How could the United States devote so much money to health
care and yet rank so poorly relative to other industrialized countries in key
indicators of the nation’s health? Per capita, the United States spends
nearly double what some of its peers spend, but Americans lag behind in
terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, low birth weight, injuries
and homicides, adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases,
HIV/AIDS, drug-related deaths, obesity, diabetes, heart disease,
chronic lung disease, and disability rates. (1) Some have argued that
Americans’ comparatively poor health is due to the larger proportion of
people living in poverty in the United States than in the more generous
welfare states of Scandinavia and Western Europe, but this thinking
fails to explain why this poorer health ranking holds for Americans who
are white, educated, employed, and high-income. (2) We have suggested
that previous calculations have omitted an aspect of spending that is
critically important for national health outcomes. This is spending on
social services, an area in which the United States spends far less
relative to its GDP than its peer countries. The new math unravelled the
paradox. If we add together what countries spend on health care and
what they spend on social services, the United States’ place in the
ranking of industrialized countries shifts considerably. This sum of
spending is what might be called the national investment in health. In
looking at the sum, no longer does the United States appear to be a
massively big spender. Americans’ spending on social services is far
less per capita than that of counterpart countries. Taking both health
care and social service spending into account, the United States spends
a fairly average sum compared with its peer countries and, we argue,
has fairly average health outcomes as a result. The
American Health Care Paradox: Why Spending More Is Getting Us Less, Elizabeth H.
Bradley and Lauren A. Taylor
No amount of propaganda can blur the basic fact about American commercial medicine.
We pay a huge premium for the privilege of dying younger.
Timothy Snyder's book Our Malady
Other industrialized nations are making the morally principled and financially responsible decision to provide universal health care
to all of their people—and they do so while saving money by keeping people healthier.
Those who say this goal is unachievable are selling the American people short. Senator Bernie Sanders
Republicans already have a plan to rapidly privatize Medicare if Trump wins.
Tucked deep into Project 2025 is a call to “make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option.”
This would be a historic handout to the insurance industry.
A single-payer, universal health care system in the U.S. would save >68,000 lives and more than $450 billion annually, writes YSPH Prof. Alison Galvani and colleagues in the current issue of The Lancet. https://t.co/Ktww0RVcJa@YaleEMD
US healthcare is more expensive
than any other country and does not produce better results. You
won't hear that because it might offend insurance or pharma advertising: another example of media
extortion. Reasonable solutions cannot be considered because
powerful, well funded corporate interests and the GOP block them.
Other social programs, which are mostly privatized are also doing poorly including childcare,
seniorcare, housing, food,
medicine, are not up to standards of the developed world.
The military, however, got more funding than it asked for.
Why is it so difficult to recognize that public health systems are much less expensive and better performing
than private ?
The whole point of privatization is to facilitate a corporate feeding frenzy at the expense of the taxpayer and the sick.
Although privatized healthcare is much more expensive, corporations get to profit from the sick.
Often the poor, uninsured pay much more for their treatment, a frequent cause of bankruptcy.
It was always a mistake to put the burden of healthcare on employers. It suppresses
job mobility, creates bureaucracy in large companies to deal with the problem,
allows insurers to redline some companies, it leaves out many people who are
not in the job market for whatever reason, has mediocre outcomes, and is much more expensive
than other developed countries. Canadian healthcare performs much better.
We are one of only two countries in the world to allow direct to
consumer pharmaceutical advertising (the other is New Zealand.)
Because some companies charge ruinous prices for life-saving
drugs, we should regulate drug prices, or at least allow
prescriptions to be filled in Canada. Regular evening ads buy off media.
American healthcare is a feeding frenzy for corporate America including
media, Pharma, Computer software vendors, hospitals, and others.
Large contributions to lobbyists and politicians insure there will be no change
or even a repeal of the ACA.
Obamacare was based on a Republican idea that Mitt Romney fairly
successfully implemented in Massachusetts. Still, we spend more than
two-and-a-half times more than most developed nations in the world,
including relatively rich European countries like France, Sweden and
the United Kingdom.
Republicans were unable to repeal and replace Obamacare, so they are undermining it and making it even worse.
