Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Paradox of US Healthcare
For nearly two decades, Wendell Potter led a very comfortable life as a public relations health insurance executive.
![[Protesters stage a crime-scene-like "body pile-up" to show the poor state of US health care in Los Angeles, October 6. (AFP/File/Mark Ralston)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/healthcareparadox.jpg "healthcareparadox.jpg")
However, while flying on a corporate jet and being served lunch on
gold-rimmed china with gold-plated cutlery, Potter had an epiphany of
sorts.
He realised that the reason why millions of Americans were without health insurance or under-insured was because: "Our Wall Street-driven healthcare system has created one of the most inequitable healthcare systems on the planet."
This June, Potter left his well-paid and secure job at CIGMA, one of the US's largest health insurance companies, and has spoken out in favour of healthcare reform.
'Killing thousands'
With almost 50 million people living without any health insurance and another 25 million people under-insured during a recession, the debate about how to reform the US healthcare system has been underway for many months in Washington and is expected to continue through to the end of the year.
Potter become a whistleblower and is now speaking out against industry abuses on national television news shows.
He does not mince words when telling Al Jazeera that if a strong "public option" is not passed by Congress, healthcare executives would be effectively allowed to continue policies that "literally kill thousands of Americans every year, through denied coverage, as a result of relentless pressure coming from Wall Street".
The public option, currently favoured by the White House, would attempt to insure the uninsured, with the government providing a non-profit, publicly-funded insurance plan.
The public option, however, has not been fully vetted and passed by Congress and Republicans, coupled with a number of Democratic allies, have vowed to prevent it from reaching the desk of Barack Obama, the US president.
Paying more, getting less
In the meantime, the US continues to be the country with the highest proportion of uninsured people in the developed world. It also has the distinction of spending a greater portion of its total economic output on healthcare than any other developed country - just over 17 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) last year.
On average, the US spends twice as much as other developed countries on healthcare.
But even though US citizens pay more for healthcare, they get less of it, resulting in a lowly 37th place ranking among healthcare systems in the world, according to a study by the World Health Organization based on quality and fairness.
In terms of the infant mortality rate, a common marker for the overall state of healthcare systems, the US was outranked by all of the following countries according to the CIA's World Factbook: Sweden (3rd), Japan (4th), France (7th), Norway (10th), Germany (14th), Israel (17th), Denmark (21st), United Kingdom (31st), Canada (35th), Taiwan (39th), Italy (41st) and even a few underdeveloped countries, including Cuba (43rd).
How can this paradox of the US spending the most and getting the least for its healthcare occur in the country with the world's largest economic output?
Claudia Schaufan, an Argentine physician and professor of comparative health policies at the University of California in Santa Cruz, explains that the common characteristics of healthcare systems in the developed world have to do with the universality of coverage and the lack of for-profit entities.
The key behind each of these systems is that they all outperform the US in terms of their infant mortality rates, administrative costs, the extent of population with coverage and the proportion of GDP spent on healthcare.
Furthermore, there are no documented instances of citizens going bankrupt because of medical care in these systems while, conversely, some studies have shown as many as 700,000 Americans suffer that fate annually.
'Making a buck'
One grouping of healthcare systems can be described as socially insured and multi-payer (Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Israel, Belgium and Austria), another as socially insured and single-payer (Taiwan and Canada), and a third as nationally insured and delivered (United Kingdom, Spain, all of Scandinavia, Italy and Iceland).
Socially insured and multi-payer systems feature health insurance delivered by non-profit insurers. Those who are unemployed or cannot afford to pay for the insurance, receive governmental assistance so that universal coverage is achieved.
Certain multi-payer countries have a wide choice of insurance programmes, as is the case in Germany. When you choose a private, non-profit insurer - Germany has 240 of them - the government pays a portion of the costs based on your income.
Developed countries with one national insurer that is funded publicly - often described as single-payer - have a healthcare system that is delivered by either private (as is the case in Canada) or publicly-run institutions (as is the case in all of Scandinavia).
While these systems differ in their specific characteristics, the similarities are more important, according to Schaufan.
"Everyone has health insurance and there is no significant for-profit aspect in any part of the medical sector ... nobody in these systems 'makes a buck' at the expense of the health of patients," she says.
