Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Health Care as a Human Right
In my last column, I suggested that the election has forced activists to shift their strategy on campus. Lucha, a group usually associated with the struggle for immigrant rights, has decided to focus on health care this semester. In the coming months, Lucha will do outreach on the subways focusing on our health care system, will host a screening of Michael Moore's Sicko, and will also hold a community health fair, with free screenings, medical services, and information about how to get politically involved in the struggle for single-payer national health care for members of the Harlem and Washington Heights neighborhoods. Single-payer health care would eliminate the insurance industry and replace it with a single, tax-supported fund that would cover all medical expenses, from medicine, to hospital stays, to MRI scans. In the history of the struggle for health care as a human right, we have reached an important juncture at which real advances may be realized.
In many ways, it is remarkable that activists in the United States are still forced to fight for this major reform. National health care programs were first instituted by Otto von Bismarck in imperial Germany in 1883. Faced with the rising power of the German socialist party, Bismarck conceded certain social demands in the hope of co-opting the political power of the left. Following World War II, national health care insurance spread across Europe. Socialist and labor parties rose to power after the war, able to appeal to strong feelings of patriotic collective responsibility.
Similar attempts were made in the United States following WWII. Former President Harry Truman's often forgotten Fair Deal was the first major attempt to implement a national health insurance program in the United States. In his message to Congress on Nov. 19, 1945, Truman asked members to support his Economic Bill of Rights which included the "right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." The principal problem Truman urged was that for both "needy persons" and "a large proportion of normally self-supporting" workers, the costs of health care were too high.
The coalition that arose to defeat Truman's proposals was led by the American Medical Association, which according to Jill Quadagno, author of One Nation, Uninsured, converted its local branches into a political machine to attack Democrats who supported national health care, defeating six senators in 1950. Marshalling Cold War rhetoric of "creeping socialism," the AMA along with the conservative Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers defeated the proposals, decisively closing the window of opportunity for the establishment of single-payer health care.
Fateful compromises by the labor movement also undermined national health care. American workers were led down the path to what historian Nelson Lichtenstein calls the "private welfare state." First, John Lewis of the United Mine Workers, disenchanted with federal programs after hostile interventions in several strikes, negotiated an employer-paid health program, and vocally opposed national health insurance. The United Steelworkers and the United Auto Workers followed suit, reflecting a lurch to the right, as organized labor purged its radical roots and came to tow the line of Cold War anti-Communism.
Yet notably absent from the opposition was the insurance industry, which at mid-century covered less than five percent of Americans, and had not yet emerged as a major lobbying force. This remained largely true in 1965, when Medicare was passed as part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiative. The AMA again led the charge against reform, forcing the federal program to operate through private channels, a great boon to the insurance industry. Thus, in the next 30 years, in part through federal patronage, the insurance sector would grow to become a monstrous power in American politics.
When former President Bill Clinton proposed a plan including universal coverage in 1992, he had to contend with a potent adversary: the insurance lobby. The Health Insurance Association of America spent 15 million dollars on a broad advertising campaign, insurance companies increased their campaign donations to members of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee. In sum, over $100 million was spent to defeat Clinton's proposals. Their propaganda worked. While universal coverage initially drew 59 percent support from Americans, after a year of relentless attacks and misinformation, support had declined to 44 percent.
It is clear that many Americans are again ready for a major change; more than three-quarters believe that the current system based on private employer-based insurance is failing and that the health care system needs to be fundamentally rebuilt. Some form of "health care reform" will be enacted, but there is great danger that pressures from the insurance industry and other business groups will dilute the measure, transforming it into an additional federal subsidy for an already bloated insurance industry. Health care is a human right, and activists on the left and in the labor movement are returning to rally around the principles defeated in the 1940s. The tragedy is that the detour through the "private welfare state" forces us to now confront the powerful sectors that profit disgustingly from our broken system.
Yet there are signs of other forces emerging. Many corporate elites are realizing that the inefficiencies of our private system are a hindrance in a competitive global market. Paul Menzel and Donald Light have recently argued that state-supported universal care is necessary to protect the conservative values, and more pressingly, in a "global competitive environment, companies like Nokia, Toyota, and Siemens, for example, enjoy a significant competitive advantage over their American competitors, Motorola, Ford, and GE." To protect the continued competitiveness of U.S. corporations, the interests of capitalist accumulation in general may triumph over the narrow interests of the insurance industry.