A much simpler Medicare for all solution would be a great improvement on
Obamacare. If Republicans cannot at least improve what we have, they
should do nothing at all. Based on their performance, they should be
voted out of office as soon as possible.
A Medicare-for-All system could save an enormous amount by
bringing expenses in line with the rest of the developed world, and
it could cover everyone. It would likely slow the ongoing collapse of the middle class.
Even the CEO of Aetna thinks it’s a good idea.
The bill for the public service would be much less than the private bill.
A new report found that the for-profit US healthcare system ranks last among peer nations.
We spend twice as much per capita on healthcare and have the worst health outcomes.
Reminder that Medicare For All would save $450B in health care costs and 68,000 lives per year.
Expanding Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing benefits is so “radical” it only has the support of 92% of the American people — including 95% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans.
It’s time Congress listened to the American people, not the insurance companies.
While rural Americans often tell reporters that they feel neglected and ignored by big-city coastal elites, the people preventing them from getting health care aren’t in New York or D.C., they’re in their own state capitals.
And these state politicians hold power in large part thanks to the strong Republican leaning of rural voters.
Self-Inflicted Medical Misery, Red America’s homemade rural health crisis. (6/24/2019)
“Medicine is social science and politics nothing but medicine on a grand scale.”
Dr.Rudolph Virchow
Medicare turns 58 today. It's almost old enough to be on Medicare!
Republicans keep trying to cut it, but what we really need to do is expand it.
Here's why Medicare For All is not just good health policy, it's good economic policy. pic.twitter.com/ib4FIKq66J
This issue crystallizes a chasm between the parties. The #ACA emphasizes solidarity, with young/healthy paying more to ensure access for older/sick. GOP plans stress individual autonomy over solidarity & free-market over gov't regulation. In practice, that means the sick lose out https://t.co/MYOMDvGvaD
In the context of the coronavirus response, the degradation of expertise in the Trump administration has been catastrophic. It has been difficult to watch CDC director Robert Redfield pander to the commander in chief day-after-day as this crisis unfolds. There are experts who are surely ready to do the right thing—many of the career civil servants in Atlanta are superb public health physicians, scientists, and practitioners—but the administration’s course on coronavirus seems to be more responsive to a president worried about reelection and about bad news that might derail his chances in November than the virus in their midst. In fact, most of the appointed health officials in the administration, from Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar to Surgeon General Jerome Adams, have emerged as cheerleaders and sycophants, aiding and abetting the disinformation
coming out of the White House by their refusal to correct the president’s errors in real time.
Alone Against the Virus: Amy Kapczynski, Gregg Gonsalves
We have ... watched American hospitals, long understaffed and undersupplied, buckling under waves of coronavirus patients. The federal government made matters worse through willful ignorance, misinformation, and profiteering. Our system of commercial medicine failed the ultimate test,
and thousands of Americans died.
see Timothy Snyder's book Our Malady
The Trump Admin and the State of Texas are trying to repeal the #ACA and put the health care of tens of millions at risk.
I'm taking action with a coalition of states to defend the #ACA in the Supreme Court and ensure Americans have access to quality, affordable health care.
Trump has committed to taking away your healthcare. Got preexisting condition coverage under Obamacare? Trump will take it away. During a pandemic. https://t.co/5dKNG9KJTT
President Trump and Republicans in Congress are cheering on a lawsuit that would dismantle the Affordable Care Act overnight. The only problem? They have no idea what their plan is if they succeed. pic.twitter.com/OIRWVx15Xp
“I want to end the international embarrassment of the United States being the only country in the
industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as a right and not a privilege.” Bernie Sanders
The Trump administration is trying to strip healthcare from millions of Americans and return us to the days of pre-existing conditions.
