Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege
Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation - and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.
At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business perspective, General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel while small business owners are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees - rather than new business investments. And, because of rising costs, many businesses are cutting back drastically on their level of health care coverage or are doing away with it entirely.
Further, despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country, our health care outcomes lag behind many other nations. We get poor value for what we spend. According to the World Health Organization the United States ranks 37th in terms of health system performance and we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy and preventable deaths.
As the health care debate heats up in Washington, we as a nation have to answer two very fundamental questions. First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege - which is the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality health care to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way possible?
I think the answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans do believe that all of us should have health care coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.
Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world. Its function is not to provide quality health care for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible (30 percent) of each health care dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are administered for far less.
In recent years, while we have experienced an acute shortage of primary health care doctors as well as nurses and dentists, we are paying for a huge increase in health care bureaucrats and bill collectors. Over the last three decades, the number of administrative personnel has grown by 25 times the numbers of physicians. Not surprisingly, while health care costs are soaring, so are the profits of private health insurance companies. From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation's major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent. And, while more and more Americans are losing their jobs and health insurance, the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages. It's not just William McGuire, the former head of United Health, who several years ago accumulated stock options worth an estimated $1.6 billion or Cigna CEO Edward Hanway who made more than $120 million in the last five years. The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million.
Moving toward a national health insurance program which provides cost-effective universal, comprehensive and quality health care for all will not be easy. The powerful special interests - the insurance companies, drug companies and medical equipment suppliers - will wage an all-out fight to make sure that we maintain the current system which enables them to make billions of dollars. In recent years they have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying, campaign contributions and advertising and, with unlimited resources, they will continue spending as much as they need.
But, at the end of the day, as difficult as it may be, the fight for a national health care program will prevail. Like the civil rights movement, the struggle for women's rights and other grass-roots efforts, justice in this country is often delayed - but it will not be denied. We shall overcome!
- Posted in
260 Comments so far
Show All"Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world. Its function is not to provide quality health care for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies."
A reasonable way to look at this is that the $600B "down payment" Obama wants on the way to over a trillion dollars of taxes to be raised and spent is a BAILOUT of the health insurance industry. There was much discussion on teevee about limiting the compensation of bank executives. Shouldn't the insurance executives who have performed just as badly be held to pay limitations in return for this government bailout?
Or would it be more to the point to say that what we need is a non-profit health insurance system that would cut them out all together? After all, they can still profiteer aplenty on property, car, and life insurance (another bailout) etc.
>>>Pitch Fork wrote: ...what we need is a non-profit health insurance system...
Logically speaking, there should be NO profit in the insurance industry. Here's why:
Insurance is not like other "industries" that produce a product or deliver a service. Insurance is basically a spreading of the risk and a collective sharing in an individual misfortune. Since such misfortune could potentially come upon anyone (like an accident), it's a good idea to buy insurance by paying a small premium. Now, ideally, the amount of premium should depend on total claims paid out, plus administrative costs (including salaries for those who process claims and those who do the risk assessment), plus a contingency fund - that could even be invested on other activities - to pay out major claims such as after a hurricane.
But the bottom line is this: whatever claims are paid out are ENTIRELY from the premiums paid. So, in a supposedly mature industry (it's not a start-up that requires capital from investors), what exactly is the need for shareholders, dividends, profits and bonuses? In fact, how can there even be a "profit"? There could be surpluses year-over-year depending on claims paid out - and if these surpluses are consistent, then the ONLY thing to be done is to lower the premiums - these are NOT profits. In Michael Moore's 'Sicko', I think there is a mention somewhere that in some countries, health insurance companies CANNOT make a profit as per law. The people who run these companies can get paid - but there are no "profits" handed out to shareholders. It is ridiculous and outrageous to hand out bonuses to employees and executives in a health insurance company. This "profit" is essentially made out of other people's misery (or their fear of misery) - pure and simple!
But, like with so many other things, there will be no discussion on the fundamental logic of things in America. Politicians and the media will cleverly beat around the bush and discuss and debate non-issues, while failing to ask why there should be a profit in health insurance AT ALL! I would say, the same should apply to auto insurance as well.
