Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
America’s Stupid Health Care Debate
Keeping Some Ideas Off the Table
When President Barack Obama made his quick dash up to Ottawa last week, it's too bad he didn't suffer a gastrointestinal attack, or slip on some ice and twist an ankle or something. If he had, he might have had a chance to do what he should have done anyhow: visit a Canadian health clinic.
Maybe then he would have had his eyes opened to a better idea: government-run health care.
It is a sad commentary on the pinched and strictly censored level of political discourse in this nation that any serious consideration of Canada's successful approach to health care is simply out of bounds in America. It is nothing short of absurd that even though the nation that is closest to the US geographically, culturally, linguistically and economically has, since 1973, had a system of provincially administered single-payer government-run health systems which have kept the country's health costs at about 3/5 of what they are in the US as a percentage of GDP (9.7% vs. 17% for the US), at the same time serving all people and (not surprisingly) achieving better health statistics than the US, no one in Washington has talked about inviting Canadian health authorities down to explain how their system works and whether it might make sense here.
Canadians have complete freedom to choose their physicians. They pay nothing to go to hospital. I interviewed one hospital administrator in Canada who had worked earlier managing a US hospital. He said a whole wing of the facility in the US was devoted to billing and accounting staff, while he had only two people for that job in Canada, "mostly to handle the bills of the occasional American tourist!" (Some 20% of every US health care dollar goes for paperwork.) Interestingly, when I interviewed the CEOs of a number of huge Canadian subsidiaries of US corporations, they universally told me that they were ardent supporters of the Canadian system, and in fact, were involved in lobbying to have it expanded to include long-term care and psychiatric benefits.
There has for years been a huge ongoing propaganda campaign by US health care companies and their lobbies to denigrate Canada's system, but the big truth that they cannot deny is that it is loved by Canadians. The best evidence of this: Despite years of conservative governments in Canada, and in the various provinces, no political leader has ever tried to re-privatize health care in Canada. Clearly such an effort would be political suicide, so popular is the system there. As Canadian resident Joe Sotham explains, "In Canada we complain about wait list length, and the reality is that there is rationing, but everyone gets care and nobody is bankrupted, no HMO clerk stands in the way of treatment. We treat health care like a fundamental right. I took my cat to the vet last year and got a 3-page, $1,875 bill. My comment was 'this must be what it's like in the States for people.'"
Well yeah, Joe, but you'd be hard-pressed to get out of a hospital ER in the US with a bill that small. My wife had an uninsured grad student who had the flu during spring break when the school's infirmary was closed. He went to the ER of Temple University Hospital, got looked at by a nurse practitioner, and was given some aspirin. His bill: $2000. That's pretty typical.
Surely, when President Obama assembles his panels to work out some kind of health "reform" package for the out-of-control US health care system, he should include Canadian health experts and ministers into the mix. It makes absolutely no sense to embark on a $650- billion-to-$2-trillion project without considering all the available options--including options that have a proven track record of keeping costs down, services available to all, and that delivers better health outcomes.
The truth is that every other modern country in the world has long ago figured out that you can't have cost-effective, universal health care unless the government is the paymaster, with prices set by the government. The truth too is that no country that has moved to such a single-payer system has later rejected it--a good indication that the people of these countries are satisfied with the results and with what they're getting for what they're paying.
No one would say that about the US health care system, which is failing over 50 million people completely, that is the leading cause of bankruptcy, that is making US companies non-competitive, and that sucks up over 17 percent of GDP while producing life expectancy and infant mortality figures that make some Third World countries look good.
Next time President Obama travels to Canada, Britain, France, Germany or some other country with a single-payer system, we should all wish for him to "break a leg," as they say in the performing arts. He might learn something valuable from the experience.
- Posted in
82 Comments so far
Show Allracom40
Every report I have read directs us to only the single payer plan. The so-called 'universal' plans all continue to work through insurance programs, that is unacceptable. From the PNHP organization,
"The good news is that single-payer legislation (H.R. 676) was reintroduced in the 111th Congress on Jan. 26. Supported by 94 representatives in the 110th Congress, the bill is now backed by a new alliance of physicians, nurses, unions and grassroots groups with a base of over 20 million Americans and growing!
The bad news is that Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, will not allow consideration of single payer as an option for reform, and Sen. Kennedy (D-Mass.) is, by all indications, poised to promote the flawed Massachusetts health plan at the national level after months of secret meetings with insurance, business, and pharmaceutical company lobbyists."