We can’t let them rollback all the progress we’ve made: Protect the ACA and fight for Medicare for All. pic.twitter.com/4cyZswuDyk
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, you know, healthcare in America is not a—we
don’t have a system of healthcare, Amy. What we have is a system—a
non-system system of sick care. We spend so much more money than the
French, who have the best healthcare system in the world, according to
the World Health Organization, that if we simply reduced our costs to
those of France, we could eliminate the corporate income—or, the
individual income tax. And think about that. Nobody would have to pay
individual income tax, and we could have universal healthcare, and all
else would be equal in our economy. And yet, at some point during the
year, one in four Americans will not have health insurance, and about
one in six will go the whole year without health insurance. We have
created a—it’s part of how we are creating a privatized set of rules,
sponsored by government, to redistribute upward. And that’s the whole
scheme here. It is to redistribute income upward in a way that a market
economy would never do that, but a corporate socialist economy, where
corporations are able to privatize gains and make you pick up their
losses, that’s the kind of economy that we’re moving into.
(Democracy
Now! interview with David
Cay Johnston discussing his
book: The
Fine Print, How Big Companies use "Plain English" to rob
you blind.)
This id why we need healthcare for all. As it stands now employers can hold healthcare benefits hostage to make employees work for low wages. That’s not right. Corporations & businesses hsve way too much power .
The health care system in the United States is an international scandal, with per capita costs far higher than comparable countries,
relatively poor outcomes, and tens of thousands with no guaranteed health care at all. What is worse still, the current Republican wrecking-ball
is aimed at ruining it even more. The core problem is the severe inefficiency of privatization and the immense political power of private capital,
which repeatedly overrides popular will and legitimate needs. The incisive essays included here unravel the deep institutional roots and serious flaws
of this failing system and indicate directions that can lead to establishing decent health care as a fundamental human right.
—Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (from a book review of Health Care Under the Knife)
This is a stunning story.
And no surprise that the brilliant @sarahkliff uncovers and tells it.
How rich "non-profit" hospitals actually profit quite handsomely from poor patients in car accidents.https://t.co/agaeYHnHty
Trump hasn’t managed to repeal Obamacare, but his officials have undermined the program’s efficiency, driving up premiums and reducing coverage.
Meanwhile, deaths and illness due to the collapse of environmental enforcement will be one of Trump’s enduring legacies.
Paul Krugman
The simple truth is that the United States remains the only economically advanced country without a viable national program
that ensures access to needed care for all. As a result health care—and health—remain a commodity for sale.
Until we in the United States decide to de-commodify our health care and health by implementing a universal,
single, publicly financed, national health program such as Medicare for All, we will remain in our current state of ethical underdevelopment."
Howard Waitzkin
In some ways, Trump pretending to be defender of Americans with preexisting conditions is his most astonishing lie yet. He's tried to take away that protection every step of the way, in full public view 1/ https://t.co/YmCKlpOIDv
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Israel Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal S Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK
“The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America. It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else. Those with private insurance will experience higher premiums and higher deductibles, with lower tax credits to help working families cover the costs, even as their plans might no longer cover pregnancy, mental health care, or expensive prescriptions.
Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions could become the norm again. Millions of families will lose coverage entirely.” Barack Obama 6/26/2017
UnitedHealth will stop at nothing to grow bigger, bigger and bigger.
For the sake of our patients, our doctors and nurses, and American taxpayers, it is time to break up the UnitedHealth monopoly. pic.twitter.com/rWH5FjynwG
Universal Healthcare Is Great for Free Enterprise and Great for Small Businesses
The modern-day Republican Party would have us believe that those who promote universal healthcare are anti-free enterprise or hostile to small businesses. But truth be told, universal healthcare is great for entrepreneurs, small businesses and the self-employed in France, Germany and other developed countries where healthcare is considered a right. The U.S.’ troubled healthcare system has a long history of punishing entrepreneurs with sky-high premiums when they start their own businesses. Prior to the Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. Obamacare, many small business owners couldn’t even obtain individual health insurance plans if they had a preexisting condition such as heart disease or diabetes—and even with the ACA’s reforms, the high cost of health insurance is still daunting to small business owners. But many Americans fail to realize that healthcare reform is not only a humanitarian issue, it is also vitally important to small businesses and the self-employed.
In 2009, the Center for Economic and Policy Research published a study on small businesses around the world and found that
“by every measure of small-business employment, the United States has among the world’s smallest small-business sectors.”