Learning from others
Taiwan, which spends three times less than the US on healthcare, developed its current healthcare system in the mid-1990s, when the majority of citizens were uninsured and policymakers collectively decided the health system needed to be radically overhauled. However, the Taiwanese looked to other countries to forge their own system.
Asked what the proposed US reforms show in terms of learning from other examples, Naoki Ikegami, a leading Japanese healthcare economics professor, says simply: "Not much, because there has to be a willingness to learn and if anything, US leaders have isolated themselves from learning about other healthcare systems."
Professor Ikegami's co-author on numerous scholarly publications, John Campbell, an American-born political science professor, says: "The reforms being proposed in the US simply do not fix or get at the heart of the problem, which is price containment and unsustainable healthcare costs.
"The US would stand to gain a lot from going to a single-payer system, where costs could easily be contained and controlled."
Failing millions
In terms of for-profit and corporate healthcare interests influencing policy in universally insured systems, however, the situation is quite different.Campbell says: "Insurance companies have a very small presence here in Japan and simply do not influence policy at all. The exact opposite is the case in the US where they basically dictate policy."
Potter explains that the situation in the US is a far-cry from that in Japan, as a result "of the lobbying strength of the for-profit, special interests in this country".
Consequently, Potter describes current reforms being considered by Congress as little more than "limited" in their scope.
Schaufan is also critical, adding that for most people, the measures being debated in Washington will be little more than "mandates forcing people to take on for-profit-based insurance companies, which already depend upon the government to cleanse itself from having to cover the elderly and the poor, through the popular Medicare and Medicaid programmes".
She believes the US should adopt more fundamental reforms putting it in line with the rest of the developed world that has opted for universal coverage within the scope of non-profit-based and administered systems.
Potter echoes Schaufan's sentiments: "The system has already failed millions of Americans and will continue to fail millions more in the years to come."
Other experts, however, disagree and point out that trying to rid the US of its profit-based system is unrealistic.
Timothy Jost, a healthcare policy expert and law professor at Washington and Lee University, says: "I would like to have world peace, but I just don't think we're going to get rid of a for-profit healthcare system."
He says there are several significant steps Congress can take by passing meaningful reforms, including "the expansion of Medicaid, as all reform bills are currently proposing that Medicaid would be expanded to 133 per cent of the poverty line".
Jost also points to "affordability subsidies, which would take care of a sizable portion of the population and help put limits on cost-sharing, which will cover most of the people who are under-insured".
Cost-sharing transfers much of the burden of paying for healthcare to insured consumers and is a significant reason why many people are under-insured and many others have to declare medical bankruptcy, despite having insurance.
What the public wants
Despite Jost's optimism about some of the reforms under consideration, the public opinion polls suggest a possible disconnect between politicians and the reforms they are proposing and what the public really wants from their healthcare system.
Based on a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, the New York Times reported that, "most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and said the government could do a better job of holding down healthcare costs than the private sector".
Another recent ABC News/Washington Post poll documented public support for governmental insurance going even farther, as 56 per cent supporting the idea even if it meant running corporate insurers out of business.
What is even clearer than the apparent gulf that exists between public opinion and the limited reforms being considered, however, is that the US stands alone among other developed countries in terms of its profit-driven and industry-dictated healthcare system.
53 Comments so far
Show All"56 per cent supporting the idea even if it meant running corporate insurers out of business'
What amazes me is that apparently 44% are wedded to the idea of continuing to be ripped off.
This is a great article, but it preaches to the choir. We all know these things already, except for the people that just don't want to know, and wish to cling to their cold-war brainwashing by calling everyone a 'socialist', as if capitalism has a damned thing to do with democracy. It's time to stop playing nice, and bi-partisanship be damned. The Republicans never cared a whit for bi-partisanship when they controlled both houses, the judiciary, and the executive. They simply thumbed their noses at those they saw as 'sore losers'.
The fact remains that the poor state of health care in the U.S. annually costs more lives (domestically) than 'terrorism' (as the U.S. prefers to vaguely define it) does globally. But then just about everything kills more people than terrorists, and it is par for the course that we would throw trillions of dollars fighting an indefinite ghost. Capitalists love collecting tax dollars that have no defined goal, other than squashing democracy of course.