I urge everyone to sign on to the PNHP site, 'www.pnhp.org', and contact your representatives to provide ONLY single payer health care.
I agree. There is a palpable fear among even many progressives to push for a "socialized" medical system, even though Americans are proving not to have such a fear themselves.
It's ironic that even as the government is, for all practical purposes, in the process of "socializing" the banking sector, it is shying away from socializing health care.
Again, it is ridiculous that the Obama White House is not inviting the leaders of the health systems of Canada, and also France, Germany and Britain, to come and explain how their systems work, and how they might work here.
Obama has the chops,if he wants to use them, to explain to Americans that even though socialized medicine would mean higher taxes, it would lift from the the much higher "tax" of employer-financed health care and of the employee share that they now have to pay, as well as the federal and state tax burden they currently pay for Medicare (huge) and Medicaid, not to mention the hidden tax they pay, in the form of higher insurance premiums and taxes, to subsidize the cost of "free care" provided by law by hospitals to indigent clients with no insurance. The net cost of socialized medicine would be far less than what we are all paying now for our health care.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
So is this even really a debate. The real argument is how do we make it happen here ? The big money lobbies of insurance and pharma are strangling the debate with the help of the compliant media. Who besides those with a vested financial interest in the current system would oppose such a plan. How do we get around or over these obstacles?
The "it's too expensive" argument is a non starter; if can find trillions from the ether to prop up banks and car companies, why can't we find more to fix health care?
The infrastructure is in place the only adjustment would be to the paperwork side. I'm sure all those paper pushers could find new jobs in the national health administration.
We know how to make it happen, now we just have to do it.
I would suggest a grass roots campaign in every Congressional district. Get a campaign contribution record for every member of Congress (local groups can do this easily) highlighting the health industry donations to your local rep. Then organize rallies outside your rep's district offices, demanding that they stop being shills for the medical industrial complex and start supporting socialized medicine for all. Having people who are demonstrably ill, as in wheelchairs, or in casts, or whatever, would be a great media angle.
Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) is a great resource on this topic, and there is probably a member in your area who could speak at any rally or demonstration you organize. Here is their website: http://www.pnhp.org/
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Don't forget the people too are just as responsible for stifling access to single payer. Read my post on the disgruntled conservative coworker and you'll see the mentality that must be cured first and foremost before you and I can see the light of day.
On the article titled
A Mother Asks President Obama To Be Honest About Healthcare
by Donna Smith
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/27-1
I posted a response as to the real reason why single payer healthcare is getting a tougher chance compared to the rise of labor and credit unions and social security back in the days before and during the Great Depression. If you can convince fundies such as the one I came across below, then Congress will know the even conservatives want it really badly. Below is the response which pretty much applies to this article as well.
When insurance companies have the nerve to "defend" murderers against the victims, that alone tells you that we live in a sick nation. Unfortunately, out here in my state, most of the die-hard conservatives will parrot the line of Big Insurance about "personal responsibility" and call anyone who is for single payer "unpatriotic". At one point, I came across a disgruntled worker now underemployed who kept complaining about that AR event. I would ask him "So it's patriotic for big insurance companies to rip you and I off but somehow it's 'unpatriotic' for a lawyer to defend people against bad corporations or good sumaritans such as the employee at MacDonalds in AR to defend a customer against an abuser isn't it?" Then he foamed at the mouth and told me "Well, that guy who shot that motherfucker at MacDonalds was defending himself and shooting down bad employees who weren't doing their fucking job !!! If I want my fucking burger, the employee is supposed to shut the fuck up and flip that god damn burger so I can eat and get to work, god damn it !! GOD is punishing that meddlesome employee for trying to cost the company and he fucking deserves it !!! I don't want government-run healthcare ! I want private care because I deserve it and not those lazy welfare queenies or illegal aliens god-damn it !! Corporations are good for you and they're trying to help us out but them god damn motherfucking liberals are getting in the fucking way and boy would I love to shoot them out !! And I hate those god damn trial lawyers who are killing business. I'd love to shoot them out too although I might need another fucking lawyer to defend me !!"
Our friend Peggy is chemically sensitive. Her power went out in an ice storm and she got sick, so they took her to the hospital. Because she is chemically sensitive, the hospital made her far sicker. Friends got her back home alive, and have been taking care of her night and day at home.