People in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Belgium and other European countries are more likely to be self-employed—and
the study concluded that universal healthcare is a key factor. According to CEPR’s study, “High healthcare costs discourage
small business formation since start-ups in other countries can tap into government-funded healthcare systems.” Alternet
*Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems “Can Get
Costs Down,” And “Is As Good Or Better On Primary Care,” But “They Do Impose Things
Like Waiting Times.” *“If you look at countries that are comparable,
like Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems. They
don't have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear
controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the
single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can
get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to
statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in
particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It
takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.”
[Hillary Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13] From Wikileaks
50 Million Uninsured in the U.S. Equals 50,000+
Avoidable Deaths a Year. Why is this tolerated? The simple and unfortunately correct answer is
because of the existence of the private health insurance industry and
the hundreds of thousands of people who ... are being paid for their
expertise in denying health care. (From the Public
Citizen Health Letter January 2012)
We give ourselves license to spend half again as much
as any other country in the world on healthcare, only to be ranked 37th
‘best’ by the World Health Organization, just so we don’t have to do
the simple work of writing corporate predators out of the parasitic
cash cow booty feeding troughs in which they’re entrenched. David
Michael Green
"If you wonder why the United
States is the only country in the industrialized world not to have a
national health care program, if you're asking why we pay the highest
price in the world for prescription drugs, or why we spend more money
on the military than the rest of the world combined, you are talking
about campaign finance. You are talking about the unbelievable power
that big-money interests have over every legislative decision." Senator
Bernie Sanders (Vt)
"Every dollar not taken from Medicare could come from the hide
of a tax-cut beneficiary, a defense contractor, or some other worthy
and hungry mouth that needs feeding."
Countries that cover all of their citizens with health insurance. And those that don't.
Countries that make it unlawful to profit off of basic health insurance. And those that allow for health insurance
corporations to profit off the sick.
Countries where health care is a human right. And those where it is not. Where if you can afford it, you get treated. And if
you can't afford it, you may die.
Pay or die.
Most poor countries in the world are pay or die countries. Remarkably, so is the United States.
Republicans want to roll back
the ACA, but they have not released a replacement plan. It appears they have no useful solutions for the problems that it
addresses.
After decades of experience, privatized health
care has been obscenely profitable, complex, bureaucratic, error
prone, and expensive. It does not cover a large fraction of the people,
and it is not the best in overall quality.
The private market does
not work well for healthcare for a lot of reasons. It is more
expensive than any other country.
There are some things that are done well by the market, but health care is not one of them.
You can be ineligible on account of
a pre-existing condition. You can be dropped for arbitrary reasons.
Your coverage may be capped at an amount that makes insurance
ineffective. In short, private insurance works well as long as you
don't really need it.
However, insurance companies call the
shots by spending large amounts on lobbyists, so Republicans
like the system just the way it is.
"SIR – Michael Moore’s claim that Cuba has a better
health-care system than the United States is not as “ridiculous” as you
think (“Health screen”, January 10th). The United States was ranked
37th in the latest report on health care from the World Health
Organization, whereas Cuba ranked 39th. I suspect there is little
difference between being placed 37th and 39th. However, when
productivity is factored in Cuba’s health-care system does indeed seem
to be more effective than America’s. America spends 15% of GDP on
health care (which works out at $6,700 per person in 2006 dollars)
while Cuba spends 8% ($360 per person). Most businesses would consider
themselves better than their competitors if they delivered an
equivalent product or service at one-twentieth the cost. Kenneth
McLeod, Chair, Department of bioengineering, Binghamton University"
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12970732
Number of people who go bankrupt every year because of medical bills:
UK - 0 France - 0 Spain - 0 Portugal- 0 Denmark - 0 Australia - 0 Iceland - 0 Italy - 0 Finland - 0 Ireland - 0 Germany - 0 Netherlands - 0 Sweden - 0 Japan - 0 Chile - 0 Canada - 0
If money is your most
important 'value', you could argue that we cannot afford more inclusive
healthcare. Then again, an unhealthy population is itself a heavy
expense, and it is a drag on the economy. It is not a matter of money.
It is a moral obligation. There is no excuse for the lack of a working,
affordable, efficient system.