That's fascism for you. Anyone that wants something in return for their taxes besides more police, more bombs, and more wars, is obviously a commie socialist. I wish people would get it through their heads that every single government, every single law, was created as a socialist endeavor, (theoretically) to protect the people without regard for race, religion, social status, or economic status. The instant those things become factors you have fascism. Even capitalism, as defined by the dictionary, requires a fair and democratically regulated system in order to function, or it is NOT capitalism, much less free (FREE) enterprise.
Conservadems in Congress will kill the bill if there is a public option. Another paradox is the conservative so-called pro-life people who are against a health care reform bill such as a single-payer which will save American lives. What we need is a foreign country to deny Americans health care then Americans would spend trillions of their tax dollars to fight the foreign nation to save American lives from the evil foreigners who would deny Americans health care. We are Americans and we stick together and care and support each other but only if it is a foreign enemy threatening our fellow Americans and we can show off our super power military and kick some ass.If Americans are suffering and dying from the common enemy of disease then tough!They do not want their taxes going to a single-payer fund to help all sick or injured Americans only to a pentagon fund for a military might to protect our freedom to deny millions of citizens health care.
I'd be satisfied with the Canadian system. Have lived in British Columbia and also Alberta. No problems with the Canadian system. All the scare tactics are only meant to make people afraid of change and willing to go baa baa baa like sheep on the back road herded into pens and confined there dependent on the "mercy" of the ones who have confined them. How about creating some change by being courageous like Potter who is shining the light on the truth of our situation and letting us know we don't have to put up with it. We know deep down that we must be the ones who will have to work for change but we are avoiding and denying that we are pointing the finger every which way and exempting our own selves by not looking at our own inactivity. Time to get off our collective butts and understand that we have the power but we're giving it away.
"The key behind each of these systems is that they all outperform the US in terms of their infant mortality rates, administrative costs, the extent of population with coverage and the proportion of GDP spent on healthcare."
Yes, that is the key. Since those that presently profit from our health insurance racket are mostly upper class and have practically no infant mortality concerns, our legislators ignore our problems. Notice also that henry8 hasn't posted. He sees Al Jaz and feels it is unpatriotic to read such "anti-American" propergander.
As to the fellow that doesn't trust our government and mentions our bribed legislators, tell me Lex, do you have the same views about the military? They have EVERYTHING run by the government. On bases, you have a socialist nirvana. Everyone has a job, everyone needs permission to do just about anything. Even bicycles need ID stickers. You don't own your house and you must pass inspection every year. Medical, dental care and recreation facilities are free. Schooling with books included and summer camp for kids are all free. Everything runs like clockwork and NOBODY makes a profit who is in uniform. This system dwarfs many others in government costs. Now if the government can do this for military families, what makes you think it can't do it for the rest of us?
AGG, thank you for asking that question and it is my pleasure to answer it. First off, I don't believe that the US should be meddling with foreign affairs and that includes too much war and trade. Government is not handling spending correctly on military itself. They are giving too much money to the contractors and from what some of my neighbors whose sons and daughters have been serving, more privatization is on the way. We must cut down military spending first.
Next, we would have to figure out how government manages its spending on health care for everyone. The socialism you describe about the military is surprising. Nobody ever told me that. Except for the bicycle ID, not being allowed to own a home, and not earning money, I might accept such a socialism. Since everything else is free, I might not mind making money but I might want to make more just to donate to charity but if nobody is poor from this system then I guess getting tempted into making profits is immoral.
I do not see how we will attain a socialist model that can be acceptable until we first shrink the corporate lobbyists who are tied to Congress and White House. I don't know if this is possible but my idea is to get people to get doctors to do away with insurance companies and reduce those profits so that the insurance giants will be unable to control Congress with money. If Congress has no ties to the corporate interests, shouldn't it be possible for them to apply socialism nationally because people will ask them if no insurance company is around?
With regards to the military having socialism, I am assuming that you are not talking about the contractors who are part of some of the military operations. I thought that the military is already getting privatized by those big military contractors such as Bechtel, Halliburton, etc... I might not be seeing this correctly so let me know.
Lex Thomas sez: "I do not see how we will attain a socialist model that can be acceptable until we first shrink the corporate lobbyists who are tied to Congress and White House. I don't know if this is possible ..."
***
Perhaps with massive doses of chemotherapy and radiation. They can be effective at shrinking cancers.
