed to force people to be in the corporate or government spheres, held hostage by their need for health care. End this now. Single payer is the right answer and I am tired, tired, tired of hearing that it is politically impossible. If the people wake up and demand it of their representatives and Senators, it will happen.
Oh PLEASE encourage a single payer health care system.
I'm a Canadian living in the U.S. since 1977.
I have a kidney problem (maybe failure) and was referred to a specialist two months ago by my gynecologist! My appointment is on January 22. Is it any worse in Canada?
My family in Canada receive THE BEST and fast treatment for their medical conditions.
Too bad US citizens are so fearful of the word "socialized".
ALL of us deserve proper and fast medical attention.
Having not read the California Nursing Association's report, I speculate that the 2.6 million new jobs that medicare for all would create include both expanding the medicare bureaucracy and the healthcare services themselves given the increased number of people covered. The nursing association sees this as a way to grow itself, as the number of nurses is expanded. Then maybe it can add more lobbyists on K St. This is not an inspiring intention but at least it produced a report that inspires discussion.
The bureaucracy job increase is probably an illusion because dismantling the profteering health insurance companies would let loose a flood of employees currently enslaved to that bureaucracy, probably double the number of jobs created by medicare for all. But this is ok because this mountain of waste has long been a key part of the for-profit healthcare catastrophe.
The Nation article doesn't provide the discussion the people need to identify and direct their support to the best policy. The net reduction of the employment number
on the switch to medicare for all is a natural outcome of DOING THE RIGHT THING. That is to eliminate the for-profit bureaucratic waste. We don't need the economic actvity. Rather it is the PENTAGON that needs dollars to churn churn churn. The switch also eliminates another component of the healthcare cost inflation - capitalism's generic wealth redistributions from people to the elite, the generic class war aggression, but this assumes that the medicare bureaucracy can protect itself from the capitalists chasing the money across the battlement. The key reason the current medicare system works is its strong resistance to capitalist infiltration.
The other components of the US healthcare cost inflation come from the excessive specialization of doctors, and the same generic wealth redistribution racket as in the primary healthcare sector applied to the secondary sectors of pharmaceuticals and hi tech equipment. The breakout of these expenses only serves to make the different elements aware that we recognize them for accountability. When the people stand up and demand best value in healthcare everyone has to "pitch in". Best value is at least double the current value in the US system. Look to Fidel Castro's Cuba as the model for healthcare value - currently ten to twenty times better than the great capitalist healthcare system.
Having medical decisions made more by accountants than doctors is grossly inefficient and virtually every study that has ever been done has born this out. When I broke my wrist, for instance, I ended up getting several more x-rays than I needed because my doctor, under pressure from business types to generate revenue, insisted on getting as many as my insurance company would pay for.
My dentist, as another example, insists that I come in for a check up and cleaning every six months inspite of the fact that the hygenist raves about how good my teeth look when I wait a year or more. A previous dentist spent most of the time in office visits trying to sell me cosmetic procedures that I didn't need. He even wanted to drill a healthy tooth in order to get more money out of my insurance company (I found this out when I got suspicious and went to another dentist). It's gotten to the point that I don't feel like I can trust health-care providers to recomend any kind of treatment for fear it is motivated by financial considerations. That's what for-profit health care gets you!
For-profit health care, among other things, results in overtreatment for some and no treatment for way too many.
I can tell you from personal experience that medical care in other countries, even quite poor ones, is much better than here and they do it for much less money. Everyone I have ever talked to who has sought treatment in other countries says exactly the same.
It is way past time to enact single payer health care. Yes, seize the moment! Great article that points out that what is good for health care is good for the real economy.
Good on the National Nurses Organizing Committee and the California Nurses Association. Let's put our shoulders to this movement!
Golly, wouldn't that just be peachy it the Big Three automakers were suddenly off the hook for the health care of all those retirees. Probably wouldn't have to beg for $30 billions.
So who's on the hook to bail them out? Think, doggoneit!
What you don't understand is if every body got health care before health problem become major problems it would cost everybody who pays into the system a lot less money. Catching problems early is a lot cheaper than catching problem when it's to late.
The early years of a single payer system is going to be bumpy and more expensive but once preventive care takes hold the cost will drastically drop.
Rickster
Quite true. Though I am not sure it would be more expensive than the cost now, but you could of course be right.