The worst features of the ACA are due to the Republican scheme
on which it is based. It rewards every major player except the public.
Not only is US healthcare expensive, it is corrupt.
Politicians use it for their own ATM and for jobs: examples
include Jeb
Bush, Bill
Frist, Billy Tauzin,
Rick
Scott and many others.
Insurance
companies seem to run the show. They have
thousands of employees to 'process' health insurance claims, many in
very expensive office buildings, and obscenely
paid CEOs. For all that expense, what do they contribute to the
actual delivery of health care ? Nothing. They have no business making
decisions that are rightfully made by doctors and their patients.
Although they do deny payment and exclude sick people (very crude
rationing) , they do nothing
to actually provide health care. (They pay plenty to lobby
politicians though, so they foil any real reform, and
continue to rip off sick people for profit.) Rating each individual for
health insurance requires a large bureacracy engaged in invasive, privacy-invading,
procedures.
So here's a suggestion for
health care reform. Retrain health insurance employees so that they
can actually do real work in doctors offices, hospitals, or other real
jobs in health delivery. Close down the health insurers. Free their
workers to help with the millions of newly covered.
Everyone agrees that health care reform is necessary. Our
outsized healthcare expenses are, alone, enough reason. There is
evidence that a single
payer plan would save billions, but it is not even discussed
because ours is a system thoroughly corrupted by big money.
Lobbyists freed pharma from having to negotiate prices, and stopped
consumers from filling prescriptions in unsafe places like
Canada.
Republican propaganda that privateis
always better than public is just an excuse for profiteering. At least
for health care, public would be much better than private.
It is an unfortunate fact that medical
errors are a major problem. "Death
by medicine is now the leading killer and cause of injury in this
country, ahead of the prior champion killers, heart attacks and cancer." (Gerry
Spence quote) That is why victims need a way to recover damages.
'Tort reform' can allow errors to go uncorrected and a
way to be sure consumers do not get justice. Victims
should have their day in court.
Because right-wing
ideologues are constantly assuring us that
the government can't do anything for us (Republicans
seem to want to prove it), there does not seem to be real
discussion of functions that are best done by the public
or private sector. Since I am covered by Medicare, it is
reassuring to know that I will not arbitrarily be dropped, that
pre-existing conditions will not exclude me.
I'd say the government mostly does an excellent job when it is
simply paying for health care. Republicans would killl it.
It is true that the US
has heavy expenses
that other countries do not. It has a military
that is larger than the rest of the world's combined, it is a world
leader in incarcerations, and, its
healthcare expenses are much more than other developed countries.
Although prospects for health reform are better than
they have been in a long time, Republicans
are throwing up serious obstructions. Money (paper) is more
important to them than the public good, and besides they wouldn't want Democrats to get
credit. Our own Senator Lieberman, often on the Republican
page, killed a public health option. (His
Contributions from health & insurance interests: $3,308,621.)
Actually, A Public Option would save many Billions (9/1/2009)
A simple solution that works well in other countries, that
would make US business more competitive by removing the healthcare burden, and
level the global playing field would be a plan that would cover
everyone. Media has blacked
out this approach. Powerful interests: pharma,
insurance companies, and others can effectively block any efficient system.
It's a moral commitment.
Everyone should be covered, and the
cost should be covered by taxes. Wisely spent tax dollars would get a
much better deal.
The U.S. has been cursed with self-serving leadership that
does not work in the public interest. Healthcare is but one example.
VIDEO | Keith
Olberman: Legislators for Sale (8/3/2009)
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Countdown: "Finally tonight, as promised, a
Special Comment on Health Care Reform in this country, and in particular,
the 'public insurance option.'"
"Grassroots, single-payer activists successfully
pushed the Democratic Party Platform Committee to propose 'guaranteed health care for all.'