A few years ago, another chemically sensitive friend had no choice but to go to the hospital. She went to the hospital. Bad choice. She died.
"Stupid is as stupid does" -- Forrest Gump's mother, quoted in "Forrest Gump".
i'm all for it, but the same arguments we make about medicine can be made for every single industry in existence. in a sense, repubs are right: socialized medicine is just a first step toward a more general socialism (also why dems will never go along with it). why have not for-profit medicine, but have for profit FOOD? so your finances will no longer be destroyed by medicine, they'll just be destroyed by a bank, or an attempt to get an education, or a for profit employer, or a for profit war machine? medicine not for profit, but housing is for profit? that makes a lot of sense.
the biggest determinate of "health" is not access to "health-care" anyway. we could have universal guaranteed not-for-profit health care tomorrow, and the health of most americans would still decline (just b/c of our eating habits alone). the relatively better health of other oecd countries is also strongly influenced by other important social factors.
That is ridiculous. Canada doesn't have socialized cars, or socialized food. Yet they've had socialized medicine since 1973. Britain has had socialized medicine since the late 1940s, but they don't have socialized cars or socialized food. Get real.
By the way, we do have food stamps, and have had them for years. They didn't lead to socialized health care, though.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
The U.S. has a privately owned, highly centralized, highly uninspected food supply contaminated with pigeon poop from the Peanut Corporation of America. I fail to see how "socialized" food could make us much sicker. For that matter, I fail to see how a properly functioning SEC could make the stock market and banks much sicker than non-regulation did.
Oh, Bernie Madoff has a mutual fund he wants to sell you. It's a winner!
ridiculous? really? please explain to us how health care can be socialized, but one should still be kicked out of their residence (or not be able to afford one) based on the "market". i would really like you to make that argument. or no food for you b/c you've been priced out of the food market (food stamps? are you joking?)
or no education for you b/c you can't afford it? or etc., etc.
"cars aren't socialized"? you are caricaturing both the auto market and the reality of life in general, social well-being, in canada and elsewhere. massive gov't subsidies in petroleum aren't interventions in the auto market? much less highways, safety/fuel/etc., standards, etc., etc. not socialist, but there's no "free market" for autos.
Bring America Back !!!! Bravo !! Dave Lindorff has it correct and straight!
**The SMART health plan is to recognize that our humanity makes us deserving of the best FREE medical care the Nation can provide..Just as Canada and the other enlightened nations do for their people! Doing otherwise is the STUPID way !
No exceptions....Free Healthcare for All Americans.
**Another little country putting our healthcare system to shame is CUBA !!
**I highly recommend to all to get and watch the DVD "SICKO" by Michael Moore.
The stupidity of the US health system, and the promise of the systems of the enlightened nations is all there, in SICKO !!!!
**It is most unfortunate that the Obama Trend has been to 'cave-in' to the Big Lobbys, and to back off campaign promises!
**His Senate vote for FISA caved in to Big Telecon, NSA, Bush, & Neocons !
**His vote to grant Trillion $$ in Bailouts caved in to Wall Street and to corrupt Bush Big Econs.
**It is just ominous how Obama will cave-in to Big Meds, Big Pharma, Big AMA, and Big Insurance !!! His Team is hung up on the words univesal and affordable.
We all know healthcare in America will NEVER again be affordable.
It desperately needs to be Free For All !!!!
add to the description 'STUPIDITY' of the american health system:
CRUELTY.
THAT is the true nature of American "CARE".
Forget about it folks. The FIX is long in Obama won't go near Single payer. The Dems. policies will just further enrich an Industry already filthy rich. Every Dr. I know has 2 or three homes and the Ins. Industry that feeds off of this sector is so powerful in DC we never even hear the term single payer in the media. I fear that no matter what this admin. does this next 4 yrs. this one Industry will suck up all of the results. The greed in this sector is beyond belief.
This kind of negativism does nobody any good.
We're at the START of an administration. There are openings being made. Instead of saying the fix is in, we need to be saying the time for organizing has arrived. What this administration needs is critics, instead of flag-wavers. We need marches on Washington to demand progressive action.
You're giving up before the opening gun.
No revolution ever succeeded with that kind of attitude.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Din 12:02 -------- Good Post!
Exactly.
