Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAmerica’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.
82 Comments so far
Show AllWhat is the big scare tactic around SOCIALISM and our medical community??
Arent we already owned by the COMMUNIST chinese?
Great article.
I wonder what health insurance costs? I wonder what it is like to worry about having health insurance (or not having it)? I wonder what it is like to worry about whether we are one medical misfortune away from losing our house or bankruptcy?
My point is, these questions are just totally removed from my life experience (I'm 48 year old Canadian). I pay my taxes like everyone else, and that's that. And I'm very glad of that. I can't imagine trading that peace of mind for anything.
(oh, and if you want make the insurance industry folks truly crazy, I live in one of four Canadian provinces that have "nationalized" auto insurance too - and no politician in those provinces ever talks about doing away with that system either! Here, auto insurance is not part of the tax system; those of us with cars are required to go buy auto insurance from which auto insurance dealer we choose, but there is only one "company" (Crown corporation) selling auto insurance, the rates are the same across all dealers - so I never waste time comparing insurance products and companies and worrying about whether I can get a lower rate somewhere else)
There are so many better ways to spend time than worrying about insurance!
It is not true that on the 7th day God created insurance for the first 6 days.
You don't have to wonder: just go visit the States. Actually, we Canadians can get pretty decent major medical travel insurance for less than it would cost Americans to buy the same coverage at home. I know because I buy it for my kid, who is a dual citizen and spends a lot of time down there. It is more expensive for my mum, because she is old and has a number of preexisting conditions, but proved its worth when she broke her leg gallivanting around the French Riviera a few years ago. Covered: all hospital bills, doctors' fees, coach airfare for my brother to fly over to collect her, first class (because she couldn't bend her leg at all) for both of them to return her home to Vancouver, and coach for my brother to get home to Ottawa from Vancouver. BC Medical covered her surgery, meds and physio, plus most of the equipment needed to retrofit her apartment. Sure, I had to take three months off and didn't get family leave as I'd just quit one job but hadn't quite started the other: here, as elsewhere, injury and illness always end up costing something. But we didn't have to sell mum's flat or cash in our investments or otherwise wipe ourselves out financially.
I'm not sure if I agee with Mr. Lindorff's facetious suggestion that Obama should break a leg in Canada to experience their healthcare system. However, I do agree with the gist of his argument.
I can't figure out why "socialism" is such a dirty word in this country. Taking about it in front of a conservative is like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. This revulsion must be a holdover from the Communist era, and the conservatives largely use it to cover up their agenda of corporatism and greed. Get over it, America!
Just as there are things that are better accomplished in the private sector, so, too, there are things best left to government, like highway systems, education, and, of course, healthcare.
It may well be that "socialism" is such a dirty word, Markymark, because people don't bother to look behind the conditioning they started receiving about it in grade school.
Children and the adults they become get it confused with communism. They're almost the same, they conclude; at least, one leads to the other.
Who, then, initiated that conditioning? Who created that mediocre socialist "brand" that undermines initiative and moral fiber?
Some group's interests were being served in doing so.
There's a whole scholarly literature that speculates about why the U.S., among all Western countries, has no socialist party. I don't know that the debate has ever been definitively settled.
Part of the dynamic is that to have socialism or even social democracy, you have to have a certain sense of solidarity among the social classes advocating it. If those people talk to each other and act in concert, they may discover their common interests.
If they discover that, they'll be much harder to convert into lonely consumers who buy to assuage their own discontent, or into docile minions in a corporate hierarchy that cranks out things for consumers to buy to assuage their own discontent.
Just a wild guess, though.
In any case, Canada is far from being "socialist" (in fact, it's the second-most decentralized country in the world, after Switzerland). And Canada, as I mentioned below, has socialized HEALTH INSURANCE, not socialized MEDICINE. So it's not actually necessary to calm fears about socialism to get people to support a single-payer system.
It really is your neighbors folks. Not your politicians.