I hear you. Right, I was NOT talking about contractor leaches infiltrating the miliTary. KPR and the like are scammers. But the problem of the military is huge. I agree that the military has no business defending corproate interests (e.g. big oil) in foreign countries and then tell us it's about national security. Our military should be a national guard, period. I'm sure you and I agree that a 90% reduction to our pentagon budget would be just what the doctor ordered for our country right now. They health care fiasco is sort of a brobong competion between different categories of crooks and liars.
That said HR 676 forces the corporate crooks to deal honestly with people AND doctors.
Even the Constitution Party who I used to support before I switched out calls for serious cuts in the military budget. I was thinking the same on HR 676. I don't know who is to blame for keeping HR 676 out of discussion, the insurance giants, the politicians themselves, or both. After the obvious that happened this year, I'm even more skeptical of government. Some say we should pass 676 first and then the insurance giants will be tamed. I was thinking that the insurance giants need to be stripped of their profits by getting consumers and doctors to pull out so that the insurance companies won't have the money to control Congress and Congress can't make excuses. It could be a long shot if most doctors are not ready to give up their insurance companies so the idea might not work.
Lex,
Well, I see various undercurrents going through the "lobbyslature" right now:
1) Bribing (lobbying) is legal so the bribers call the tune.
2) The bribers are at Wall/war street along with the insurance corporations.
3) We, the people, are screaming because of the unprecedented erosion of our buying power (for anything, not just health care) due to the economic crisis caused by the investment banks.
4) We, the people, are tired of the run around and gaming. Congress has responded by running faster and making the gaming more devious. The media is heavily involved.
5) We, the people, aren't buying it. Congress and the White House know this and have gone back to their bosses (the bribers) in the hope of getting approval to throw us a crumb or two.
6) The bribers say "No way Jose".
7) So we are eyeball to eyeball and the bosses aren't budging.
What to do? If you can negotiate cheaper health care directly with a doctor without having insurance, I would certainly do it. Forcing all of us to have insurance is the bait and switch that congress is pushing and calling it health care. Insurance is one thing and health care is another. At any rate, unlike what they did to us with car insurance, I don't think forced health insurance is enforceable.
As far as cleaning out congress, I would love to. If most people are as bent out of shape as I am about the government whore house, they will be all replaced with a few axceptions like Kucinich. Just look at what that asshole Watts from NC did to the "audit the fed" bill by Ron Paul. He gutted it. Watts is a Democrat. The corporate bribing is rampant.
The rightwing Republicans say that HR3200 will force people to buy health care which appears to be that way. Most people who vote Republican hate government. Some of them support Ron Paul. Paul's move to audit the fed is very popular. They're going to be real mad at the KY Democrats if they hear what Watts did. I found a link on Alternet on Paul's bill support:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/
I googled the gutting part. With the foreign banks getting exemptions, the Republicans can easily make a national security case against the Democrats if they get nasty next year. Paul is planning to amend the bill to restore what Watt killed. Ron Paul should have won the Republican nomination.
I think Canada should build a border fence to keep all the illegal US ailiens from coming up here for health care.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
I'm digging a moat.
Actually, they wouldn't like it hear.
We don't allow those guns and -40° is the same whether Celsius or Fahrenheit.
What good does it do to attack corporations when its the parasites who own these pieces of paper that are robbing the public blind? Aren't shareholders fully responsible for the carnage?
could private property be largely responsible?
Jeevee
WHY IS THE TAX BREAK INCOME SET SO HIGH?? $250,000 is an exorbitant figure!
A little too honest about America's f**ked up health care system. No wonder the US bombed Al Jazeera. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#United_States)
When will the US government calculate how much income tax revenue it is going to be LOSING due to 700,000 annual personal bankruptcies, business closures & outrageously high unemployment rates?
The wealthy individuals & corporations continue to get tax breaks.The middle class does not have enough of its declining income to pay the tax $$ that the government needs to operate. The norm is to "borrow from Peter to pay Paul". Peter is BROKE! Peter has no more money to give. Your government spent your retirement savings bailing out the wealthy.
Complete financial collapse in America is beating on the door. Of ALL the spending of the US government, universal health care (single-payer) is the best financial bargain there is. Greed & arrogance prevent Congress from doing what is best for the people. They are sleeping with the enemy.