The experience of the past 60 years should make it clear that compromise with private insurance creates more problems than it solves, and that although we face powerful adversaries, there are also signs that the current moment might reveal real opportunities to achieve a lasting victory for workers, for freedom, and for the triumph of democratic choice over narrow corporate interests. It is time we abandon our costly, inefficient, ethically repugnant, profit-driven health system and enact single-payer national health care.
- Posted in

25 Comments so far
Show All"Lucha, a group usually associated with the struggle for immigrant rights"
I am unaware that immigrants are having any problem with rights. There have been no particular complaints that I am aware of to the immigration service or to any government agencies. It would be nice if people that write an article would clarify some of their statements.
Stop it Thomas, please. You are straining my good opinion of you with this perpetual claim to ignorance of the way these mostly honest, desperate and hardworking people are treated.
I know you to be far more intelligent than your rants about illegals paint you to be.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
The "Democratic" president who elected in 1992 didn't have strong opposition from the health insurance industry, as hiss plan would keep the health insurance industry in place, but it did have strong opposition from small health insurance companies who figured that they might fall through the cracks of this plan. Other than that the pharmaceutical industry opposed this legislation. But the Democrat in name only or DINO president made sure that single payer never got any consideration, and his plan was unreal to explain as it was such a complicated mess. Single payer could have made if that DINO had used his political capital when he had it. He didn't! He gave up on any kind of health care for all Americans within about a year of his term. He was too damn busy triangulating to take care of the needs of the American people. Barak Obama had better know that this isn't the 1990s, and the days of triangulation are over big time.
The domestic and foreign problems this country faces are too great for triangulation to even come close to working even for those politicians trying it.
AD
While single payer healthcare will be coming to the US at some point let's just point out that the middle class will be the ones who will pay most of it.
The really rich will be happy as they will get healtcare for free, no more buying expensive insurance. The poor will be able to go to the doctor with a cold and not have to pay anything. The cost will be paid by the working middle class thru taxes.
I just hope the US will not make the sme mistake as Canada and not put at least a $20 copay for each visit. This will prevent a lot of unnecessay doctor's visits.
""I just hope the US will not make the sme mistake as Canada and not put at least a $20 copay for each visit. This will prevent a lot of unnecessay doctor's visits
A copay is a bad idea. It hurts the people who need access to health care the most.
I can easily afford 20$$ copay. Someone making far less then me with kids to feed can not. Thus it will have NO impact whatsover on MY amount of visits.
Now a better idea MIGHT be a tax credit based on visits. As in I get a tax credit at end of year if I keep my visits down.
This will not impact people who do not pay taxes and a person who uses the system MORE will not pay more out of pocket.
I lived in Canada as well as the US and experienced healthcare on both sides of the border. Maybe the $20 won't stop people from going to see the doctor with a cold. But if it does it will save the system money and the doctor's time to acutally care for sick patients.
The main problem with "free" is that people don't realize it actually costs money and they abuse it.
I don't really have a problem with either system. The amount of taxes I was paying in Canada is about the same that it costs me here for healthcare so I can say payment wise it's about the same. Like I mentined before middle class will actually pay the same in taxes or insurance. The two extremes of the spectrum will reap most of the benefits tho.
"Now a better idea MIGHT be a tax credit based on visits. As in I get a tax credit at end of year if I keep my visits down.
This will not impact people who do not pay taxes and a person who uses the system MORE will not pay more out of pocket."
Income taxes, you mean? Try not to fall into the trap of using right-wing lingo about taxes...the poor pay an assload of taxes, just usually not *income* taxes. Since I am interning right now at $8.50 an hour, and my first paycheck had no income tax withheld, I guess I count as the poor now :-)
Anyway, penalizing people in any way for seeking medical care before health problems become an emergency is a bad idea. So many people are obsessed over their tax bill because of all the noise made about taxes by conservatives. Many people have several different health problems which require visits to different types of doctors. I for example am what is termed morbidly obese, have high blood pressure, a thyroid hormone imbalance, and sleep apnea. That would require at least two different doctors, perhaps three. Thus, I would be expected to have more doctor visits than a healthy person who just needs regular checkups with their primary care physician.
>>Income taxes, you mean? Try not to fall into the trap of using right-wing lingo about taxes...the poor pay an assload of taxes, just usually not *income* taxes. Since I am interning right now at $8.50 an hour, and my first paycheck had no income tax withheld, I guess I count as the poor now :-)
I am speaking from a Canadian Perspective. Our taxation system is quite different from yours.
When I speak of a tax credit I am merely speaking of a credit towards the amount of income on which you pay taxes.