And now these insurance companies are itching to get into countries like India (and from what I hear, some are already in, "offering" health insurance). The reason is quite simple: the economy is doing reasonably well and traditionally the savings rate is pretty decent - so there's all this capital floating around and there's money to be made, while in actual fact, these companies DO NOT provide any real service which already did not exist in these countries. It starts with the elite in these countries - they think it's cool to have these fancy policies, hospitals slowly start charging more, and the poor, who until now were able to pay out of their pockets (yes, in India, people actually pay out of their pockets for doctor visits and hospitalization - unless they go to a government-run hospital) will soon find that health care is slipping out of their reach. And the elite think that their countries are "modernizing".
Alcyon, I think insurance companies are legalized organized crime. There are outrages beyond health insurance for sure, and yet congress is silent. I think the entire industry needs to be cleaned up, and as you say, they are a special case due to the nature of their business. Think of how outrageous it is that we are bailing out the likes of AIG. They have been allowed to prey upon us instead of providing a service, one that was supposed to be regulated.
You know, the Chinese government decided they'd better provide healthcare to their peasants to avoid unpleasantness. They're coming up with $123B over 3 years to provide a basic care package to every citizen. The company they're contracting with is HCA.
"Insurance is not like other "industries" that produce a product or deliver a service."
Actually, an insurance policy *is* a "product". I worked in the "Product Development" department of a life insurance company for a time. Producing a policy that can be sold to the public requires years of development by actuaries and great scrutiny by lawyers before they can be offered. All of this represents a finacial *risk*.
"In fact, how can there even be a "profit"? "
Because no one would develop and sell insurance policies otherwise. Except maybe the government.
And just where does all that "profit" go towards? Let's see. More misleading advertising, lobbying and bribing the pols, gambling on Wall Street, need I name more ? For all the work you've done, your work has been ABUSED by the higher ups.
"And just where does all that "profit" go towards?"
A fair question.
"More misleading advertising, lobbying and bribing the pols, gambling on Wall Street, need I name more ? "
These are "expenses", not "profit".
"For all the work you've done, your work has been ABUSED by the higher ups."
I am sure you can provide good specific examples and where true, I would likely agree with you that there was "abuse" of something.
But regarding my work, I was compensated in accordance with the terms of my contract.
Private insurance is demonstrably dysfunctional for a health-care delivery system. That's why every other industrialized country prohibits profiteering in the main sources of health-care funding; hence, they have half our per capita costs with better health outcomes, and they cover EVERYONE without premiums and deductibles.
Thanks to the profit-grasping of U.S. health insurers, our system has a 30 percent overhead, compared to 3-5 percent for the Canadian/European nonprofit systems. And where does that 30 percent go? To redundant billing bureaucracies, clerks assigned to find excuses to deny coverage, bloated compensation to CEOs (averaging $14 million per year), profit distribution to shareholders, etc. That's hundreds of billions in WASTE that contributes NOTHING to health-care delivery. In the meantime, the barbaric "pay-or-die" market rationing of the U.S. system leaves 50 million people without ANY coverage and 20,000 of them DEAD annually because they cannot afford to see a doctor.
Private HMOs are unnecessary, cost-bloating middlemen. Eliminating those middleman would bring the U.S. health-care system up to par with the rest of the civilized world--the world where health care is a right, not a privilege.
Now, Mr. Insurance Industry Troll--find somewhere else to hawk your fetid wares.
"Private insurance is demonstrably dysfunctional for a health-care delivery system. That's why every other industrialized country prohibits profiteering in the main sources of health-care funding; hence, they have half our per capita costs with better health outcomes, and they cover EVERYONE without premiums and deductibles."
Interesting how you did not *demonstrate* any of the above.
These are well known facts--they are all over the Internet, in hundreds of reputable sources. That you do not know these facts is a testimony to your own ignorance.
Do you deny that the U.S. has double the average per capita health care costs of any other industrialized nation?
Do you deny that they prohibit profiteering in the main sources of health-care funding?
Do you deny that they cover everyone, with better health outcomes?
Do you deny that no one in any of those countries goes without first-rate medical care for lack of funds?
Please let me know if you deny any of the foregoing--because if you do, I will prove that you are an ignoramus. Go ahead--I dare you.