This is a huge improvement from their previous language that merely
endorsed 'universal coverage,' which is often a euphemism for the right
to purchase private health insurance. We know from past state
experiments that this right is meaningless. As we're now seeing in
Massachusetts, private coverage comes with such burdensome
restrictions, co-payments and deductibles that patients still can't
afford the care they need. We need to continue to push for non-profit,
tax-funded national health insurance." Steffie
Woolhandler, Professor of Medicine at Harvard University. (8/12/08)
BENJAMIN DAY, director@masscare.org, http://masscare.org executive
director of Mass-Care, a health care advocacy coalition based
in Boston, said: Its easy to build political consensus for expanded
health coverage. But experience shows that you can't achieve universal
coverage at an affordable price unless you throw out the insurance
companies with their massive overhead and profit, and replace them with
a more efficient single-payer national health insurance program. "Sen.
Obama should learn this lesson," Day said. As
for Sen. John McCain's health care proposals, "they are so obviously
unworkable that its hard to take them seriously." (8/12/08)
Here's an eye-opening
letter to the editor of The Economist,
Jan 22, 2009 issue:
"SIR – Michael Moore’s
claim that Cuba has a better
health-care system than the United States is not as “ridiculous” as you
think (“Health screen”, January 10th). The United States was ranked
37th in the latest report on health care from the World Health
Organization, whereas Cuba ranked 39th. I suspect there is little
difference between being placed 37th and 39th. However, when
productivity is factored in Cuba’s health-care system does indeed seem
to be more effective than America’s. America spends 15% of GDP on
health care (which works out at $6,700 per person in 2006 dollars)
while Cuba spends 8% ($360 per person). Most businesses would consider
themselves better than their competitors if they delivered an
equivalent product or service at one-twentieth the cost. Kenneth
McLeod, Chair, Department of bioengineering, Binghamton University" http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12970732
Insurance companies probably have many thousands of
employees to 'process' health insurance claims, many in very expensive
office buildings, and many obscenely paid CEOs. For all that expense,
what do they contribute to the actual delivery of health care ?
Nothing. They have no business making decisions that are rightfully
made by doctors and their patients. They do nothing to actually provide
health care. (They pay plenty to lobby politicians though, so they may
manage to continue to rip off sick people for their personal profit.)
So here's a suggestion
for health care reform. Retrain health
insurance employees so that they can actually do real work in doctors
offices, hospitals, or other real jobs in health delivery. Close down
the health insurers. We could go to a single payer plan like most
civilized, advanced countries. My understanding is that there is a
bill, HR676 which would do that. That would simplify the
system and save enough money to guarantee universal
health care.
Republicans like
Jeb Bush are enjoying the healthcare gravy train and they still
have enough people to stop real reform. Money (paper) is more important
to them than results, and besides they wouldn't want Democrats to get
credit for any improvement.
"We know that our health-care system is broken:
wildly expensive, terribly inefficient, and poorly adapted to an
economy no longer built on lifetime employment, a system that exposes
hardworking Americans to chronic insecurity and possible
destitution. But year after year, ideology and political gamesmanship
result in inaction, except for 2003, when we got a prescription drug
bill that somehow managed to combine the worst aspects of the public
and private sectors—price gouging and bureaucratic confusion, gaps in
coverage and an eye-popping bill for taxpayers." Barack Obama: Audacity
of Hope
The White House severely edited congressional testimony given
Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention on the impact of climate change on health, removing specific
scientific references to potential health risks, according to two
sources familiar with the documents. (Oct.23,2007)
Paul Krugman| Health Economics 101
Paul Krugman writes that the free market doesn't work for
health insurance, and never did. All we have ever had was a patchwork,
semi-private system supported by large government subsidies.
Bow your heads and raise the white flags. After facing down
the Third Reich, the Japanese Empire, the U.S.S.R., Manuel Noriega and
Saddam Hussein, the United States has met an enemy it dares not
confront -- the American private health insurance industry.
With the courageous exception of Dennis
Kucinich, the Democratic candidates all rolled out health
"reform" plans that represent total, Chamberlain-like, appeasement.