So for example no income taxes are paid on the first 10,000$$ therebouts income in Canada (We do not have social security taxes either). So keep that as is...BUT if you do not use the health care system at all then "the first 12,000$$ is non taxable"
This not a penalty...
We also MIGHT consider allowing a parallel for profit system BUT with the proviso that profits gained here are taxed at a higher rate .
So for example if the regular tax rate on profits for a company is 20 percent....make it 50 percent on the for profit health care industry with extra monies raised going to the public system
Now I say MIGHT because I am not really sure as to how these would work . They are just ideas. No system in the world is perfect. All have issues and all nations are trying to come ot grips with ever escalating health care costs EVEN those nations that have not for profit systems.
Ok, thanks for clearing it up, it makes much more sense now. And I especially like the idea of taxing the companies that engage in for-profit healthcare more than the norm...that could be applied to any number of truly systematically harmful industries...do it to coal and oil companies, until building wind turbines, solar thermal plants, geothermal plants, etc is more profitable for energy companies...put higher taxes on SUVs and other such wasteful vehicles than on more compact and efficient vehicles...thanks :-)
See what we are duped into believing health care really is in comparison to what is on public record in Greeneville, TN Federal Court case no. 2:04-cv-375 as THE ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS OF HEALTH CARE in East Tennessee, Governor Bredesen, if you can't do anything about this, you do not need to be in Washington DC sir. http://www.wisecountyissues.com Profit care comes ahead of Patient Care !!!
If the people of this country would stand up and quit demanding that the government do something about the broken health care system, it could be fixed without putting money in the pockets of our greedy, corrupt government officials, lobbyists, physicians and insurance companies. We all need to take ownership of out health care and get Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) that accrue interest and that we can collect at the end of the year if we don't use them. This would also make paying for health care more affordable because it's just me and the doctor's office. I can choose to help someone who's having trouble paying their bills and they should ask for help. I would venture a guess that most people who really ask for help outside of the US government will get it. But wait, I forgot that I'm living in communist Russia and not the United States of America.
How does an HSA help a person who is a low wage earner, three children and who does not even have enough to save for their kids college?
What happens to these HSA's when the banks fail or the institution they are invested in go under?
How does an HSA help people with Chronic illnesses, or a child that needs a lifetime of treatments?
HSA's seem a great Idea for HEALTHY people up until the day some operation or treatment is going to costs 60,000$$ and your HSA after 10 years of savings only has 50,000$$.
HSAS do nothing to take profit out of the system. health Care can NOT be delivered using a "market approach".
If someone wants a new TV the MARKET has to put the price low enough so that a person can afford to buy it. IF the price set to high the person will go without.
You can not do this with Health Care. Health care for profit is like holding a gun to a childs head and telling the Parent "Give me all the money you got or I pull the trigger" and if the parent does not cough up, they are a bad parent.
Sioux Rose
GWNORTH: Good solid response to the Libertarian talking pointer.
I agree with SiouxRose, excellent response.
Most working Americans can't save much because of the high cost of housing and stagnant wages, and that nasty little problem that those of us without insurance have already been paying out of pocket for "health" "care" already. Other countries have solved this problem by getting rid of the bloodsucking middlemen - the insurance companies - with single payer healthcare. When one has a catastrophic injury one realizes that all this talk about "responsibility" is meaningless. No one can afford to be seriously injured in America, except the wealthy.
I personally had the experience (In the United States, not communist Russia)
of going to my HMO doctor with a spinal injury and being told it was a "muscle strain" - and denied diagnostic tests for over a year because I was underinsured - In other words - I asked for help and got nothing. If I had been completely uninsured - the doctor might have told me the truth, instead of thinking more about the corporate bottom line. This is a very common abuse and most people don't know about it unless they are underinsured and have been seriously injured. I had to pay out of pocket to go to another (outside HMO) doctor - in order to find out what was going on and what to demand from my HMO - still they made me wait more months for treatment. My worker comp claim was denied - because there was nothing wrong of course! it said so in the medical records!
When the bulging discs in my spine finally herniated into my nerves and spinal cord (while I was waiting for treatment) - I finally lost my job and insurance altogether and had to pay out of pocket for everything for the next three years while I waited for the disability insurance I had paid for all my working life - and of course lost my house, my car - everything (I guess that was my "personal healthcare savings account"). Oh, and by the way , when you apply for disability - you will be called a liar, a drug addict (Anyone who has taken pain medication is automatically a, "drug addict" - even before you have the diagnostic tests to find out why you are in so much pain!) and by association an "alcoholic" , even if you don't drink! In fact, the more elitist the doctor, the more fabricated the medical records if you have a disability claim.(they don't like "entitlements"). And then the bureaucrats will run with it.