Do the homeless pay income or property taxes? The number of homeless people is on the rise.
Those lucky enough to have a roof over their heads can barely afford to patch the roof or provide heat & light, let alone health insurance. Children go without clothing, shoes and food. Food prices are rising due to corporate greed and agribusiness. The foods they produce are laced with toxins, hormones, are genetically modified and they are poisoning you, your water and air. That sounds like torture to me.
America is fast becoming a third-world country and your government officials don't give a damn.
Naoki Ikegami sez: "... there has to be a willingness to learn and if anything, US leaders have isolated themselves from learning about other healthcare systems."
***
Pay no attention to that man behind the Canadian border!
The great and powerful insurance lobbyist has spoken!
Paying more and getting less is a paradox only if you refuse to recognize that being ripped off is an integral part of life in the USA, the land not of Lincoln but of Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Wanker Bush, Cheesedick Cheney and Barack Obama.
Well said. The people that pay less and get more are those on the top. The ones that pay more and get less are the other 90%. Those fucking politicians love their word games.
>>A follow-up report, published in the Sunday edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, says the emergency declaration issued by The White House has more to do with Medicare and Medicaid regulations dealing with hospitals. With the national emergency declared, hospitals have more flexibility to set up separate or even outdoor treatment areas.
>>The emergency appears to deal more with hospitals and their ability to get paid by federal health authorities. An article in the New York Times confirms that federal rules do not allow hospitals to establish treatment areas more than 250 yards from emergency rooms. "Tents are 300 yards or more away, typically federal dollars won't go to pay for treatment."
>>So the emergency appears to be financial – making sure hospitals meet federal requirements so they can get paid by Medicaid or Medicare, rather than any true health crisis.
President Obama declared a National emergency in regards to the "Swine Flu Crisis".
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi129.html
I believe the author of this article makes a very good point. This "Emergency" will allow more PROFITS in the form of tax dollars to flow INTO the Private for Profit health care system.
It demonstrates clearly how a FOR PROFIT system of health care is manipulated by the powers that be to maximize profit margins of those same groups who in turn pour money into election campaigns.
The way this whole US health care fiasco it turning out & my approaching middle age (mid-40's) has me quite discouraged. So discouraged that I may very well have to ape my mother who went back to her native country, Belgium, because it could provide her the health care she needed and could not afford she in the USA even though she holds a green card. Now I am seriously considering applying for Belgian citizenship as well.
Can you obtain Belgian residency easily because of your family connection? I'm very jealous of people in such positions.
I already qualify for Belgian residency, as I had resided in the country before my family emigrated (Dad, US citizen) for the length of time called for by statue. An EU passport is better, because one then has the right to live and work in any EU country, and are eligible for the social benefits (including health care) of their country to be delivered no matter their place of residence within the EU's borders.
An FYI to American CD habituates with EU country roots: research said country(s) citizenship statues. Quite a few allow for descendants of immigrants to take out citizenship (Italy, Poland, & Germany are amongst those). Of course, each country is different and has diverse procedures to go through (Belgium's is no walk in the park).
I appreciate that Al Jazeera, unlike our media, is at least covering this debate, but their expert making the article fair and balanced needs a response. Timothy Jost thinks that getting rid of the cancerous profit-driven system is "unrealistic." He likens it to a fantasy of world peace.
If the country likes killing people for profit so much that it can't do without it, why not R E G U L A T E the industy? If there are no windfall profits, what is the harm in a windfall profits tax? If healthcare costs are strangling the rest of the economy, why not ban the cost of televison ads? Why do we have publicly traded companies with private companies embedded that siphon off profits? For example, why does CIT, bankrupt with a minimum cost to the taxpayer of $2.4B and publicly traded, have a private healthcare entitity? How can we even know, let alone control, legitimate costs when our Wall Street healthcare system is a sieve of hidden profits to private entities at cost to the public?
Next our expert considers "affordability subsidies" as a "significant step" toward fixing the existing problem. Not being an expert but just a dumb peasant, I wonder why Congress never considers that soon the entire non-Wall Street nation will need one of these. Why does no one in Washington consider that if we had jobs and were not sinking into poverty, we would not need the generosity of a subsidy.