"These are well known facts--they are all over the Internet, in hundreds of reputable sources. That you do not know these facts is a testimony to your own ignorance."
I won't play this game. *You* made a claim, the burden is on *you* to back up your claim. This was your claim:
"Private insurance is demonstrably dysfunctional for a health-care delivery system."
And I asked you to demonstrate the alleged dysfunctional aspect, preferably compared to other systems. You did not.
"Do you deny that the U.S. has double the average per capita health care costs of any other industrialized nation?"
I'm less concerned if this is simply true, but rather how it reflects a corresponding quality and quantity of health care actually delivered. Lower costs can be explained by rationed (i.e. "less") health care.
"Do you deny that they prohibit profiteering in the main sources of health-care funding?"
I am sure they do, but that isn't the question. You claimed the reason they do this is to avoid certain dysfunctions. You haven't demonstrated that yet.
"Do you deny that they cover everyone, with better health outcomes?"
You do not define "coverage", nor have you demonstrated "better outcomes" from the health care delivery system.
"Do you deny that no one in any of those countries goes without first-rate medical care for lack of funds?"
I am certain that certain therapies are arbitrarily denied, and that isn't true in a system where one has a means to pay.
"Go ahead--I dare you."
*shudder*
If you respond, please remain focused on the specific issues I raised.
Ah, shaddup, you empty fraud.
You haven't contributed one cited fact to this discussion. You're a fraud.
"But regarding my work, I was compensated in accordance with the terms of my contract."
I once worked for a defense contractor. I too was compensated in accordance with the terms of my contract.
The work of defense, I now realize, is mostly immoral. While I didn't see it then, I see it now. I'm not too small to realize that I took part in the immorality. Looking at myself and what I've done in the past honestly is what has allowed me to grow and change.
I don't know if your comments will withstand close scrutiny, Alcyon, but they sure make sense to me. Particularly in areas where there's no real choice (car liability insurance, health insurance), maybe we have to look for tighter governmental control, or even turn the business over to government. Would you favor extending Medicare to cover persons beginning at age 55?
>>>manning120 wrote: Would you favor extending Medicare to cover persons beginning at age 55?
It doesn't matter what it's called - Medicare or something else...but if statistics show that if beginning at age 55 would be an easier way to cover a large number of people, I guess why not? I'm sure there would be screams of waste, debt, deficit, and so on, and some of them could be legitimate too - after all, someone has to pay. But the same idiots who scream would forget what it takes to maintain this empire.
Please note that down thread a troll is trying to distract from the points being raised. Doing more of what isn't working will only further enrich insurance companies at our expense. Whether through taxes or premiums, these companies are profiteering off of sickness and death. I'm guessing that the troll's position is that the "free market" does want a bigger tax subsidy paid and is okay with bailouts from here to doomsday so long as it protects "private" profits.
$$$ talks in DC and the Vampires of Health Care shout! These blood sucking leeches are all over the Senators and Congressmen with bucket loads of cash. The outcome is a given as long as these creatures are able to suck us dry they will be able to give our blood $$ to the scum we stupidly elect. What's needed is a movement that identifies the Vampires clients in Congress and then targets these scumbags for defeat. If we don't do this NOTHING will ever change.
Oregoncharles
If your congress person is not speaking out in favor of single payer, form a movement to oust that person. Yes, on this one issue.
The American people need to learn a little bit about demand. We are so acccustomed to letting politicians and corporations roll right over us. It would be something, wouldn't it, if WE THE PEOPLE, demanded something and won! It will be a fight but .... it will make life so much better for generations to come. If we give in, single payer will sink - again - into oblivion.
We need to practice this in front of the mirror: "Single payer is what we want and we are not backing down." Then we take it to our reps in congress and to the streets!
There are far more of us then there are of them. They have the money but we have the greater good at heart. That should be made clear and this is the time to do it.
Oregoncharles
Check out Wm Greider's article here on CD today. He's talking about transparency but his words apply to health care as well:
He says, this is our moment:
"If not now, when? That question ought to haunt the Democratic Party and President Obama, who has been missing in action himself on key issues. Congressional Democrats are responding to this epic conflagration with the same risk-avoidance tactics they learned during many years in minority status. In those days, they could always blame right-wing Republicans for blocking their good intentions." Low and behold, the Democrats are standing there, stark naked in the light. Do you like what you see, folks?