It only stands to reason. Once everybody comes under the health care umbrella illnesses that were being untreated and ignored will be found out and need to be treated. Some of them illnesses will have already progressed to an advanced state and won't be cheap to treat. With out the health care system the illnesses most likely been ignored till it was to late for treatment and the person would have just been made comfortable till they died. I've seen it happen. They can't afford to see the doctor so they just just shut up and live with it.
Rickster
The cost of treatment would be far lower though. There are many other savings. Only citizens would get healthcare. That would save billions right there.
I could not in good conscience limit health care to any one citizen or not. That's why I have a problem with people making $1,000 plus an hour off of slave wages of others.
Rickster
For discussion's sake, if you have to choose betweeen providing medical care for an American citizen or for a non citizen, which would you choose in America?
Lets say you are in France where you have to provide proof of legal entry to obtain medical care.
.In European and Scandinavian countries access to health care is not limited to citizens. I guess they are just better people than we are...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
No sir, they are not. They are simply vastly smaller countries with smaller populations. The number of illegals here are larger than the population of Denmark and 2/3rd's the population of Sweden. Its about a third of the population of France.
Hardly a fair comparison I'd say.
Aside from that, its no longer true in France. I'd have to look up the others.
nwfisher
Thats true. Of course it has to be paid for. Every single time an uninsured person goes to an emergency room or gets tratment they can't pay for, its simply written off and the loss is spread over the paying customer's. Hence the $30.00 asprin.
We have no uninsured in our country, thats a lie. They can all get healthcare and do. Its just extremely expensive and inefficient and leads to deaths that could easily and inexpensively been prevented.
Removing the excess of paperwork from the system, removing the non-productive elements from our system....study after study has shown we would be paying less.
Don't confuse single payer with government socialized medecine. Two very different things. Check it out.
I wish to contradict the statement that there are no uninsured in this country.
I am one. I am not poor. I own a home. I drive a hybrid. I work. But I have no health coverage and cannot afford to pay for it. Should I get sick, I tough it out.
Once I had health coverage that of course didn't cover everything, and it took me eight years to pay off the cost of a broken leg. I am currently in my third year of paying for dental work.
I am very middle class (the Nouveau Poor) and know of literally hundreds of women like myself with white collar jobs that don't pay particularly well and provide no benefits.
A single-payer situation would give both small and large business owners a great boost too, would create tens of thousands of new clinics that specialize in prevention, and would bring in hundreds of thousands more jobs to care for our aging population as we creep towards not being able to work or care for ourselves any more. The administrative bureaucracy would disappear as there would be one form--one! Think of it!
Canada runs its entire healthcare administrative system on one floor of one building, I've heard, not all the thousands of different insurance firms we have now in the U.S.A. Those displaced insurance workers could get jobs providing instead of denying healthcare--what a concept.
Seaseal
www.mixtla.blogspot.com
Seaseal
I wish to contradict the statement that there are no uninsured in this country.
"I am one. I am not poor. I own a home. I drive a hybrid. I work. But I have no health coverage and cannot afford to pay for it. Should I get sick, I tough it out."
Perhaps I should have said, "no one without health care" rather than "no uninsured" You simplyb have to go to an emergency room if you get sick. They cannot and will not refuse to treat you. Dental work is different of course.
You are exactly the reason we should have a single payer system.
She has access to emergency health care, that's it, and she'll be lucky if the ER isn't overcrowded and demanding a long wait which could worsen a medical emergency. Not preventative, not routine, not a thousand other forms of care, and as you said, not dental. You can't go to the emergency room to get a cholesterol check, for example.
Very true, but that wasn't my point. Medical care is there for everyone.
But as you point out in your list, its not what we need or should have. We are the only industrialized country in the world that is still in the dark ages in providing medical care to our citizens. All our citizens....and we pay more for the privilage.
.You are a bit of a broken record, Mr. Fisher. The facts abound and if you opened your eyes you might even see them. Single Payer Health Care is LESS EXPENSIVE, not just for those who participate in it but for YOU TOO.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Great article. I'll suggest it on Change.org.