Joe
Factual correction: The US today spents an astonishing 31% of every health care dollar on administrative expenses, including billing, record-keeping, insurance reimbursement efforts, etc. Most of that expense has nothing to do with keeping people or getting people healthy. It's a figure that has been rising steadily for years, and that shows no signs of abating. In contrast, most state-run health systems spend very little on administration. Even our own Medicare system is much better in this regard (so much for the theory that government mires everything in bureaucracy!).
The cost of health care in America is $7200 per person. No other modern country comes close to this. The Canadian system, in contrast, is about half that. If we were to switch to a national health system, paid for by progressive taxation, and perhaps a small co-pay, as in Canada, the savings to society, the government and the taxpayer would be astonishing. This is indisputable.
And people would be healthier.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Not often mentioned, but the savings to corporate America, and small businesses, would also be huge.
racom40
Medicare is less than 5%. Still we hear the really stupid know-nothings in this country mouth the conservatives talking point, 'we don't want government running our health care'!!!!
I'm surprised that no one has used the example of the automobile industry to demonstrate the importance of single-payer healthcare. One of the major obstacles to the profitability of the big three is their obligation to provide healthcare benefits to their retirees (granted, a lack of imagination in engineering and faith in the American consumer is equally huge).
Had a single-payer system been in place in the US over the past half century, the auto makers would have had to find something else to blame for their incompetence. I'm not saying that they would necesarily be profitable today without the health insurance burden but they'd be much closer to solvency than they have been for years.
q
you are ABSOLUTELY brilliant in pointing that out Quickstepper. !
the insiduousness of privatized health care in america began with - its love-affair with capitalism...everything for profit.
in practice it began with the business community using "benefits" such as health care to attract ONLY HEALTHY WORKERS...and from there -- industries in america have become "health providers" of a kind while the privatized for profit insurance system gouges THEM OUT as well as the public .
RESULT?
bankruptcy.
America will become bankrupt for at least 2 reasons:
its MILITARISM and its PRIVATIZED HEALTH CARE and PRivatized "insurance and retirement" system -- all of them providing americans with NO REAL SECURITY whatsoever.
i always called it INSECURE "security". a "security" based on FEAR and paranoia --
which is going to be laid down on americans' OWN FEET as their responsibility for having allowed it to EXIST.
and underneath all that is the American overindulgence with the MYTH of "rugged individualism" that destroys any social fabric worth keeping for a society worth calling "civilized".
americans hyped their own "individualism" towards privatization of such things as Health care, retirement, education, housing, etc....because they think, like TEENAGERS -- that their "rugged individualism" would protect them ...so long as they are "clever" enough to "get whats' mine".....and so one by one.....they eventually pay the price in COLLECTIVE suffering as a result.
can you imagine? CEO's earning 200,000 dollars for decades NOW trying to survive as JANITORS earning 10 dollars per hour?
that is the same as the FLAG SHIPS of american "industry" drowning in health care costs because of THEIR own shenanigans from decades ago -- which was based on EXCLUSION in providing health care ...until THEY are SWALLOWED UP by THEIR own petard.
it's tragic -- yet one can almost say --
americans DESERVE IT.
i will add:
more recent reports about CHINA are beginning to detail that INSPITE of the collapse of their "export oriented" economy -- they are LEARNING quickly - that while they have their savings and investments that they can use -- in addition to investing abroad - they are invseting in DOMESTIC consumption...and beginning to find ways to REFOCUS their energy and capital from "export dependence" to REAL trade and domestic consumption .
additionally a great part of their "economy bailout" is devoted to expanding health care coverage for all citizens.
NO PLAYING AROUND with "privatization" whatsoever.
contrast this with the USA's SHAMEFUL methods concerning this basic human need.
The American business establishment has for years lobbied bitterly AGAINST public health care because they realized that having workers depending upon them for health care was an enormous shackle that not only kept them working at their job, but also deterred even unionized workers from wanting to strike. When you go out on strike, you don't just lose your pay for the duration, after all, you and your family also lose your health benefits--a huge disincentive.
I was talking recently to some people from Puerto Rico and from Mexico, and they said that teachers in both places regularly strike for better pay and working conditions. One reason they do, and US teachers do not, is that both places have public health care, so the teachers don't put themselves and their families in medical jeopardy by striking.
All Americans would be much more demanding about their working conditions if their health care didn't depend upon their employment--a consideration that many people don't factor into their thinking on this topic.
Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Right on. Thanks for bringing that to the discussion.