The way to work this problem is one neighbor at a time.
Everyone has a sob story to tell. About a relative or their own family who has had trouble with a hospital bill that an insurance company will not pay.
When this happens, instead of ahhing and cooing and consoling the person...OK well soon after that...start asking them why they don't support a system that changes this. Point out that Canadians just get to go to the doctor and then get well...they have no other worries. So does everyone in Europe. Even Cuba has a better plan.
If the USA is so rich, like such people are over-fond of telling us all the time while asking for God's blessing....why does Cuba provide more complete coverage?
A friend of ours got sick in Spain. A relative who lives there got sick in France. The health care system took care of them with grace and dispatch. No fear of bankruptcy. There are lots of ways to organize good health care. But all of them have a central component of single payer universal government sponsored care for basic needs.
You are right about talking about single payer with people one at a time, face to face.
Joe
How very odd that after all these comments, some of the most basic facts still remain obscure:
1. The Canadian health care system is NOT "government-run" (even Lindorff apparently didn't do his homework); it is government-financed. Most facilities are not owned by the government. (There are exceptions, as in the U.S., for community clinics and certain hospitals.)
Physician associations in each province (two in Québec) negotiate their fee-for-service schedules with the provincial Ministry of Health (or the equivalent). They are not dictated. Unlike in the U.S., if people don't like how the system is working, they can vote the Minster of Health out of office (he/she is an elected member of the provincial government/ legislature).
2. Canada does NOT have "socialized medicine". It has socialized health and medical insurance. Neither physicians nor other health care personnel are employees of the province in the vast majority of cases.
The provincial governments are the sole insurers of medical and hospital care (except for non-covered services and insurance that covers trips outside Canada), ultimately responsible to the electorate. They, and to a lesser extent the federal government, are also the primary funders of the system (via tax revenues), but they do not own the system.
Another interesting fact is that once patients get into the Canadian system and receive care, their level of satisfaction runs over 80% (depending on the province and the year). In the U.S., satisfaction levels (perhaps owing to all the billing nightmares and uncovered charges) run in the 40%-60% range.
Despite far lower expenditures in Canada, outcomes are virtually identical for virtually all care -- except that the life expectancy of Canadians is about two years LONGER than that for Americans.
Accreditation of medical education and hospitals is performed by the same joint bodies in both countries.
How do I know? Because I have used both systems for long periods in each country myself.
And if I had to choose one to use exclusively forevermore, I'd choose Canada's.
Thanks for the comments. In fact, I'm aware of all this. It was not my purpose in a short piece to lay out the details of Canada's health system; only to make the point that it is absure to have such a system next door and not to have its proponents and administrators come to Washington to explain it, so it can be considered here.
You are correct in pointing out--a very important fact--that Canada's decentralized, provincially-managed system, is really a single-payer system, in which hospitals and doctors are still separate, and operate privately, as do most hospitals.
The system is misrepresented by US health industry lobbyists. In fact, there is more freedom of choice in Canada than there is in a typical US HMO or PPO.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
This is a fine article that calls attention to a taboo (in the U.S.) topic (i.e., government-financed, if not -run, health care), and it has provoked a lot of constructive commentary.
I understand that one sometimes has to take shortcuts.
But labeling the Canadian health care system as an instance of "government-run health care" and associating it incorrectly with "socialized medicine" plays right into the hands of the health insurance and HMO lobbies.
They'll be spiking the debate with misrepresentations as soon as it looks as though health care reform might actually succeed.
They did exactly that to the Clinton Plan in 1994. And they WON.
HOW did they win? Remember the infamous Harry & Louise prime-time TV commercials? What did Harry erroneously assert that the Clinton Plan was?
"A government take-over of the health care system"
People remembered that and forgot the details of the very complicated, 1,400-page Clinton Plan. It tapped into their fears the way Willie Horton's black skin and the revolving prison door did under Bush41.
Never mind that it was all a LIE. It was responsible for sinking health reform as much as any other single factor.