I contacted my congressman by email and by phone. I asked for a response if he declined to co sponsor; to tell me why. I thought my Rep. was Emanuel Cleaver, but he is Sam Graves. Cleaver a Democrat from Kansas City had already co- sponsored; Graves, a Republican from a rural area north of K.C. had not. Most voters up here don't seem to want UHC, but for the usual propaganda reasons: higher taxes, government flawed management, Socialism, longer waits, poorer doctors, etc. This country needs an education; and not from MSM, although I don't see how information can be mass broadcast to the general public without it. Maybe a prime time documentary paid for and produced by pro Single Payer organizations, but with an honest pro and con debate that will hold the interest of a sound bite oriented audience. Before there is any vote, there had better be some education, otherwise the public will not have the clout needed to over ride the lobbyists. A miracle is needed!
Sioux Rose
JOHNTWO DOGS: Love the idea about a special program, but probably Fox viewers would be pre-empted from watching it. They'd hear it was devil worship or socialism or whatever pox the liars could use to derail any possibility of educating the ones most in the need to be in the know.
Jeevee
If single payer health insurance is not the solution, why is it so popular in Canada?
Ask the US auto manufacturers who've relocated to Canada. They can pay the workers good wages because they don't have to pay for their healthcare. This is a surtax on every American manufacturer who cares about such things. American industry can't compete when companies have to fund the (increasingly limited) healthcare they provide for their workers. The makers of the goods we import from other industrialized countries don't.
Rainborowe
Ah, it works.
Rickster
Although I strongly support Single payer Medicare for all, realistically
it will ultimately cut a lot of unproductive jobs. All those clerks, Administrators,
Call Center people in Drs. Offices, Hospitals, Insurance companies will mostly be out of work. There won't be a need for a couple "Insurance specialists" for every Drs Office to wrestle with Health Insurance companies for payments. There will still be a need for some to deal with Medicare payments but not nearly at the current level.
And there won't be the need for the enormous army of clerks and others and in particular hugely paid Corporate executives mostly paid to deny medical payments.
But there will be MORE need for productive healthcare professionals to provide the
medical care now more open to all. However even this if it leads to
better preventive care should be more productive and will probably reduce
crisis medical care demand.
Numerous studies have shown that European countries are as productive as the US
even though they have medical care, pensions, shorter work weeks, etc.
I wonder if the greatly improved productivity of their healthcare system unencumbered by the 30% corporate insurance bureaucratic waste has a lot to do with that.
Of course the other reason for increased productivity in Europe is not having
the gargantuan $1 Trillion war waste spending of the US...
Another major source of unproductive wasted labor and resources..
"Numerous studies have shown that European countries are as productive as the US
even though they have medical care, pensions, shorter work weeks, etc."
Not a one is even close. Their productivity per worker (except for Norway) is lagging.
This is the best breakdown I've seen.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml
Productivity growth is another BOGUS measurement like GDP growth.
1>The article fails to mention that Americans work MORE hours without pay then peoples in other countries. This has been well established with WAL mart as example having to pay fines for asking workers to show up 30 minutes earlier and work 30 minutes longer yet still paying for an 8 hour day. That extra hour then becomes FREE and appears to have been produced during the 8 hour workday.
Thats an instant 15 percent productivity gain.
2>The measurements measure total "wealth" per hour. Where? On a factory floor ?Does this include as example packaging up CDOS in the back of some back and reselling them over and over watching their VALUE inflate while little of substance is produced? Remember a lot of wealth produced in America over the past decade was due to artifically created bubbles..how does this affect "Wealth created per hour" when measuring productivity?
3>Let us pretend just as example that we measure ONLY health care. How do you compare "wealth" produced from one jurisdiction to another? You pay 30 bucks for an Aspirin in a US Hospital. I pay 12 cents in a Canadian Hospital. Does this mean your Hopital is more productive?
There are all manner of problems with productivity measurements just as there are comparing unemployemnt rates, or GDP growth Jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/29/2352458.pdf
This PDF file explains a lot of the problems with measuring productivity and especially when doing so on a country to country basis.
One of the big questions of course is "What is WEALTH and how do we measure it"?
If my cost IN is higher because I pay a higher wage....and or have to protect the enviroment and in another country wages are lower and there no enviromental protections.....If we BOTH produce the same good and sell it for the same price, the jurisdiction with lower costs IN (Lower wages less enviromental protections) wins the productivity race.
The simple answer to this is the fact that we work longer and harder usually, but per hour our output is higher than any other country.
That is a simple fact. Now the discussion should be, is that a good thing?
Since the GROWTH-cheerleading economic models which rule the capitalist world are so out of touch with biophysical reality, I question this economic assumption also - that more "productivity" (and it may be measured very faultily) is a good thing.