Another reason that public employees in the U.S. rarely strike is that it is against the law for the vast majority of them to strike. Here in Texas, when Houston teachers conducted an illegal strike some years ago, not only were they fired -- which they expected and believed they could win politically in the aftermath -- they had their teaching licenses taken away. Needless to say, other public employees took notice.
And in Texas, while unions are legal, with a few exceptions it is illegal for public employers to collectively bargain with anyone.
You see very few public employee strikes of any kind any more with the possible exceptions of NY and CA where public employee unions still have some measure of political power. Elsewhere nada.
But won't the elites then threaten the people with a loss of single-payer healthcare if they bargain collectively for working conditions? It seems the elites are much more adept at these games than the people. If single payer healthcare somehow can serve as a big crow bar to help the people defend themselves from general class war aggression it may be worth it. Maybe public enterprise has this feature, generally. But it seems that until the people are given the mandate, or obligation, or imperative, to actively participate in determining their own fate, it's all theater, at the people's expense.
Dave, the unions have been controlled since the union leaders were admitted into the Trilateral Commission. Their mission is to convince workers not to strike due to competition from globalization. Workers end up paying for the health care anyways, even if indirectly, since it results in wage suppression. Corporations look at the total cost per employee, they do not care how it gets cut up. More health care, lower wages, fewer workers.
GM has moved production into Canada to avoid the health care nightmare. They don't actively support health care reform since they know what would happen if they did. They would be attacked by the financial institutions that have significant stakes in insurance companies. Also, businesses don't like to propose more government involvement in business, even if not their own, as you yourself said here.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04192005.html
New Mexico might pass a law that requires insurance companies to spend 85% of their premiums income on healthcare. A fallback plan?
the day will come, if the USA continues on this path of allowing "privatized" health care and insurance -- that ENTIRE groups of americans will be BEGGING for health care from OTHER countries , using "travel" as an excuse...and there will be blowbacks for americans being DENIED as "foreigners" because they are BURDENING other nations with their health care needs.
Lindorff sez: "... it's too bad (Obama) didn't suffer a gastrointestinal attack, or slip on some ice and twist an ankle or something. If he had, he might have had a chance to do what he should have done anyhow: visit a Canadian health clinic."
***
One minor flaw in your illustrative hypothetical:
Obama, his family, and every U.S. senator and congressperson already receive socialized medicine in their own country. They get to pick their own providers, jump straight to the front of the line for care, and never have to open their wallets.
All that, AND mass campaign contributions from the HMO, Insurance, Pharma and related industries. Seems the U.S. system offers the best of all worlds for them.
All active military personnel also receive "socialized" health care. So do all NFL players, up to 5 years after retirement. There are others...
But, of course, the real problem is the good old profit margin. Just go here for a taste of the hundreds of health-profiteers lined up against "us." (And this list is just insurers - then toss in the drug makers, etc...)
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalhmo2009.pdf
just as a side note --
i think until today -- for canadians that are at least aware or educated in their civic affairs and history --
the two personalities they have highest regard for are the recently late JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH -- who basically was one of the people responsible for canada's "socialist democracy" system...as well as another person - i forget the name -- who was responsible for creating canada's health care system.
they are sort of "local heroes" to many canadians that are aware of their system's history..and from which two people canadians derived their general loyalty to their system and to whom it is inconceivable to imitate the american system .
as some reports said of americans going to france who got ill -- when brought to the clinics and were not charged anything...: when they asked "how much" - the french looked at them as if they were crazy.....
teddy sez: "... as well as another person - i forget the name -- who was responsible for creating canada's health care system."
***
Lester B. Pearson - in 1966.
RIP Canadian bootstraps (see also rtdrury, 4:55 p.m. re "pride for humility")
He might have been thinking of Tommy Douglas, who goaded Pearson into action.
There's another word for 'rugged individualism' - barbarism.
The way to good health care is to privatize it by giving We the People equal, non-transferable shares of their stock and dividends from it, and a seat at the table. Collective capitalism gives us the advantages of socialism and capitalism without either systems downsides.
One of the criticisms of the Canadian health system is that people have to wait months or even years for certain services such as MRIs and some surgical procedures. Those who balk about a single payer system in the United States claim that if such a system were in place more people would become seriously ill or even die while they wait five years or more on a list. Just out of curiosity, I wonder exactly how accurate is this claim? I'm sure it is blown way out of proportion by the status quo weenies here in the states but is this waiting list thing a significant problem in Canada? Inquiring minds want to know.