Lastly, our astute apologist for giving the existing system another shot of taxpayer money says that by increasing the number of people who need a subsidy to "afford" healthcare we would solve the problem that "cost-sharing transfers much of the burden of paying for healthcare to insured consumers..." The existing too big to fail system has gotten this way by increasing the government subsidy while doing nothing to control the cost. The latest subsidy will do the same. The burden of insured customers is not a priority in the current reform.
Lastly, Jost thinks that somehow this will prevent peasants from having to declare bankruptcy due to having their bank accounts cleared out by another financial company. Is this part of the legislation or just a drive-by acknowledgement that the costs being paid by the many so that the few can live like royalty are unacceptable both economically and ethically? Even if limits on coverage are removed, are there any limits being placed on not making patients wards of the state before they qualify for even that amount of protection?
Taken to its natural conclusion, eventually you will be required to hand over your entire paycheck to your health insurance provider, and in return they promise not to kill your children.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
The taxpayers in the USA continue to pay 100% of the health care for ALL Israelis.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Who's getting less? Certainly not the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical drug pushers. There really is no paradox. Curing our ailing health system would be very easy: take the insurance companies out of the equation. If our Democrat president and his party who are now in power had more balls and less greed, they would 'take the cure'. Insurance companies who act the way ours do are outlawed in Europe. They are treated as criminals. It's time we got these rapacious criminals off our backs, and the greedy congress and cowardly president too.
W
I don't expect either one of my KY senators to support Sanders on single payer or the House of Representatives to pass HR676. Government can't get their spending right on anything and they want to kill the Constitution. I don't trust government to spend wisely so why would they support single payer if it forces them to spend wisely? Nor do I trust government to know anything about medicine or caring so why would they support single payer if they don't know medicine?
Meanwhile, more doctors are doing away with patients who rely on their insurance companies to pay the doctors because doctors can't count on insurance companies to pay up.
Why can't we just force more doctors to drop their ties to the insurance giants and let them shrink so that they won't get in the way of health care reform?
The US Government runs the Air Traffic Control system. It is the model used by all other countries for efficiency. All our interstates were built by the government. Most of our infrastructure was built by the government. Most of the research that led to semiconducter development and microprocessors was done by the government. The modern insulation in your house that gives R-18 or better comes from government research.
Don't believe the "private enterprise innovation" myth. It's not true. The reason it's out there is because corporations have slick PR departments continually reminding you that they invented the wheel, fire, sugar and spice and everything nice. The truth is that insiders in government sell the patents for a song to some corporate crook after we, the taxpayer, paid for the research. We also pay for all the research into dead ends. So you will invariably read some bullshit about "useless" government scientists, etc. You've been gamed by the corporate greedsters.
Ok ok, I see what you mean and I agree with the fact that government used to be efficient. My issue with government spending is that they are spending more money to privatize and outsource carelessly than they used to. The corporate interests own them lock, stock, and barrel that I don't feel that I can trust government. I wouldn't trust the ripoff corporations either and like the insurance giants, I was thinking of more people shrinking the profits of those corporate contractors so that government won't be lazy. I wasn't born when my parents, then Democrat, enjoyed the government of Eisenhower/Kennedy. I am under the impression that everything is privatized. If today's government is supporting privatization unlike yesterday's, then why should I trust it?
"If today's government is supporting privatization unlike yesterday's, then why should I trust it?"
Because the government happens to be chartered to serve the people, and after we do our civic duty, and purge the elite evil out of the government, and instill some everlasting fear of the rabble into government officials, then the government becomes trustworthy.
Lex,
I would say that privatization was a much hyped move to improve government efficiency. It was never anything of the kind. It was a corporate scam. Some upper level government employees benefited from the corruption. Most of them, like their private enterprise low and mid-level counterparts, just got screwed. All this is coming out now. Your parent's government was also riddled with corruption but it wasn't as blatant. At any rate, it's not about trusting the government. It covers so much territory. Do you trust Google? Do you trust IBM? When they say they'll provide free all the storage space you want for your data and they guarantee your privacy, do you believe them? The only backstop we have is the government and the laws it makes. The rest is mad max. Your target, my friend, must always be who is profiting most from all this corruption...Wall/War street. It sure as hell isn't the government rank and file employees.
I believe privatization will soon be in the toilet. Our government can't afford it due to the increased corruption, cost overruns and inefficiency..