I email requests (to vote progressive) to my US Congressman and Senators. Although I specifically tell them not to respond, they still send canned PR blurbs lacking substance that would insult the intelligence of a brain dead person.
Politicians are a dime a dozen! Decent, hardworking elected officials are very rare, but do exist!
In San Antonio we have three Democrats and one Republican in the House of Representatives. None of them support single payer and the reason is obvious: THEY ALL RECEIVE CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM BIG PHARMA AND THE HMOS!
On Saturday, June 13th we plan to picket the home of one of our congressmen. We will handbill his neighbors to explain our presence and hopefully he will understand that we are serious in our advocacy for single payer healthcare!
Senator Baucus drew first blood and we say it's time to turn on the heat for single payer! We shamed the politicians in the 60's during the civil rights movement and we are prepared to do it again! TAKE IT TO THE STREETS! HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT, NOT A COMMODITY OR PRIVILEGE!
Bitch and moan all you want, but nothing substantial is going to happen on health care. When profit is taken to be synonymous with what is good/right, then we've lost our capacity to understand what is wrong with the current system.
There's nothing wrong with companies who want to make a profit. Healthcare isn't in the Constitution anyway so it remains a privilege and not a right. You're the poor loser who's lost in space. All you damn Naderites want is government to spoonfeed you welfare queenies instead of pulling yourselves up by your bootstraps.
'There's nothing wrong with companies who want to make a profit."
Really? The health care companies make a profit by denying care to people to whom they promised to provide care. They promise to pay for your medical bills when you get sick, they take your money, then when you get sick, they don't pay. And you have the balls to say there's nothing wrong with that? You're an idiot. They're practicing fraud.
I worked for a healthcare insurance corporation as a top-notch manager and I earned high ratings and top pay for acting like a sargeant and getting tough with otherwise lazy employees. Sometimes, it even became necessary to lay off women who were getting pregnant before it became too obvious that they were pregnant. We had to keep productivity high and flying and pregnant women don't always deliver. A couple of them committed suicide but no one complained. My tough skills and kick-ass mentality as a police officer and later a mercenary made me a top-notch kick-ass manager and I loved it. Glad to be a self-employed entrepreneur nowadays. LOL !
Sioux Rose
Shill/troll alert... probably another screen incarnation of "Nebraska Nathan."
Obviously you are one sick dog! Why aren't you in Iraq working for the CIA and/or other assasins for capitalism? You are definitley NOT a true American by definition!
Wow, a wannabe tough-guy uber-macho chickenhawk. This person seems pretty self-absorbed, unable to connect with other poeple, a narcisisitic ego-maniac with delusions of self-grandeur. Sociopathic, ignorant and a coward are no way to go through life son.
I used to write comments on a conservative site (until they banned me) and it was great fun. What REALLY ticked them off (and got me banned) was rational, factually-based argument. You might want to try it. I'm betting CD wouldn't kick you off, however.
I think you're a psychotic loser who sits at home in dirty underwear and trolls on left-wing lists to salvage a sliver of delusional self-worth. I hope we get a national health-care plan so you can get the professional help you so desperately need.
Having read all of your commens on this article, it is apparent that you suffer from chronic calcification of your cranial tissue. The same old Republican venom, rife with ignorance and a penchant for greed at any cost to society.
Go back to your haven for conservatives and snuggle in with all the other cockroaches who worship free-enterprise at any price. Free enterprise assumes an ideal world of totally honest people. That will never happen. I refer you to the benefits Republicans have wrought on society going back to the fraud personified by Ronald Reagan and his subsequent diefication.
Your are pathetic.
So what is the point of a company making profits when those profits are based off of ripping customers off? Where is that money going to? More lobbying and bribing people such as Max Baucus? More rightwing lying ads against healthcare for all? More misleading ads to seduce uninformed and underinformed customers? Since the answers to all those questions is without mistake a resounding yes, then these companies are useless. On the other hand, why not put our tax dollars to work and let us get a bang for those bucks instead? We could cut down printing more money and borrowing from China and Japan in the process.
OK, so perhaps life-line services such as fire and police departments should also be profit-based--at least according to your way of thinking.