We've been paying for that health-insurance-company-sponsored propaganda campaign for 15 years now. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and untold suffering among the uninsured and the medically bankrupt.
That's long enough, isn't it?
So please, PLEASE, everyone, find out what "government-run" and "socialized" mean. Then correct people who apply these terms to Canada's system. Even Robin Toner and other health reform reporters at the NY Times perpetuate the myth that Canada has "socialized medicine". (They should know better ... and they probably DO, but they prefer drama to truth.)
Canada has socialized (government-funded and -run) HEALTH INSURANCE, but that's all.
(To Dave Lindorff: I visited your www.thiscantbehappening.net site, and it's great. But is it possible that there's no place for readers to comment there? I didn't see any place for comments. Comments could have helped correct the "government-run" myth in that version of your article. And it really should be corrected, as I'm hoping you may agree, for the reasons stated above.)
Namaste.
An excellent post!
And you express an opinion that I too would agree with having had the luxury of trying out both the US system (where I grew up and worked until my mid 30's) and the UK system which really is pretty close to a full 'socialized' system and is even cheaper than Canada's.
Britain's system is the worst in Europe, and I don't think it compares well to Canada's either.
Yet Britain's can expect to live something like 5 years longer than Americans and my 7% of income (matched with another 7% from my employer) not only covers health care but also everything that "social security" would cover as well.
And just as the reporter and Thurston reports, NO ONE is clamouring to re-priviatise except where you can directly trace the source right back to insurance and drug companies. Such talk died here in Britain soon after Moore's film came out and they saw a taste of what that oxymoron "private care" really meant.
I agree with you 'racom40' 100%. Any other system is a dog and pony show put on by the vested corporate interests.
Americans won't see real healthcare reform in America for two reasons.
1) Corporate media (all TV networks, the majority of radio and all major newspapers and magazines) rely heavily on advertising by the pharmaceutical and healthcare companies as well as personal injury lawyers at the local level. The result is the vast majority of Americans are completely unaware of the benefits of universal, government sponsored, healthcare. Serious debates on healthcare reform therefore won't appear in these media circles. By contrast any critic of progressive reforms will also get lots of airtime and print space to hail the benefits of the current disaster. A misinformed public can't make logical choices. After 50 years of intense propaganda, Americans have morphed into a narrow minded group that react to trigger words like 'socialism' or 'terrorism' on cue while never venturing to think outside of the box that has been created for them by the MSM.
2) The deep pockets of the pharmaceutical and healthcare companies have heavily invested in our political system. All politicians rely on corporate sponsorship if they seek a State or Federal seat. The medical industrial complex therefore prevents any candidate from running (and more importantly... getting exposure!) who might be opposed to the current system. Barack is no exception having received massive donations from the MIC (medical Industrial Complex) during his campaign. The MIC have bought their politicians and they have chosen them well.
Having said that, I would love to see it happen but I won't hold my breath.
We see this kind of story posted as if it was news. DOH!! Everyone in the USofA who isn't a worshipper at the Rush Limbaugh church of perpetual hate or an exec in the health care industry has known for years that our system is broken and that we are far behind most industrialized countries (and many who are not) in delivering affordable health care. The unwillingness of those who have some at least partly paid access to medical care to take a firm stand and insist that our government take action allows the fascist minority to continue their ways in health care, as they have in banking, the auto industry, and the other parts of our economy that have crashed. The problem is US - we don't demand better from our elected representatives, don't throw them out when they work against our interests. Case in point - Joe the plumber, who was neither a Joe nor a plumber. Stupid, ignorant man, treated by the fawning media (and John Bush III, er., uh, McCain) as though he had a valid point to make when he railed against taxing a business owner who takes over $250,000 profit and distribution out of his business at the end of the year.
I bet Joe gets paid now from the Cato Institute or the Heritage foundation to go around and give lectures. He can give serious cache' to important executives so they can claim a contact with "the people".
TheProf wrote: "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."
Only BC and Alberta charge premiums. Premium assistance up to 100% is available for the low-income, based on their previous year's tax return. In BC, employers pay the premiums for employees working more than 20 hours a week, forwarding them directly to the provincial medical services plan. Most employers also offer private supplementary insurance for services and goods not covered by the provincial plan - dental, optometric, chiropractic, massage, psychological testing, medical equipment, travel insurance. However, every provincial plan covers more services than would be required by a strict reading of the Canada Health Act. All legal residents are covered by the provincial health plan, whether they pay their premiums or not. In some cases, the province will go after people who run up medical expenses after failing to pay premiums, but only for back payment of the premiums, not for the cost of the services. Some basic information about the Canada Health Act: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/res/faq-eng.php#a13
the USA economic system -- coming from its self-proclaimed mythical "greatness of the capitalist system" - to which it has tied itself - come what may --
is like an aging singer -- whose career , great as it was - was really based on using the benefits of ARTIFICIAL aids such as a microphone to "enlarge" her or his voice --
but a day comes when -- without microphone or even with it -- the voice is quaking .
without a mike -- the voice NEVER really carried on its own native strength.
with a mike or enhancements -- the inherently BAD quality of the voice , its inherently BAD technic, and delivery
is only MAGNIFIED.
all that was needed was FULLER EXPOSURE of what it really was...and you peel away the smoke and mirrors and "Echo chamber" --
and all you have is a pipsqueak of a voice no better than many others' voices.
what I really find amazing is this:
from the american standpoint:
to speak of the "socialist" PART seems to be ASSUMING that it is somehow the part that is responsible for "capitalism NOT arriving at its TRUE benevolent capacity of TRUE competition".
as if to say that "if only socialism within the US system was removed ALTOGETHER and let the market speak without interference, true competition would arise from TRUE , PURE, capitalism and everything would be alright".
on the contrary -- the ONLY PARTS of capitalism that are even SURVIVING or given SOME measure of "competitiveness" are those that are , and have been SUPPORTED behind the facade of "free market" -- by SOCIALISM -- all along!!
the AUTO industry , the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance private industry, the medical industry, the health care industry, the private education system, the housing industry, the ARMY and the militaryindustrial complex, the "PRIVATE ENTERPRISE" banks, the huge corporations....
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM would NEVER be "competitive" UNDER "capitalism" ...as they are claimed to be -- IF SOCIALIST FUNDING in the form of subsidies, tax cuts, etc...
did NOT EXIST BEHIND THEM !
americans need to ALREADY come to terms :
CAPITALISM is NOT about being "competitive" -- it is about TAKING HANDOUTS from public property and commonwealth
in order to make a PRETENSE of being "competitive" and survive ITS own POISON!
what needs to be REMOVED from the USA -- in terms of the NATIONALLY important industries --
IS PRIVATIZATIOn and PRIVATE PROFIT.
they should be BANNED! and turned into outright SOCIALIST entities. PERIOD!
in other words:
the CAPITALIST PART of industries in the USA should NOT BE ALLOWED to take advantage of the HANDOUTS BY THE SOCIALIST funding behind the facade...for "socialism in the usa" amounts to THAT:
it is made to work FOR the private corporations at the expense of ordinary people which is the PUBLIC that puts the private industries ON WELFARE while being TOLD by these industries that "this is the free market and free competition and good for you".
the USA economic system of "capitalism" -- so-called - is really a "capitalist" WAY of getting SUPPORT from SOCIALISM
except that the americans don't ADMIT IT to themselves or if they recognize it -- say that the "problem is the socialism"...
even if their own "private enterprise" industries are themselves competitive ONLY because they are actually "guaranteed not to fail" BY socialist funding behind them!
examples?
the american AGRICULTURAL industry only is competitive in the world -- amounting to DUMPING below cost products on other countries while at the same time forcing weaker nations to "open their markets" and their domestic farming industries are destroyed and TURNED into SERVANT industries to US capitalism -- BECAUSE of the SUBSIDIES behind the so-called "free market US AGriculture".
same thing with the AUTO industry..
LEFT on their OWN as they CLAIM is the "goodness of capitalism and free market" -- left on their own without GUARANTEES fropm PUBLIC FUNDING in case they get into trouble -- they WON"T be the "Competitive industries" they claim to be "because of the wonders of capitalism".
they would already have COLLAPSED LONG AGO -- because of their own drive towards the bottom LINE which can NOT be sustained and would EVENTUALLY DESTROY THEM because the consumption markets they AIM FOR for their profits , can't SUSTAIN itself with the LOW WAGES that capitalism DEMANDS ....
and WHAT is it that then ENTERS into the picture to SAVE these "capitalist industries" from their OWN petard?
SOCIALIST FUNDING behind them to keep thm GOING!
what a FARCE the US ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS!
a FARCE!
it's a self-described, self-boasting "capitalism and free market" that actuallY CAN"T EVEN STAND ON ITS OWN FEET if it were LEFT ALONE without the SUPPORT of SOCIALIST funding behind it!!! and YET claims it is all due , in the "successes of wealth creation", to "capitalism and the free market"...even if it is NOTHING of the sort!
what a FARCE!
capitalism , particularly the US BRAND is an economic system on STEROIDS...a FAKE...
and if you removed the steroids -- it is not really THAT exceptionally "successful" in "wealth creation" and CERTAINLY not in creating a decent , stable, self-sustaining, benevolent society -- and when it runs into trouble the ONLY REAL MEDICINE that can keep it ALIVE at all to continue its PRETENSE --
is actually a SOCIALIST NETWORK!!!
Obama's pick for HHS doesn't bode well. Sebelius is a big advocate of expanding subsidies to insurance companies instead of universal health access. I looked into her qualifications a bit. She was the state Insurance Commissioner before becoming gov. Her dad was gov of Ohio. Now he works for a law firm, SZD or Schottenstein Zox & Dunn. They specialize in resolving business disputes with financial service companies or government entities and health law.
Her father is still alive and working!!! He must be in his 80s.
People do not realize this, but the US government already pays for over 50% of all health care dollars spent. But insurance companies make a ton of money on insuring the relatively healthy working people and government does not want to interfere with that party. And for those who go bankrupt over health care issues, the banks get your house and the insured pay higher premiums to cover the loss to the health care system.
By any reasonable measure, the United States today is over fifty percent socialist. That is to say, more than fifty percent of the total resources in the country, of the total input, is directly or indirectly controlled by governmental institutions at all levels - federal, state and local
Military, education, welfare, social security, medicare, postal services, subsidized agriculture, food stamps, bank bailouts, insurance bailouts (AIG), auto industry bail out, infrastructure development, funding of scientific research, national parks, federal ownership of 30% of all land, etc., are all examples of socialism.
Whats a little bit more, especially of it virtually pays for itself by reducing overall health care costs. Twenty percent of these costs are related to billing, collection and denying coverage, not to mention the added cost of those who can not pay seeking treatment in the emergency room, the most costly treatment of all.
Also, the other reason to make health care expensive is so people do not live as long. As a result, our life expectancy has already peaked and is in decline now. The neo-malthusians rule.
That America is capitalist is a myth. We are 50% socialist, and 50% fascist (monopoly capitalists supported by government regulators who legalize their looting of it's citizens). Competitive capitalism began it's death spiral 130 years ago and ended with the export of our manufacturing abroad in order to obtain cheaper labour with less envrionmental controls.
Only 50% fascist are you so sure I remember a Norman Mailer interview that when he was asked if he thought if america was in danger of becoming a fascist nation he replied I hope so because in my opinion we already are one. George Orwell wrote many years ago if you want a vision of the future imagine a boot firmly planted in your face for the rest of your life and folks thats just what we have. It is up to us to question and march in the streets and to VOTE VOTE VOTE as one we are only a little voice together we are a mighty roar. Never forget that the goverment is frightend of us remember it is meant to be for the people by the people not by the goverment for the goverment for big corporaions
Imagine a rope, on the left end is socialism, on the right end is fascism. They seem far apart, but put the 2 ends of the rope together and tie a knot. Not so far apart now.
The synthesis of national socialism (thesis) and national fascism (anti-thesis) is global communism. Fascism is simply stepping stone in the transition of capitalism to Communism. Stalin was not a fascist but still had the boot.
Marx never envisioned National Communism, his vision was Global Communism after the global economy was industrialized. Industrialization and development must come first. Thats why China introduced capitalism into their Communism, with our great help, and the Soviets were persuaded to give up their Communism altogether, with disasterous results, since without state protection the fascists in the West had a feeding frenzy. Gorbachev was duped.
It appears to people that socialism and fascism are two separate animals, just like Democrats and Republicans are supposed to be polar opposites. They are basically the same things, packaged differently. The difference is an illusion created to divide people and prevent them from uniting, and to get them to forget while they argue over which one is the lesser evil, that they are no longer a Constitutional Republic.
In fact, one can argue that it was when people started to be believe we were a Democracy, which the founding fathers rejected out of hand, since it always led to tyranny, that we began our journey to tyranny via socialism and fascism lite and our militarism which began in 1898 accelerated.
It's interesting that FDR is so admired by the left. The right calls FDR the father of socialism in this country, but he was also the father of it's fascism. Hoover is rejected by the left as evil, but was actually a progressive and rejected out of hand the fascist NRA and AAA (knowns as the Swope Plan when he was President) that FDR pushed through. In fact, FDR gaves us the National Security State and perpetual state of emergency that has trashed the constitution when he signed the War Powers Act of `1917 as amended in 1933 which allowed the Federal Government to apply these powers over citizens (he threatended Congrees to give him the powers or he would just take them on his own).
One of FDR's first acts was to recognize Stalin and the Soviet Union and guarantee loans made to them, in the middle of a great Depression when bansk were not loaning money at home. Is it any wonder that FDR allowed American business to invest heavily in the fascism of Nazi Germany even into the war. Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist party. Is it any surprise that the biggest winner of WW II was Communism? The territory under Communist control after the war grew significantly to cover more than 1/2 the world.
American business leaders and bankers funded both Communism and Fascism. The greatest evil to them is competitive capitalism, since to them competition is the root of all evil, since it keeps prices low and quality high. America has only 5% of the worlds population, there is only so much money to be made off American citizens. Their vision is a Global Government controlling 100% of the people, where essentially one great corporation runs the global economy under Global Communism (or whatever -ism it ends up to be called).
McCarthy and others pointed out that this country was infiltrated with Communists, but they were only 1/2 right, since had they sided with both Hitler and Stalin. In fact, many of Nazis financial leaders, business leaders and scientists were set free, some were allowed to come to the US. The BIS which handled Hitlers banking and gold sets the rules for the national central banks. It was established in 1930 when the Great Depression became Great (not a coincidence). While Congress did not allow the Fed to join, the Feds leading shareholders, it's biggest banks, were invited to join and are members.
Our History reads like something out of Orwells 1984. The truth is the lie, and history is being constantly rewritten.
In the end, we will get single payer health care, but only if we agree to the New World Order. But as Stalin said, if you don't work, you don't eat. And if there is no work to do, well......
Honestly, it doesn't have to be that way.
And it won't be that way in the USA because the current order of business is highly lucrative for a whole industry.
I can just about guarantee you that if the people of the USA rise up and start chucking out anyone who doesn't talk about universal health care you have the exact opposite of a dictatorship....because by definition it's what the people want.
And as for going to a pure capitalist system.....well, it just doesn't exist, anywhere. You need to start asking why...because many places, at the behest of the IMF, have been forced to try to implement such a system.
Pure capitalism is, by it's nature, self-destructive. Businesses do NOT want change, they want the status quo to continue so that they can continue to make money without costly changes. They do NOT want to do research, at least not any research that is going to radically change the landscape...again, this is expensive with no guarantee of a return. Shortly, every country that tries the IMF ideas ends up either rewarding big corporations or the smaller companies become big enough to then use the government against their potential competitors.
Even if you are a Friedmanist you must recognize the truth of this. The desire for greed and power are all too human frailties. As a result, no pure 'free' market, in the sense of 'free from all government interference' can ever exist for more than a short span of years before you get class separation, aristocracy, lords, kings, dictators, and well before then you become a servant of the state.
I am no socialist but what we need is a 'competitive market' not a 'free' one. And that positively requires an active role from a government. Unfortunately, despite being a fountain of ideas on many other topics, I simply have no way to stop the corruption and the greed that drives too many people and leads them to hijack the government so that it works against us rather than for us apart from the occasional revolution....and most of those do NOT turn out well.
A poster inquired about the waiting times in Canada. I cannot comment on that but I can say that my wife, who has Parkinson's disease [or something close to that], had to wait five months before she could see a neurologist at the University of Washington. Even more egregiously, the neurologist tried to dismiss my wife's symptoms as simply being vertigo and carpal tunnel syndrome. That lengthy time before seeing a specialist [for all the good that it did] hardly makes for a glowing recommendation of the health care system in this country.
As this article makes clear it is simply an outrage that what is supposed to be the most advanced country in the world ends up being outranked by 37 other countries in terms of quality health care by the WHO [though I believe that I had recently read that Cuba may have just pushed the U.S. back to 38th]. The film Sicko persuasively makes the case that a government run health care system is the best and most logical way to provide quality health care. A new book aptly entitled The Case for BIG government by Jeff Madrick [which I am currently reading] also does a splendid job of exploring the same territory since the U.S. was founded back in the 1770s. Unfortunately, since Obama was quite happy in accepting over a million dollars in campaign contributions from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, it seems doubtful that the [alleged] agent of hope and change will offer much hope for those people who continue to struggle without health care. It is also worth noting that Obama, who campaigned for Stem Cell research, has now backtracked, saying that he will wait for Congress to act instead of using his bully pulpit as he did for the stimulus package.
Agent of hope? Not for those suffering from Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Cerebral Palsy, Lou Gehrig's disease, Muscular Dystrophy, spinal cord injuries, etc.
"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."
People have to get morally outraged for kind of meaningful change--no matter who Obama puts on his panel. Otherwise they're just going to invent some Frankenstein pure ad-hocery--that somehow manages to keep around the profit motive of the parasitic insurance industry insiders and their allies--a beast they will feed until it dies.
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?
I spent 27 days in hospital in 2005. Ten days of ICU. Ten days of PCU. Seven days in Rehab. Cost to my insurance company? $105,000. No surgery.
That was just the hospital charge. All of the doctors who saw me billed seperately. Didn't add up those bills.
30 days??? The actual hospital bill would be at very least several tens of thousands of dollars, probably at least $100,000. Actually, unless you are awful sick, few hospitals would keep anyone for 30 days. Recuperation from severe injuries is done at a "rehabilitation center" or the like.
But this is how it works. Assume you have a typical good insurance policy, which for nearly all Americans is only affordable through their employer group plan where the employer covers at least half the premium. Then, if the hospital and all the doctors are "preferred providers" (impossible to determine in an emergency situation), and if you fallow all the other arcane rules, the hospital must accept as payment from the Insurance company (under the preferred provider contract wit the insurance company), only the "allowable amount" which may be about 20% to 30% of the hospital billing. The patient then must pay a calendar year deductible which may range from $300 to $3000 depending on the plan. Then after that, they only need to pay typically 10% to 20% "coinsurance" on the "allowable amount".
Still following me?
To cut to the chase, if insured, you would pay at least $2000 out-of pocket for that hospital stay, and possibly a couple tens of thousands of dollars.
But of course, in an life threatening situation, you aren't in a position to determine if a doctor is a "preferred provider". In the case of my insurance, I would owe $7,500 right off the top if an emergency surgeon isn't a "Blue-Cross (TM) preferred provider". After some protest from from the US Government workers union (this is a US government employee plan) they changed the rules and can get around it if we first ask the surgeon to give a statement of what his fees will be, show some evidence that we shopped around for the cheapest emergency surgeon, we then may ask for insurance company "pre-approval" to use the non-participating provider.
No, I am not making this up!
If uninsured and poor, you would be expected to pay the full $100,000 fees - fees much higher than the hospital and doctors accept if the payer is a big insurance corporation. But of course, if uninsured, the hospital would not keep you - they would "stabilize" you a bit in the emergency room and kick you back out on the street.
If only you foreigners knew how bad things are over here. In the case of your son, you would most likely be having your house foreclosed and bankrupt unless you were pretty rich. Most US household bankruptcies are due to medical bills.
As a first step, you need to dispense with this notion that the US is a first-world country. In reality, it has one leg firmly planted in the third-world.
---USAn---
Our insurance policy is simplier since we have (and pay for) a $5,000 out of pocket maximum. That does not include the $3600 in annual premiums greatly subsidized by our employer. Total for care is then $8,600 a year. A real bargain in this country.
Thanks for your e-mail - and cheers to the dude that said $2K a day as well.
Yeah, thirty days all up - poor fella had a stroke and his bowels were tangled. We were in and out of hospital over a prolonged period of time - but all in all it was thirty days all together. He's absolutely champion now, but he is mildy disabled. We were real lucky.
We'd have second mortgage, for sure. Man, imagine that and the stress of raising a disabled child, making everything work at home . . . . I'd probably have failed.
That's a pretty scary peice of literature USAn.
What kind of witing list would encourage an individual to use a private hopsital?
What is the difference in costs?
How much more are doctors paid?
Can't understand how a paralllel system would work/could work.
Health insurance makes the parallel system work in NZ - usually taken on board by people that can affort it, and anticipate spending money on dentistry, seeing an optometrist etc etc. There is usually a surgery option that is multi layered - providing multiple levels of coverage.
If you have health insurance, you can enjoy having your required surgery scheduled and performed at a set time, asap, without fear of emergency scenarios or more critical situations bumping your operation to a later date. You will have to pay some amount of excess I suppose - but whether you decide to go down that road will be relative to the amount of discomfort you are in and how long you can wait.
The degree of pain the person is in is usually answer to your first question.
For your third question - Not enugh is the answer. Doctors aren't paid to well in NZ - and I'm not sure as to the difference between the private and public sectors - however I'm pretty sure both sectors are having retention issues - with doctors getting paid comparatively better rates overseas. We're a remote, small country!
I think I've probably over simplified the situation here a bit (I'm in IT, not healthcare - though I did do a brief stint for the Ministry of Health) - but it's the jist of it. See http://www.emigratenz.org/healthcare-migrants-newzealand.html
I'm not trying to convince you all to come to NZ - it's just a site that had some good summary information.
Roughly $2000 a day.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
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!
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!
"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.
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.
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.
"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!!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There's another word for 'rugged individualism' - barbarism.
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.
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
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.
New Mexico might pass a law that requires insurance companies to spend 85% of their premiums income on healthcare. A fallback plan?
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
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
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.
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.
Right on. Thanks for bringing that to the discussion.
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
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'!!!!
Not often mentioned, but the savings to corporate America, and small businesses, would also be huge.
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
Exactly.
Joe
Din 12:02 -------- Good Post!
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".
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
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.
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!
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".
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 !!"
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.
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.
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
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
racom40
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.