Complaints to regulating agencies were worthless - they all go to the same country clubs. The Administrative law judge's only comment about the fabricated medical records was that they had "stretched the truth". Of course, once on Medicare I got all the tests I needed, because they are hoping to get me to a surgeon ASAP, and all that lovely government money for the HMO.
Since the insurance industry now controls who gets elected, and HMO's were exempted from lawsuits by the Supreme Court - The corporate HMOs, primary care doctors and insurance companies have made absolutely certain that nothing that occurs between you and your doctor is just between you and your doctor.
The quality of healthcare one gets in America all depends on how well insured you are. This could be prevented by having the patient's level of insurance coverage kept confidential - even from the HMO and their doctors (fat chance), or having single payer healthcare for all citizens. Then cut out the profits for pharmaceutical companies who are milking Medicare dry whth the collusion of corrupt doctors who are more interested in financial kickbacks than patients.
The only problem we will have with single payer is the corruption that is embeded in the system - of denying diagnostic tests and preventive care for all but the well insured. If everyone is insured, too much unnecessary treatment may be billed to the system by corrupt doctors and HMO's. (Imagine that!)
As far as my own situation goes - the only mistake I made was believing that the insurance (and the government) which I paid for was there in the first place.
I will never make that mistake again. If I had been given the diagnostic tests, healthcare and a reasonable time off work to recover from my original injury - this would not have cost one hundred thousand dollars..so far, but now I don;'t have to pay out of pocket - the taxpayers pay. Since my injury I have met many others in this same situation, and they cost much more than me.
If you are disabled and have surgery and can't bathe on your own, the government will send someone to your home to watch TV while you take a bath. The government will pay $29.oo per hour for someone to run errands for you. I don't get these services because I don't believe it is good for society - but I could.
Our healthcare has already been in the hands of greedy, corrupt government officials, lobbyists, physicians and insurance companies for too long, the complete system needs to be restructured or abandoned, and if you have not been harmed by the US healthcare system then consider yourself fortunate. Actually you have been harmed if you are a taxpayer - everyone has.
If you were from England or Canada, your story would be used by the Right to prove the evils of government-run healthcare or 'socialized medicine'. Except, oops...you're from America, had basic health insurance, and got 'the best healthcare in the world', except of course you didn't. But, you could have switched HMOs any time, it's a free market! Oh, oops, no you couldn't do that either.
You should really include this in a letter to every single GOP Representative and Senator. My family has had similar problems getting disability for their chronic debilitating illnesses. It took years...it was a nightmare, we very nearly became homeless. I'm sorry you went through such hardship yourself.
Thank you.
I did write a long letter to Michael Moore a few years ago. And my local Congressman actually had a special administrative assistant to handle complaints because it has gotten so bad (they helped too!). I asked if they wanted to know the details - and they said they already know how horrible it is for people who become disabled and that the disabled are routinely treated like liars and scammers. The word they used was "humiliating"; and of course this whole corrupt system costs MUCH more this way. I liken it to being a pod in the Matrix, where everyone sucks the money out of the situation (doctors, insurance companies, lawyers, bureaucrats, corrupt politicians, etc.), and in the process the patient gets weaker and sicker and more depressed until the system has them primed for the surgeon, pharmaceutical corporations, mental healthcare system, nursing homes, and the morgue. I just want to warn people and I hope some researcher reads my rants here on CD and looks into it because I'm in too much pain.
In reference to your comment about how conservatives would use my story to prove the evils of socialism, you are right. They set up a system that screws people - and then wonder why people who, after being burned and finally figuring out "how to work the system", abuse it. It's because once a person realizes they are in the Matrix - he or she looses respect for it.
Sioux Rose
REVENGE GIRL: I can see why you use the moniker you do. What a tragic tale. I hope you find ways to feel better; yet I know once certain degeneration sets into tissue it's harder to turn around. My heart goes out to you... the system is SO inefficient and so long as profit is what it fishes for, genuine health-care will be forfeited.
Thanks Sioux Rose - I always love your comments.
The moniker came from my situation - but getting really pissed off and telling people about it helped alot. I had to tell people how corrupt our system has become because I didn't KNOW myself until I went through this nightmare.
The first thing I learned is NEVER take an antidepressant for "pain" no matter what a doctor says - it makes you uninsurable, and sometimes unemployable.It can also make you really sick for a long time. (If you are independently wealthy - then take whatever you think works). And always pay cash for a non HMO second opinion if it's serious.