I knew if I hung around long enough, Sanders would finally have something to say that I agree with. So I commend him for it.
The problem is that single payer voices have already been expunged from the debate. I even remember Sanders participating after the fact with Bacuss. Obama presumably is the head of the Democrat Party but as best I can tell, is not using his bully pulpit to force Dems in line.
So what does it mean?
As best I can tell we will get shafted with another Bill written by the insurance industry, much like TARP was written by the banksters.
"Obama presumably is the head of the Democrat Party but as best I can tell, is not using his bully pulpit to force Dems in line."
No, Obama is the PRESIDENT of the United States of America, not the head of the Democratic Party. The job of a president is to enforce the laws and work with Congress. When a president works with Congress, he has to be prepared to compromise and negotiate even if it means conceding. Because women can't shut their damn traps and learn to compromise even if it means some concessions, there'll never be a female president ! LOL ! WOMEN ! They always cry, wail, and wet their panties when they suspect they're giving up "big" even for a tiny sacrifice !
Nice to see you back disguised under a new identity, Nate. Or is it hate?
Ever consider keeping you own trap shut?
C'mon, get real, he's just trying to provoke you because it's how he gets his jollies. What a pathetic life he must actually live, our rough, tough, no-nonsense man's man; ex-cop, ex merc, medical-establishment hit-man - or so he boasts - you know, a guy who wants to control everybody else's life because his own life is so unsatisfying. So let's pity the poor fool and laugh him all the way back from wence he came. It won't make any difference, but we can enter into the spirit of the dance anyway.
Encinoman is the perfect epithet for him. Did he pick it purposely or was their some serendipity involved?
Must be a ditto-head.
I had that exact same thought. The rank stupidity and arrogance is there, and the preposterous autobiographical claims have about the same ring of truth as "Penthouse Forum" letters.
But it's the trademark childish insults and name-calling that just scream NN.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Sioux
ELOHIM: Thanks for seeing along with me, to see through him. Sicko II.
Awwww, poor Bernie boy. That old geezer just can't keep his damn mouth shut now can he? Healthcare isn't in the Constitution so it remains a privilege and not a fucking right. If Bernie wants to make it a right, he needs to shut up and add an amendment.
As long as it was funded by those it covered and operated separately of the private sector by those who fancy Medicare-style delivery, then I'd say it's worth a try. It would be their risk, and their potential reward for medical services in bulk. If it was proven to be sustainable and cheaper than my current options, I'd even hop onboard eventually!
Perhaps even a minimal contribution from those not benefitted by Medicare-style delivery might not be wholly unfair. Folks who send little Johnny to private school still pay property taxes and federal taxes that help support public schools. The question, though, becomes how much I have to pay to support your beer-ciggy-hamburger-fries habit or more bluntly, why I have to take care of adult* "children".
If you want choices, including Medicare for yourself, pony up and go it, by all means. Many of us, however, are doing quite well, and aren't so cozy with the idea of a bunch of greedy takers running ramshod over the services we rely on, satisfactorily. You know, the whole "I don't have everything I want, so I'll take some of yours!" mentality.
Part of me would love to have a basic national health care system. The part of me that is concerned is the part who sees that much of the health issues we have here in the states is related to poor lifestyle choices. Smoking, high fat, high sugar, misuse of alcohol all play a huge role in the majority of health concerns people seek medical care for.
Look at the rise in obesity, and adult onset diabetes amongst children. All are related to poor food choices. And these issues eat up the biggest chunk of medical dollars. So how do we provide health care for people who have no desire to change poor lifestyle choices?
As Americans we have people who feel they have a right to do what they want, yet also demand or expect society to pay for their choices. The founding fathers noted we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but no where do they say government is supposed to pay.
And how many people want a quick fix in the form of a pill, or end up with high cost care rather than make drastic changes to diet, exercise?
Bernie can take his socializing medicine crap and stuff it in his foggy brain of his. I'm doing rather well and kicking ass hard ! Obama's getting things done right and working with Congress like a president ought to so all you panty-wetting losers should keep your mouths shut.
If you want better coverage, then shut up and push for more tax cuts so that you'll have money to pay your insurance companies as you're supposed to. They have the right to profit too so shut up and pay or rest in pieces ! LOL !! LOL !! LOL !!