Edwards and Obama propose universal health insurance plans that would
in no way ease the death grip of Aetna, Unicare, MetLife, and the rest
of the evil-doers. Clinton -- why are we not surprised? -- has gone
even further, borrowing the Republican idea of actually feeding the
private insurers by making it mandatory to buy their product. Will I be
arrested if I resist paying $10,000 a year for a private policy laden
with killer co-pays and deductibles? (more)
[A new] study ... finds that not only is the U.S. health care
system the most expensive in the world (double that of the next most
costly comparator country, Canada) but comes in dead last in almost any
measure of performance. Although U.S. political leaders are fond of
stating that we have the best health-care system in the world, they
fail to acknowledge an important caveat: It is the best only for the
very rich. For the rest of the population, its deficits far outweigh
its advantages. [The] study compared the United States with Australia,
Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Although the most
notable way in which the United States differs from the other countries
is in the absence of universal coverage, the United States is also last
on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency and equity. The
other five countries considered spend considerably less on health care,
both per capita and as a percent of gross domestic product, than the
United States. The United States spends $7,000 per person per year on
health care, almost double that of Australia, Canada and Germany, each
of which achieve better results on health status indicators than the
United States. The United States also lags behind all industrialized
nations in terms of health coverage. 46.6 million Americans (about 15.9
percent of the population) had no health insurance coverage during
2005. It is no wonder, then, that medical bills are overwhelmingly the
most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the United States.
Note: For a treasure trove
of reliable information on health, click here.
Death by medicine
is now the leading killer and cause
of injury in this country, ahead of the prior champion killers, heart
attacks and cancer. The latest composite figures show death by improper
medical conduct of hospitals and doctors (“iatrogenic deaths” they are
called) at 783,936 dead each year, while deaths from heart disease is
699,697 and deaths from cancer, 553,251. The authors of this study
report that “as few as 5 percent and only up to 20 per cent of
iatrogenic acts are ever reported.” This implies that if medical errors
were completely and accurately reported, we would have a much higher
annual iatrogenic death rate. Dr. Leape, one of the first investigators
of this issue, said his figure of 180,000 medical errors annually was
equivalent to three jumbo jet crashes every two days. That was in 1994.
The latest report shows that six Jumbo jets are falling out of the sky
each and every day, killing all aboard...This same report says the
number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed
annually is 7.5 million. The number of people exposed to unnecessary
hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. Little wonder the medical
profession seeks protection. 166 Gerry Spence: Bloodthirsty Bitches and
Pious Pimps of Power
By Brett Arends 09 May 2007 Jeb Bush, the president's brother and
former governor of Florida, is up for election Thursday as a director
of troubled hospital chain Tenet Healthcare. Assuming he's waved
through, his pay in his first year would come
to nearly $37,000 a day. This is the same Tenet that had to
pay $900 million to Uncle Sam last summer to settle charges that it had
overbilled Medicare and Medicaid over many years. Nine hundred
million dollars... It's also the same Tenet that just paid $80
million to the IRS after an audit found it owed back taxes going back
as far as 1995... And this is just the big stuff. Tenet's recent
public filings read like a police blotter. One of its clinics in
South Carolina performed 436 open heart operations without
certification. The company is being sued in California by staff
claiming they were systematically short-changed on pay and overtime, in
breach of the state's labor code. Three
former Tenet staff members, at a New Orleans hospital it owned, are
under investigation for allegedly euthanizing four patients following
Hurricane Katrina (from CLG
news)
The United States spends more than twice as
much on health care as the average of other developed nations, all of
which boast universal coverage. Yet over 39 million Americans have no
health insurance whatsoever, and most others are underinsured, in the
sense that they lack adequate coverage for all contingencies (e.g.,
long-term care and prescription drug costs). See also the PNHP website.
The Problem
The US is the only advanced country that does not have national health care.
That Americans do not have security
of their health care coverage is a national disgrace. US
health care is the most expensive in the world in % of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), but it does not cover a lot of us. Over 45 million
people are not insured for health care in the US, although estimates,
including underinsured or partially insured range up to one and a half
times that amount, and the number is increasing.
Making health benefits an
obligation of employers was a fatal
flaw because it polarized business against it. Since it is more a
public obligation in other countries, it makes globalization very
unlevel. The auto and other industry are visibly suffering from this.
They are responding by busting their unions and moving offshore.
Slowly, through increases
in the employee contribution and
copays the burden is being shifted away from companies. For some
retirees they are pulling out . Insurance companies are in control.