As just one criticism: do "productivity" measurements take into account the harm from worker stress, for example? It stands to reason that more "productive" workers may be put under more stress.
No it is not a simple fact for reasons givem.
It a meaningless stat when the variables are not consistent from place to place. Garbage in, Garbage out,
So you believe we became the wealthiest nation on earth by accident? That our economy is what it is by accident?
Forget the damage of the last 12 years....
Its called THEFT.
There are a whole lot of people who get rich by STEALING.
Rome became the richest nation on earth, not because its people worked harder, but because it was best at stealing another nations wealth.
Do YOU really think the British Empire at ITS height got there because their people were so very productive and the Indians of the Indian subcontinent just lazy?
Damn you are dependable. Of all the American haters here, you are consistant and honest. I appreciate it. Truly.
Sponsored by a major news corporation which is owned by the fifty rich who own most of the major industries in this country. Hey I'll set on your board of directors if you will sit on my board of directiors and we can tell anybody we want what we want them to believe.
If you believe anything you hear from CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and almost all the news media outlets inside this country you probably believe pigs fly.
Rickster
First, I believe this to be true because I know that it is true. Its one of the things that makes us different.
Second, everything in the MSM is not a lie just as everything on Air America and PBS isn't a lie.
No they pretty well tell the truth about Hollywood movie stars and Obama's trouble with picking out a dog. When it comes to things that are important though like single payer health care, benefits of a living wage, corporate control of the airways, reasons for going to war, who is the best choice for the American people for president, etc. You can't believe nothing they say.
Rickster
At the very least, we the people should have the right to freely choose between single-payer and for-profit health insurance.
That's fine, but if the system is set up well and is adequately funded, it would provide better benefits at far lower cost. (Per-capita US health expenditures are hundreds of percent higher than Canada, France or the UK).
so, why would anyone want private insurance?
One thing we difinitely want to avoid is a system like curent day US Medicare has turned into, where coverage is poor unless one buys supplemental insurance and the hated part D forced private prescription plan system.
Health care coverage and quality should also not vary with how rich someone is.
These proposals to mix private coverage in with public coverage are almost always part of schemes by neoliberal economists to deliberately defund and slowly privatize medical insurance. To the extent that this is going on in Canada is largely the source of complaints about the system. I understand there was a similar "sabotage-and-privatize" scheme under the Howard government in Australia.
If anything, even "single payer" is too meek. Better that we go to a fully socialized national health system like the UK or France. France is generally regarded as having the best healthcare and measures of health in the world - at a per capita cost far lower than the US.
But for this to work in the US, it would require big changes in the cost of medical care - free medical school education (so doctors don't face such staggering personal debts) a reigning in of malpractice costs and lowered salaries for doctors.
Come to think of it, the above things may be requred for single-payer to work as well.
---USAn---
"But for this to work in the US, it would require big changes in the cost of medical care - free medical school education (so doctors don't face such staggering personal debts)"
I can go for that. Lets also add free vo-tech training for anyone who wants it. I won't mind if there are some strings attached such as if you quit the class before it's over you pay for it.
"a reigning in of malpractice costs"
No I wouldn't support fixed payouts but would support heavy regulations of the malpractice insurance companies with price limits on how much legal fees can be charged by both sides.
"lowered salaries for doctors."
There is probably going to have to be some kind of limits. This is a touchy subject. I'm not sure how to control total cost. Some will say let the market decide but as we have seen in the market today that doesn't work when the people controlling the market get greedy and set minimum prices.
The free market system would work as long as you didn't allow major corporations to form in the medical care system. That's the biggest problems we have to day is major corporations have tight control over the market and set the prices for everybody else. There is no real competition in the market today.
Rickster
rickster469
"a reigning in of malpractice costs"
Texas passed a tort reform for malpractice awards because malpractice insurasnce costs were getting too high. Damages limited....insurance premiums went up....profit to the insurance companies went up.
Only loser...Texans.
"Damages limited....insurance premiums went up....profit to the insurance companies went up."
Insanity. In every state that I've read about that passed tort reform for malpratice the same thing has happened. Our politicians are being paid off, that's all there is to it. Any time you take away the rights of people to be justly treated the major corporations take advantage of it. If I had my way all major corporations would be broken up into smaller units and never be allow to merge again.
Rickster
"If I had my way all major corporations would be broken up into smaller units and never be allow to merge again."