"Healthcare isn't in the Constitution so it remains a privilege and not a fucking right."
Just as an aside: neither is the CIA or any of the national security state, the Federal Reserve, environmental laws, private businesses having the same rights as 'persons', patenting 'life', owning and driving a car, permanent standing armies, maintaining 700+ military/security bases around the world, bombing countries at which we are not technically at war, prayer in school, aid/grants to local government, citizens voting for the president, personal privacy, capital punishment, media censorship, bailing out private enterprises, commercial advertising, gun control, the supreme court as final arbiter of constitutionality...the list goes on and on.
In my experience, those with essentially 'other provided' healthcare - largely employer funded healthcare services often complain about others' healthcare needs without thinking that their own healthcare is being subsidized - at very high profit margins for the health-care industry.
If public education is a 'right' and not a privilege, and privacy is a right, then so is healthcare. If you think education and healthcare (not to mention public safety, privacy, etc) is a privilege, just what kind of country do you wish to inhabit?
Tirebiter, that's a good list. Maybe you should prepare a small booklet or pamphlet of things not in the Constitution and things that are clearly unconstitutional. :)
>>>If you think education and healthcare (not to mention public safety, privacy, etc) is a privilege, just what kind of country do you wish to inhabit?
Yup. That's a good, basic question.
"Maybe you should prepare a small booklet or pamphlet of things not in the Constitution and things that are clearly unconstitutional."
And maybe not. What's constitutional is not my call. Nor should it be.
Today what is constitutional is determined by our supreme court - which didn't have that role until it created for itself in Marbury v. Madison.
Hmmm, that post sounds familiar. Otherwise, here's my reply. You sir, can preach all you want about lifestyle choices and personal responsibility but that does not change the fact that our healthcare system is still broke thanks to Big Money/Insurance/Pharma. Yes, we need to improve and even change our lifestyle but we're still going to be left with casualties thanks to insurance and/or drug companies cheating the doctors and patients. There is nothing wrong with government stepping in and providing a basic healthcare safety net. As a matter of fact, part of defending this nation deserves to include a basic healthcare safety net for all citizens which all other developed nations have. Just giving people weapons and telling them to shoot and kill is NOT the meaning of defending one's nation.
Ensin-HOLE-man-
Do your children deserve health-care?
After you beat your wife don't you want her to go to a good doctor?
After all the reason that most men are so angry as you obviously are is because they can't provide for their families and abuse their wives and children. So you can't provide health-care for your family. Because most of us here support single-payer health-care, does that mean we care more for your family than you do?
EncinoM believes that "Many of us, however, are doing quite well." My wife certainly is not as she is suffering from Parkinson's disease ever though she is very careful about what she eats and exercises every day in the hope that it may alleviate her tremors. The point is that there are many people in this country besides my wife who certainly eat the right type of foods and do exercise and yet still are afflicted by suffering and disease and yet who, amazingly [at least to EncinoM], still understand that a single payer plan is the most effective and humane way to help people. As one of my buttons states:
Universal Health Care: Placing People Before Profit.
Hey, psycho--go wash your stinking underwear, leave your loser's rented basement, and get a life.
Oh, the old "I don't want to pay for others irresponsibly" stuff.
This is a totally straw-man argument based of a distorted and exxagerated notions of individualism and vile condescending self-reghteousness so typical of protestant-inspired capitalism.
All the people I know at my workplaces who got cancer and ran up enormout medical expenses and debt, a number of them leaving behind penniless widows, lived perfectly healthy lifestyles, trim, non smoker, many non drinkers. One of them (dead of pancreatic cancer) tended toward the typical USAn burger-and-fries diet, but excercised regularly and was otherwise fit.
There is no greater right, than the right to life. All other rights are trivial by comparison. In order to save 18,000 lives per year a Single Payer system is necessary. No other health care system would accomplish so much for so little money. There are many laws and rights that are not included in the Constitution.
"...The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Also, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (From Wikipedia)
Tell it, Bernie.
Senator Max Baucus is so far over his head we folks in Montana have just coined a new nickname: Baucus, the Herbert Hoover of Health Care Reform.