I'm addicted to Google as the search engine but I have heard about some privacy issues before. I don't think I have used IBM for anything that I know of. I wouldn't store sensitive data on online storage. I hope you're right about privatization going in the toilet. As long as government doesn't bail them out, it should be on its way out.
Um, is this a sincere comment? I'm hoping it is a parody of right wing talk radio talking points. If not, then I respectfully suggest that the contributor would benefit from exploring this issue in greater depth.
Exactly what is rightwing about what I said? I have explored this issue in depth and I know the basics of the medical business realm while you go blowing your horn on politics. You are completely misunderstanding my point of view. I don't trust a government that can't learn to spend wisely to support single payer health care which would force them the spend wisely. I may be semi-conservative semi-progressive but I do support single payer. How do you expect Congress to break its ties to the giant insurance companies when they have all the money to dictate legislation. I don't trust government tied to giant insurance companies, do you? Do you know how insurance companies thrive? Didn't think so. Money doesn't come from outer space. They get their money from customers and they do business with doctors. If doctors did not support these same insurance giants, these giants would have gone broke because there would be no customers to find them useful. What is wrong with doctors who don't take patients tied to insurance giants? They want insurance giants out of their way too. I support single payer but I don't see any hope of it making it to the president's desk. Try showing some respect for doctors who don't believe in middlemen sir.
Lex, there are different ways to trim down the fat of Big Insurance but what you are proposing goes a little too far. There are greedy doctors out there even without Big Insurance. Sometimes, certain treatments, procedures, and surgeries can be expensive beyond a patient's affordability. Insurance companies are not doing their part to provide proper coverage for the patient or pay the doctors as you said. By changing to single payer, our tax dollars are going towards basic coverage for all. After that, there's supplemental insurance. I do agree that doctors need to break their ties from Big Insurance corps but providing single payer first will make it possible since patients would then be properly covered by government who would then have to pay the doctor straight up or get exposed. Big Insurance is all about privatized care which is why they play around with payments with all sorts of stalling tactics. You may be correct that government cannot get its spending priorities correct but it's better to put single payer first so that doctors can be trained to be sympathetic to insured patients.
Jennifer, I appreciate the kind reply. I have been skeptical of insurance in general. Cars, health, dental, you name it. I don't trust government when they are tied to highly paid lobbyists. I was thinking along the lines of recommending that the insurance giants be divested as much as possible so that they will be unable to stop Congress from passing medicare for all. Your plan of putting single payer first and easing the transition away from giant insurance companies to reduce their profits sounds like a compromise sort of. The problem I have is that Congress will have to let this happen and the Republicans and Blue Dogs will not make it easy unless we throw them out of office first.
Glad to help Lex. Most people don't like it when one says that they don't trust government in a libertarian-esque sounding manner. That might have been why you were mistaken as right wing. Just be careful in how you say it.
Btw, I don't think I have seen you here. Are you the same one I came across on Alternet? If so, pleased to see you again and I'm happy that you and Quannah worked things out. I hope she comes here to CD. In any case, welcome. :)
I will explain if I have to but I will not have anyone calling me rightwing.
Yes, I came from Alternet too. I still read the articles posts there but don't feel like posting much. The popularity seems to be low. I am very grateful for what Quannah, Pelican Beak, and Photon's Feather did to prove to me the fact that the Constitution Party is against the Constitution. I can't believe I voted for that party. I'll have to scratch that third party out. I can't stand the Republicans but I'm not seeing any hope in voting Democrat so I think I'll give the Green Party a try assuming that they believe in not trashing the Constitution unlike the Republicans and some Democrats.
I see a lot of young people on this site. Thanks for passing the word on CD. I hear Photon's Feather was here but doesn't show up as often. I would like to see Pelican Beak and Quannah here. They aren't as enthusiastic about third parties as most here are but they could learn a lot on this site.
As Dennis Kucinich pointed out on the Ed Show on Friday the current House bill allows insurers to raise premiums 25% IMMEDIATELY.
Kucinich is the only one pointing this out.
Plus, his state single-payer amendment has been stripped out.
Alan Grayson-(D) FL, who the media has made into the left's de-facto leader, supports this horrible sham of a bill.
Video Here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33556889#33556889
"Other experts, however, disagree and point out that trying to rid the US of its profit-based system is unrealistic.