There are waitiing lists in Canada, for elective surgery, and people get annoyed about it. Some provinces now allow emplooyers to offer private supplemental plans. This is a mistake that was made in Britain, a mistake because once you allow a second tier of private insurance, these plans pare away the well-heeled and leave the state with the sickest patients, while eroding support for the basic state plan, which gets worse funding. Activists in Canada know this and are fighting to defend the state plan, and to improve funding for it.
Health care will always be a political struggle. It's a struggle here, it's a struggle in France, it's a struggle in Taiwan. It's a struggle in Canada. It will always be a struggle between those who believe quality health care is a right, and those who think it should be a privilege for the well-off.
Canada is no different.
There difference is that in Canada the battle is to defend and improve the funding of a basically great public health program. In the US, our battle is to destroy a system that leaves one in six people with no access to medical care, gives third-rate care to 50 million more, and bankrupts the rest of us.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
The basic Canadian mindset is that access to affordable healthcare is a human right,not a privilege.
The terms often used to define the struggle is between "Public" and "For Profit" systems.
I just ended a friendship over this debate. Mr. "I'm A Yuppie Now, Eat My Turds" thinks health care should be a privilege one has to work for.
It's so simple, FREE healthcare, yet there are enough working people who don't believe in it. Hell, even Obama just wants to make it "more affordable."
Cold War Paranoia?
Racism and Classism? Some people don't want certain groups getting something for free even if it means they themselves will get it for free also.
My ex-friend made some remark about medical innovations ending. I mean, we do find money for more weapons and to figure out new ways to kill and maim. Maybe if we ended our empire games, we'd find the money to cure AIDS and cancer.
Bottom line-Anyone who is against universal single-payer health care has no compassion. They want an unequal society. They are cool with many people doing without as long as they have something.
Who are you kidding? Washington and America's capitalist behind the scenes movers and shakers, aren't going to change anything about our "healthcare system". Its what keeps us indentured servants. The freedom to change, or quit a job? Mercy, me! Its what keeps us the hardest (and most fearful) people on earth.
Work or die!
No "change" there --ever.
ezeflyer-That's not a bad idea, but how do you respond to the criticism that collective capitalism results in an overburdened workforce? Do we really want to live like the Japanese? How is collective capitalism different from the type of socialism where workers own the means of production?
Would it be akin to all of us working for one big employee-owned company?
I'm a confused socialist. lol. On one hand I favor state control and workers owning everything, at times, I also think we could fix our troubles just by taxing the wealthy sharply and investing in things like universal single-payer health care/education, debt forgiveness, job entitlement, etc. Can we do both?
I mean I get called a socialist and wear the badge because of what I support. We should make health care and education (primary and secondary) a right. We should be spending our money on improving the environment and helping the people. As for which path to take, I'm still not exactly sure. I do know what needs to be done though.
"no one in Washington has talked about inviting Canadian health authorities down to explain how their system works and whether it might make sense here."
Mr. Lindorff, USans who continue to vote to keep the elite establishment in power know that the elite establishment has no interest in serving the people's better interests. These USans are flatly sumbitting to the oppression, because they calculate that the pros outweigh the cons. Apparently, the healthcare value is good enought for them when all things are considered. Here are a few concerns that may be swirling in the backs of these people's minds: If we adopt Canada's healthcare system we have to trade pride for humility. We can't "stand tall" above the rest of the world like we have since, umm forever. If we admit the elite establishment is "wrong on everything" then we lose it, and then who is going to keep this fantasy alive that we are the "greatest nation"?? What do we work so hard for except to support something that's "so great"?? Something mediocre? No thanks! "We are the champions, my friend, and we'll keep on fighting till the end! We are the champions we are the champions, no time for losers cause we are the champions of the world!!"
USans should embrace the BETTER interests of the people as the sole motivator for all exchange/association. One of the many benefits includes a natural motivation to get the best value from the healthcare system and everything else, and actually enjoy the resulting freedom from economic slavery, freedom from economic instability, freedom from political oppression, and all the rest.
"you can't have cost-effective, universal health care unless the government is the paymaster, with prices set by the government."