I'm not holding my breath for that one either. But we CAN put them buck on the leash of regulation and real oversight again.
And punish a Corporation that offshores job's while rewarding one that create or keeps jobs here under the tax code.
Malpractice involves yet another form of insurance, but essentially the same problem right? - middleman insurer's goal is profit, jacking up this cost for the insured (doctors in this case) in an inefficient, bloated system.
Offhand, then, it seems the government should be the malpractice "insurer", and this reform should be part of the package with the whole health care reform. Strict oversight of doctors would help with this goal, and at the same time get rid of ridiculous malpractice suit awards, which to my understanding mostly isn't a problem in western European countries, for example (and where doctors are paid less than in the US).
Oh I agree for those who can afford and want to pay into the for profit health care insurance system. No one is advocating the removal of the private for profit health care system.
I would like to see public funded hospitals and basic care centers expanded though.
Rickster
You don't. You still pay the taxes to support it because it's in your interest not to have people running around you carrying bubonic plague, Ebola virus and so on. And because, while you can choose not to use the public system, you will almost certainly need it at some time whether for emergency care in case of an accident or specialized care not provided by your fancy over-priced private resort clinics (because the investment is far greater than its usage would justify to its shareholders, who wouldn't want their stock going down).
Sometimes I'm ashamed to be an American.
Rainborowe
.If you thought long and hard you might come to the conclusion that our inefficient health care system is actually costing you money, you personally, and in many ways in fact.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee
Too late, the Iish Texas mafia figured that out long ago. And if they pass the house version of SCHIPS its going to cost me a lot more.
Give me single-payer or I'm gonna die!
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
The current employer-based health insurance system run by corporate insurance companies impairs the ability of small business to compete with big corporations and the government itself.
At the same time the right wing is saying that small business is the growth engine and job creator, the right wing is creating tax policy and health insurance rules and incentives that prevent small business from being able to compete with big corporations, and creating impediments for US corporations to compete with corporations from the rest of the industrialized world that doesn't have employer-based insurance.
The right wing is full of hot air. Haven't you figured that out yet?
The left wing was surgically removed years ago. All we have in this country is a right winged goose of a government. Maybe that should be right winged vulture.
Rickster
Sioux Rose
RAY D: Excellent analysis.
Is it just me, or is it not the government's job to redistribute wealth? A universal health care system is unfair to those who opt to not have insurance, who actually believe insurance is the part of the fraud. So having the government as one giant insurance company is backwards.
"Change in the government starts with the individual."
In all modern democracies, it IS the governments job to redustribute wealth through various means, from minimum wage laws to social benefit programs, to progressive graduated income taxes.
To see what things look like if government doesn't redistribure wealth, just go down to modern-day El-Salvador or Nicaragua, or dust off your copies of Charles Dickens, Upton Sinclair, or John Steinbeck.
---USAn---
Or just look at the USA today.
Rickster
You don't make any sense to me, maybe I'm missing something.
"is unfair to those who opt to not have insurance"
No body is proposing they have to use it. If they get sick and don't want to see a doctor that's their problem.
Rickster
I believe those who loose their jobs through the health care system transformation need to be factored into the analysis. Those providing insurance and administrative services make up a very large part of current services.
They could probably find jobs in all those small businesses that have to let their workers go because they can't afford to give them health insurance. That is a very big problem these days for small business owners. They really are the engine that drives big business and provides them with skilled workers. Unfortunately they can't keep the workers themselves even when they and the workers would like to stay.
Rainborowe
I've been trying to find out how many people are employed in the health insurance industries. I can't seem to find any on it. I would think the number is not all that large.
Rickster
Well half that many would probably still be needed in a single payer system. Somebody has got make sure the claims are valid, even doctors can be corrupt. The number of MD's, RN's, LPN's and other medical technicians would have to be increased. My understand is that was the main problem all the countries had when they went to every body covered health system.
Rickster
Medicare costs much less to run than private health-insurance. I've seen figures indicating that European-style single-payer systems cost 1/3 to 1/2 what US private healthcare costs. The difference is all those bloated insurance companies employing millions to shuffle papers, deny people payment and so on--while payingvast sums per year to the CEOs, of course. And, of course all those people handling the billing for the doctors.
Rainborowe
.Not even close:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm
Significant Points
* As the largest industry in 2006, health care provided 14 million jobs—13.6 million jobs for wage and salary workers and about 438,000 jobs for the self-employed.