We have a government that allows employers to test for drugs and depression, and we have nurse practitioners and primary care doctors handing out psychological drugs, for off label uses without knowing anything about the patient.
People in this country just go through life thinking there is a system and a government there to protect them. They are sleepwalking into the abyss.
That is the most important lesson I learned from my situation. The US Goverment is all flim flam - there is nothing there. it's all artifice and con men scheming to get profit out of the corruption they created.
I hate to say this, but the mortgage mess will be handled the same way. They do nothing for people except have meetings and consulting firms look into it. They invent new programs, publicize them and take their cut - but nothing is done unless there's money in it for the corporations and the bureaucrats.
The pure profit motive in this country has killed any hope we have for helping people who really need it. The system we have now is only for those in control to help themselves to our money, and our very lives.
In Healthcare, this all began in the 1970's when doctors and lawyers were legally allowed to run their offices like businesses. Insurance companies then came along telling Dr's how to treat patients and what to charge (lowering the quality of care to become more cost effective). If doctors didn't go along with this - the insurance companies told them they would not get on their referral lists to corporations. Thus allowing businessmen who don't meet patients to make their healthcare decisions. The HMO was the final nail in this coffin.
Don't hold your breathe waiting for Obama or the Dems. to even mention single payer. The whole issue is outside polite political discourse. The Dems. are beholden to the Ins. Industry and won't do anything much to piss them off. They will go after the BIG Pharma Industry though because lowering drug costs fattens the bottom line of the BIG Health Corps. Will that mean people will get a break on their drugs. Hell, No! But it will mean the Big Ins. Exec. will make billions more.
"the AMA along with the conservative Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers defeated the proposals"
Thanks to the author for providing us some context for the current struggle for the right to healthcare for all. USans are confused over the validity of these organizations such as the American Medical Association that work to defeat the public interests.
The easily-swallowed argument is that these organizations represent the interests of people and people will always have colliding interests thus any/every organization has a "right" to compete to influence public policy.
This argument fails because it enables elites to exploit organizations to concentrate more power/control in their hands. This fact suggests the only legitimate competition to influence public policy is that which maximizes the society's overall well-being instead of benefitting the few at the expense of the many.
Ayn Rand illustrated a false "tyranny of the masses" in The Fountainhead used by right wing extremists in the USA to argue against majority rule. The tyranny only exists when the people are misinformed, misled. The tyranny is false when the people are enlightened.
And so enlightenment and empowerment of the people go hand in hand. Organizations should accept the subordination of their "special" interests to the public interests, the overall well-being of the society, which require widespread equity, dispersal of power among the people.
Single payer healthcare serves the public interests if through it the goal of doubling healthcare value (on par with other countries) is achieved.
chameleon February 11th, 2009 1:51 pm wrote:
"I just hope the US will not make the sme mistake as Canada and not put at least a $20 copay for each visit. This will prevent a lot of unnecessay doctor's visits."
We Canadians see doctors only slightly more often than Americans do, but that's nothing to crow about: every provincial health authority routinely spends significant sums on campaigns urging us to have our Pap, mammogram, prostate and colorectal exams.
There will always be people who, through ignorance or excessive anxiety, use medical resources in ways that those of us who are better informed and less anxious might deem inappropriate. But these are precisely the people who would most benefit from a long-term trusting relationship with a health professional.
What few at the top seem to get, or do not care if they do, is that the more you try to prop up a house at the top that's broken at the foundation, the harder it falls once it inevitably does. It appears that the for profit medical aspect of our crumbling economy will be among the last legs to fail; employment is still growing in that sector. Add the military-industrial complex to that. When these two gouging Goliaths do crumble, America will likely be completely bankrupt, and much worse off for having tried to prop us the worst parts of its failing system.
I don't think it's the for-profit aspect of health care that is broken. Someone's going to profit from it. Either it's going to be private hospitals/practitioners and insurance agencies or a big, corrupt government. I would think that, after seeing 3 of Obama's cabinet choices get tagged with greedy tax fraud, that we would be more want to put money in those pockets. Yes, it would be great if everyone had health care and could go the doctor whenever they wanted, but the money we might seem to be saving would be offset somewhere else. Plus, government officials stand to benefit most financially from a universal health care system, not the people. Of course they're going to push for it. I think we all need to take charge of our own health and health care. Autotherapy is not a bad idea. It's the next best thing to finding a local community or family doctor you can trust, someone you can look in the eye. Those are the people that deserve to profit.
Your overly pessimistic view of govt run health care is exploded into unreality by a perusal of the health care system of most Industrialized nations.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell