EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Health Care Reform Is Needed Now More than Ever
With the U.S. economy's downward spiral still accelerating and the federal government looking at its largest budget deficits since World War II, some are saying that this is not the time to expand health care coverage to all Americans.
But this is exactly the time for the Obama administration to move boldly on its campaign promise to implement a universal health care system.
Obama wants spending that stimulates the economy in the short term, but he also wants to reduce the long-term deficit problem after the economy recovers. This is exactly what health care reform will do.
In the short run, health care spending, like other government spending on goods and services, creates jobs and generates income. This will help arrest the economy's downward spiral.
With the collapse of private spending, the federal government must act as the consumer of last resort - hence the vital importance of the $787 billion stimulus package that Congress passed last week. Fortunately this package did contain at least some health care stimulus. In included $87 billion for Medicaid payments to the state governments, $25 billion towards helping unemployed workers extend their employment-based health insurance after being laid off, and $19 billion for health information technology.
But health care reform would do vastly more. President Obama has proposed a reform that would, while keeping the employer-based health insurance that covers most Americans, create a public health insurance system for the 46 million that do not have insurance. Large employers would be required to either pay into this system or provide their employees with insurance that is at least as good as the federal system. Individuals without insurance could buy into the public system, and the federal government would subsidize these payments so that they would be affordable for low-income households and those without ties to the labor force.
The White House estimates that their plan would cost $50-65 billion annually, but it would be better to spend much more than this, with more federal subsidies to employers to cover uninsured workers and improve existing coverage. As big as it may seem, the $787 billion stimulus bill passed by Congress amounts to less than 2.7 percent of GDP. This is not nearly enough to counteract our deep recession: the Congressional Budget Office estimates the output gap (i.e., how much output is below the economy's potential) at $2.9 trillion over the next three years.
Besides saving thousands of lives by providing health care to the uninsured, and supplementing the fiscal stimulus, health care reform has another huge advantage: it can drastically reduce future federal budget deficits. The vast majority of our government's long-term shortfall is due to exploding health care costs in the private sector. These spill over to the public sector, which currently finances about half the nation's health care costs. The United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as other high-income countries, and yet has worse health outcomes, including life expectancy and infant mortality.
The main economic reason for this colossal failure is that our system of private insurance and powerful monopolies is vastly more wasteful and inefficient than the health care systems of other developed countries. Insurance companies spend tens of billions trying to insure the healthy, avoid the sick, and deny payment for claims. Pharmaceutical companies take $350 billion of our health care dollars for drugs that cost a small fraction of that sum to produce.
The Obama health care plan won't eliminate most of these perverse incentives and waste - eventually we will need a truly national, single-payer system like Medicare to accomplish that. But it would be a big step in that direction, creating a nearly universal insurance system and laying the foundation for a sustainable system that can contain costs.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
13 Comments so far
Show All1. Remove the present cap on paying in to FICA(Every one pays on their entire earnings)
2. Eliminate all government programs that subsidise private insurance companies for those that can't afford private insurance, and immediately enroll them in medicare.
3. Eliminate Part-D, and make prescription drugs a part of medicare, and pass legislation that requires medicare to negotiate drug prices.
4. Give every American citizen the option of buying in to medicare.(as a first step to eliminating the present private insurance scam)
5.I would also, immediately enroll all elected officials, and those on the government payroll, in medicare.(Do you think they might pay close attention to their health care plan, instead of the lobbyists that pay for their campaigns?
I am confident that there are other solutions, to add to this list, out there.
I particularly like #2. If we are concerned that the unemployed won't have coverage, why not add them to medicare? The tax payment isn't so much because we're concerned about the unemployed person, but rather the health of that person's insurance company. That, and it helps keep the provider's business.
I like #5, too, because Washington doesn't give a damn what happens to us. The only way to get their attention would be to have them share in our fate.
I would add getting rid of the congressionally created monopoly on the supply chain. If Obama wants to spend money on technology, let them set up a truly free internet marketplace with actual competition. Don't let him add to the problem by expanding the monopoly to include the front and back offices of all medical care providers. No way in hell this will lower our costs. The first monopoly in supply was also created with - allegedly - the best of intentions. Oh look at the good we're doing. But we'll wind up with another unaccountable monopoly. And no one has even debated issues like privacy and who should have access to our records. In Iceland they were even selling the database of the people to an American company.
Yes, make drug prices negotiable and nationalize congress. Take our representatives back out of the pockets of pharma.
Obama's strategy of continued financial industry bailouts without meaningful conditions or financial industry re-regulation assures that the economic freefall will continue and you WILL see 25% unemployment (comparable to the 1930s). Although Obama will cook the books to make it look like less than 25% unemployment, the medical industry will see huge revenue declines as employer-based medical insurance unravels. Few of the unemployed will be able to afford COBRA, even with Obama's Stimulus Package subsidy.
This link is something that Obama apparently is most fearful that Americans might know, such as that Universal single payer health care would cost six times LESS than what it cost to bail out Wall Street. But given the fact that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies contributed more than a million dollars to Obama's campaign, it probably should come as no great surprise that Obama is most loath to advocate single payer while making sure that the insurance and drug companies are reimbursed for the financial help that they gave Obama in the 2008 presidential election.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Study_finds_universal_health_care_would_0301.html
I've got an idea. I know that HR676 is the best, but frankly, it has little chance of passage due to the deathgrip of special interest money in DC.
In researching "organizing", I found that the most successul, and the model for much that came afterwards, was Cesar Chavez and the UFW "boycotts" on a natiional stage during the 60's and 70's. It was only the boycotts that forced the growers to negotiate with the extremely poor migrant workers. (Hit 'em in the pocketbook).
Is it possible to "boycott" healthcare to force change? Before rejecting it, consider breaking it down to 4 components: Big Pharma, Insurance, the hospitals, and Medical Device.
Isn't it possible to organize a boycott against Big Pharma, Insurance, and Med Device? (one at a time, with laser focus so we don't dilute the impact). With the Internet participation we have today, and the multiple horror stories (much like the migrant worker stories of the 60's that generated buy-in on the part of the larger American public), we could have a huge impact. I think it's one way to get a huge impact without fronting the millions of dollars to compete with the special interest monies. No one would boycott their own care of course, but would they boycott the business interests that extort them everyday? I really think we would.
Donna Smith: your thinking??
We'll see what happens. I do not think single payer is possible given the status quo and the present climate--at least until big insurance profits start falling significantly. Once that happens they will be looking for a bailout. THEN we may get a single payer system, but not until.
The first rule for doctors is to "first do no harm." Why do people insist that increasing the subsidy to insurance companies will be a "step" toward universal care? It isn't. It just reinforces the too big to fail aspect of the current fiasco. If we can't do this now, when will we be able to?
The author pays lip service to the problem: "The main economic reason for this colossal failure is that our system of private insurance and powerful monopolies is vastly more wasteful and inefficient than the health care systems of other developed countries." But then basically goes on to say we can't do any thing about that except give them another $50 billion a year.
Here is just one small example of the problem with Obama's "leave no health care executive behind" program. I saw the CEO of United Health Services on CNBC responding to Obama's program. The guy kept gushing, "It's very good for us!" over and over, so I went to CNBC's website and looked up the company. This one exec has 505,816 stock options which would at that day's price be roughly $17 million for just one exec.
"We're excited about it. We expect expanded coverage. After that [S-CHIP] all of these things are certainly very good for UHS." On and on the guy went. Well, it's not good for the middle class. We are expected to pay more so that some groups can be subsidized, but this does nothing to make health care affordable to us. I'm self employed, or self unemployed as the joke goes, and I've given up coverage. I will pay taxes, though, so that other more deserving people can receive care. It's not right.
Is there no one in The White House who can vet Health Care Policy Designers ... and identify expertise from somewhere other than the Board Rooms of major healthcare corporations?
Nancy Ann DeParle has earned hundreds of thousands in cash and stock from her Board Memberships on home health, hospital, medical instrument, and healthcare I.T. corporations.
http://people.forbes.com/profile/nancy-ann-deparle-j-d-/12920
She has been generous to Democratic politicians she will be working with on 'reform'.
Pay-to-Play cannot be terminated if the current players paid to play!
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/nancy-ann-
deparle.asp?cycle=08
Oh she's PERFECT for the job. Cerner is one of the companies looking to do electronic records. Boston Scientific, I believe benefits from the way Group Purchasing Organizations got congress to legalize a monopoly on every bedpan, bed and bandaide a hospital buys. And Medco is the largest PBM or Pharmaceutical Benefits Manager, which is the drug equivalent. TRIFECTA!
The money for upgrading medical records sounds very innocent and worthwhile, but it really makes the monopolies more efficient. We would be much better off not spending the money.
Single Payer should be on the table at Obama's upcoming high level conference on health care.
When did Obama promise to implement single-payer health care?
I whole-heartedly endorse H.R. 676, the Conyers/Kucinich single-payer bill -- Medicare for All. I believe that the implementation of single-payer would go a long way -- in addition to significant reduction in the $1.2+ trillion military budget -- to resolving the economic crisis. It provides a significant reduction in the cost of healthcare to both large and small businesses while simultaneously providing universal coverage.
I would like to note some areas of savings and coverage which are not often mentioned in the context of single-payer.
1. V.A. clients, both present and future, would be eligible for care in
their home community with local providers. This would reduce direct
costs to the VA and make care available to more veterans --
especially those in rural areas.
2. By significantly reducing administrative overhead costs to
hospitals and practioners,this will enable these providers to
deliver increased services at the same cost -- or in the
alternative spend more direct time with patients and continue to
earn the same amount of money.
Privatized Public Service* Is An Oxymoron
"Based on?"
"Greed."
*health care, education, housing, banking & finance, name it