The pragmatic thing to do is adopt whichever system works best for the people and that system is Cuba's, which delivers something between two and ten times the value of these other systems. But even that is not the best approach because it leaves a disempowered people, USans, VULNERABALE to the same old exploitation by the same old elite establishment but under the banner of the state instead of the banner of free ennterprise.
Those other states with double our healthcare value do not achieve it through single payer schemes, they achieve it by standing aside while their people enlighten/empower themselves to serve their better interests.
The best approach is to enlighten the people to understand it is their responsibility to demand and get best value from every market and every institution with which they exchange/associate. Where the state best serves the public interests it is the result of the state's submission to the public interests. People are to live without oppression. Concentrated power MUST SUBMIT to the people.
It seems to me that, not only are we living in a society in which those who control the health care debate stand the most to LOSE from a healthy society, we are also living in a society in which its people are getting sicker and sicker with stress-related illnesses (and yes, that even includes some cancers, besides the more obvious heart disease, auto-immune disorders, strokes, diabetes, obesity, and depression) precisely because they are "stuck" in jobs that DO NOT feed them in any way beyond paying them enough to put food on the table. They are stuck in jobs that suck out their souls because they "can't" leave or look for something else because they "need their health insurance benefits."
There is something inherently wrong with this picture. It is time we stood up for what is right. It is time we demanded that access to health care be a "right" and not a privilege.
"Canada...has, since 1973, had a system of provincially administered single-payer government-run health systems"
I'm not sure where Dave gets this information.
Canada has had government-sponsored hospital coverage since 1958 and universal health insurance (everyone pays a basic premium to the Province which is means tested) since 1968 except for Saskatchewan where the dates are 1947 and 1962 respectively. Tommy Douglas enacted these reforms as the premier of Saskatchewan and was the leader of the party that preceded the NDP (new democratic party). In 1962 he had to fight a physician's revolt and imported physicians from the UK.
While we complain about waiting lists, my experience is that the system is efficiently triaged. Drugs that are available in some Provinces are not available in others. This is the type of "government control" issue to which US opponents of "government" health care point. I've heard this issue addressed by the physician in charge of a Provincial program as selling another $2 billion/pa drug (to the independent review committee).
I believe the 1973 numbers is when the Canada health Act was enacted, this a sort of streamlining of all the various provincial systems under one mission statement if you would.
Canadian manufacturing can build cars cheaper than the USA, because they
don't have to pay for Health Insurance for employees. Isn't that a type of
welfare in violation of Nafta? How can american factories compete against the
Canadian government who pays for Canadian auto employees insurance.
Isn't that against the Nafta Rules and Regulations? Where is Obama on this one?
We are suppose to compete on an even playing field according to Nafta.
What Hypocricy!
Bill Walz
What is there to say except, "Here, Here." In both the meaning of applause and commendation for the idea, but also in, "Please, Here, Here. Please bring this sane approach to delivering health care to the U.S.
If the U.S. doesn't break the strangle hold that corporations and Wall Street - and the medical industry - have on this country, we're finished. Medical industry - If that isn't an oxymoron - a medical INDUSTRY - Medicine which is a basic human right and social responsibiity, turned into a for-profit industry.
Hey - it's like a protection racket - There's certainly a ton of money to be made when you can hold the people's health for ransom. Our system is a disgrace. Remember "Do no harm" - It's supposedly the sacred oath of medicine. Well, our system is "pay me everything you have if you don't want some harm to befall you."
Come on Obama - this is the single most important and moral thing you could do. Talk about needed "change". And the answer is right next door.
Everyone who believes in this needs to make it a crusade. Write Obama, your Congresspersons, the media - and insist - Government run health care NOW!
Hi folks, I come from NZ where we have the option of Private and Public hospitals, where Private hospitals pretty much pick up the slack of anyone willing to pay to avoid a waiting list.
I encourage any American that might be reading this to push for a public health system as enthusiastically as they possibly can. I won't pretend that we have the greatest health care system and that it's not without fault. However, the financial benefits of having a public health care system available for anyone that is sick or supporting one who is, are massive.
I fall into the category of support - where I have a disabled son. The state has provided all of our health care needs for him, including ongoing professional support. He required major surgery when he was born and specialist care for the first month - I'd hate to think how much that might have cost without the public option.
Out of curiousity - OK, I've now changed my mind from hating to wanting to know now - can anyone provide a ball park estimate of how much it might cost to keep a person in hospital for a month, medicated and under observation (without an operation) in America?