Timothy Jost, a healthcare policy expert and law professor at Washington and Lee University, says: "I would like to have world peace, but I just don't think we're going to get rid of a for-profit healthcare system.""
People and statements like this prod me to grimly accept the fact that the US is hopelessly lost, and increase my resolve to get the hell out of here.
If you can get out of this country I would. I can't see how the entire economy won't come crashing down on us over the next few years. Our government officials have been bribed by big business lobbies are no longer capable of doing anything for the middle class. Because of the complete corruption of our government a crash is inevitable.
I agree. I have nowhere to go. The best we can hope for is a battle of blood an guts among our top predators to see who runs our dictatorship. While they are fighting, things might improve for a while.
As to health care,
I've resolved to continue my one hour excercise program each day for as long as I can so I never have to see a doctor again. I am obligated to go to a clinic twice a year for the pace-maker diagnostics but outside of that, I will not have any more doctors examining me for physicals or whatever.
Question: Why does it take a foreign news organization to publish basic and uncontroversial truths about the inadequacy and immorality of the US healthcare system?
Answer: Because our corporate-controlled media organizations are essentially lobbying organizations for the powerful, aimed at the American public rather than Congress.
Question: Then isn't this just organized crime, conspiracy to defraud the public, and (in the case of the misrepresentation of--and outright opposition to--meaningful healthcare reform) accessory to murder?
Answer: Yes.
Surprise Witness
I strongly recommend that you get your hands on The Healing of America: a Global Quest For a Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care System by T.R. Reid. Reid makes exactly the same points that this article does while going into greater depth concerning the health care systems of many of the countries cited in the article. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, even some [alleged] liberals such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have not had Reid on their shows so that he can inform the general public about his most relevant and important book.
The HCR bills winding their way through Congress are getting weaker and weaker as they go and more and more twisted into profit centers for the very Corps. that are @ the center of the problem. The problem is that although Congress and the WH know damn well what the public wants they don't care. DC is solidly in the hnads of the health care Mafia lobby and all the public opinion polls in hell won't change that.
You're exactly right! There's no getting around it. Despite all the talk and debating, NOTHING'S GOING TO CHANGE AS LONG AS THE HEALTHCARE MAFIA IS ALIVE AND WELL IN AMERICA.
That MAFIA includes all the health insurance companies and the filthy politicians who are in their pockets!!!!!
Unfortunately Obama's "health care reform" WILL change health care in America...for the worse. On top of all the existing problems getting worse, the uninsured will be criminalized and employees who work for a company with a high average age will be taxed on their medical insurance.
I agree. They did this same thing with car insurance. First they made lot's of noise about the efficiency of "no-fault" insurance. Then all the states proceeded to require everyone to have car insurance. Next they made this obligatory car insurance "affordable" by jacking up the deductible to the moon. What a deal! The insurance corpo-crooks have a captive market and the poorest get to pay for all their fender benders in addition to the insurance costs mandated by law.
Do you see a pattern here?
We are about to become a health insurance racket captive market with high deductibles thanks to the latest hired crook at the White House in cahoots with the congressional whore house.
This is the pattern:
1) We scream for reform.
2) Congress says they are for reform.
3) Congress forces us to cow-tow to lobbying crooks with mandated behavior that costs us more money and further limits our options (Congress calls this "reform").
4) Congress never addresses the problems with profiteering that we addressed in item 1).
They are trying to educate us like Pavlov's dogs. They say, "We are Congress. Leave us alone. If you scream for something, well make it worse for you so shut the fuck up".
I recommend we behave like a cat instead of a dog. Pavlov would have learned a thing or two if he had tried his shit on cats.
Congress needs a lesson in conditioned reflex.
I recommend we behave like a cat instead of a dog. Pavlov would have learned a thing or two if he had tried his shit on cats.
----------------------------------------
Wonderful! - you must be another cat person.
I find quite interesting the trait-clustering in humans that map to cat-like vs dog-like personalities. The dog-like people are authoritarian, compulsively loyal and extraverted, go in packs, and rely on dominant leaders. The cat-like ones are anti-authority, only voluntarily loyal, social by choice (recent studies have found that unrelated female cats who like one another form groups to make child care easier - again giving the lie to the sociobiology loonies), and tend to be introverted and self-reliant.