* 7 of the 20 fastest growing occupations are health care related.
* Health care will generate 3 million new wage and salary jobs between 2006 and 2016, more than any other industry.
* Most workers have jobs that require less than 4 years of college education, but health diagnosing and treating practitioners are among the most educated workers.
......................
Lots more interesting facts there.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Where is the number employed by the for profit health insurance industry. Thats the number that will be affected by going to a government controlled single payer system.
Rickster
I am taking this article and perhaps the report and sending it off to every Congressional staff person I know.
It may help if all of you did the same.
And yes I agree completely Sioux Rose.
I have stated that eliminating/reducing toxics in our environment/oceans is the best preventative medicine for a decade or so even to the face of our good Senator Wyden.
We already know that a single-payer health care plan would benefit most Amerikkkans, but it will not happen because the ruling elite and their lackeys in the White House and Congress will not allow it.
We the People need to take back our government by whatever means necessary. Our government stopped meeting the needs of the People and now cater only to the corporations.
Terms limits and publicy-financed elections NOW.
Cavedweller
"We already know that a single-payer health care plan would benefit most Amerikkkans, but it will not happen because the ruling elite and their lackeys in the White House and Congress will not allow it."
A single payer syatem would benefit all Americans, but I must disagree, it can happen with enough pressure. It may happen. Does Obama want more than one term? Lets see.
Thomas:
I hope you're right, but I don't have that much confidence in Barack Obama. After all, even W. Bush was "elected" twice.
I believe that our system of government is so corrupt that unless the entire system is revamped, the corporations will continue to dictate policy.
Cavedweller
My fingers are crossed when it comes to Obama! I believe we have to have single payer, but the insurance companies will be hard to defeat, but I know we can.
I believe the start of cleaning the corruption out of our government has already begun. I don't think they know it yet. We'll see.
.Take a moment to reflect on the culture of Washington DC, with special interest on K Street. The health care industry in this nation is a multi-billion dollar cash cow at the same time that it is a major fiasco in actually providing such care.
How has it managed to escape scrutiny at the highest levels up until today? The statistics are there for all to see, especially those elected officials with staff that exists just to find such useful data. Data such as:
1. we spend many times more on health care than the number two nation.
2. we rank 37th in the providing of said care ( Cuba is 39th)
3. we rank 13th in infant mortality ( for cripes sake!)
4. 50% of all bankruptcies are health care related ( folks who thought they were covered until they actually needed care)
5. Even though the govt ( us) subsidizes research into prescription medication, and very heavily in fact, we pay more for medicines than anywhere else in this solar system.
So, ask yourself why it is that this continues to exist, ok so you already know. The payment of rather large sums of money to our legislators, junkets, golf trips, cruises, all fact finding of course, the writing of large and continuous campaign checks all go to ensure the continuation of both inferior care and deluxe pricing.
I do not have to criticize Barack Obama, or say he has no real plan to make our health care system more inclusive and less costly, I only have to note that our system reeks and guarantees that your fingers will remain crossed for a very long time...So long in fact that you will have to go to your HMO to get them uncrossed, find out you are not covered for that and sell your home for the treatments necessary.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee
What you said doubled.
Except I'm not trusting Obama to do this, I'm trusting the American people to get it done. Not easy, not fast, painful, but I believe we will get it done. Because this is truly a different time from before.
Fortunately we have a Doctor in the family, so free finger uncrossing. As long as I haven't offended her that week.
.I have always believed that ultimate power resides with th epeople. But I see an increasing apathy and willingness to be swindled as well as a growing fear that any changes might cost in lifestyles and taxes. We are increasingly susceptible to the lies of those who refuse to allow their huge profits to be tampered with, and our new president gives me no great sense of hope.
I would be very, very happy to eat my words these next few months, very happy indeed.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I know you would (without salt even). Though it may take longer than a few months.
If you are not wrong, we are finished as a nation. We will end up as one bunch of "consumers" without borders just as the Corporations and their flunkies have been planning.
.In truth, Thomas, I believe that we may certainly be in the decline and fall of the American Empire....I see little to hope for in the under educated, uninvolved and selfish folks that are the majority of our population.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
My fingers are crossed when it comes to Obama!
I hope you're not holding your breath?
Rickster
Rickster
Not for anyone inside the beltway.