Many insurance companies sell their product based on the identification
of low-risk pools, thus denying insurance to those most in need. You do
not get insurance if you have a ‘pre-existing condition’. A health care
system that does not cover sick people is an oxymoron.
Insurance companies have
a close working alliance with Republicans.
The MSA
scheme, although derided as a kooky idea by most economists and health care
experts, is now the ideological crown jewel of the Republican Medicare
plan. The genius who came up with the ‘use it or lose it’ idea in which
the money you set aside for healthcare at the end of the year becomes
the employers. That’s Republican privatization for you…and like most of
Bush policy is corporate welfare.
Because of press
bias in health care
reporting, the public is constantly misled from all sides. Media limits
debate to private sector choices, denies voice to other points of view,
and fails to provide coverage of experience in other countries. The
Bush administration worked hard to suppress speech by further
concentrating media.
Although
there are variations, almost all
Western countries fund health care with a single payer system. (There
are always private options for people willing and able to pay for
them.) Germany’s expenditures are half of ours per capita, and
provide universal coverage.
Not
only is our healthcare system
dysfunctional, it is causing manufacturers, instead of improving
product, to bust their unions and move offshore.
Republican tax cuts
were taken from health care and it shows. Hospitals were sold
(privatized) just to keep the doors open. Electing Republicans assures
that the current flawed system will not only remain in place but also
get worse. Instead you will get a 'Star Wars' program guaranteed (by
Ted Postol of MIT) not to work.
To make the global free market a level playing field,
healthcare should be largely taxpayer funded. The profit motive is out
of place in medicine and only produces god awful results.
The following is a
NYT oped by single-payer advocates Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein. Please write letters of
support. Talking points could include that USGP (Green
Party) advocates a single-payer health plan for all. Letters
should be no more than 150 words: letters@nytimes.com
December 15, 2007
I Am Not a Health Reform
By DAVID U. HIMMELSTEIN and STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER
Cambridge, Mass.
IN 1971, President Nixon sought to forestall single-payer
national health insurance by proposing an alternative. He wanted to
combine a mandate, which would require that employers cover their
workers, with a Medicaid-like program for poor families, which all
Americans would be able to join by paying sliding-scale premiums based
on their income.
Nixon’s plan, though never passed, refuses to stay dead. Now
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all propose Nixon-like
reforms. Their plans resemble measures that were passed and then failed
in several states over the past two decades.
In 1988, Massachusetts became the first state to pass a
version of Nixon’s employer mandate — and it added an individual
mandate for students and the self-employed, much as Mrs. Clinton and
Mr. Edwards (but not Mr. Obama) would do today. Michael Dukakis, then
the state’s governor, announced that “Massachusetts will be the first
state in the country to enact universal health insurance.” But the
mandate was never fully put into effect. In 1988, 494,000 people were
uninsured in Massachusetts. The number had increased to 657,000 by
2006.
Oregon, in 1989, combined
an employer mandate with an
expansion of Medicaid and the rationing of expensive care. When the
federal government granted the waivers needed to carry out the program,
Gov. Barbara Roberts said, “Today our dreams of providing effective and
affordable health care to all Oregonians have come true.” The number of
uninsured Oregonians did not budge.
In 1992 and ’93, similar
bills passed in Minnesota, Tennessee
and Vermont. Minnesota’s plan called for universal coverage by July 1,
1997. Instead, by then the number of uninsured people in the state had
increased by 88,000.
Tennessee’s Democratic
governor, Ned McWherter, declared that
“Tennessee will cover at least 95 percent of its citizens.” Yet the
number of uninsured Tennesseans dipped for only two years before rising
higher than ever.
Vermont’s plan, passed under Gov. Howard Dean, called for
universal health care by 1995. But the number of uninsured people in
the state has grown modestly since then.
The State of Washington’s 1993 law included the major planks
of recent Nixon-like plans: an employer mandate, an individual mandate
for the self-employed and expanded public coverage for the poor. Over
the next six years, the number of uninsured people in the state rose
about 35 percent, from 661,000 to 898,000.
As governor, Mitt Romney tweaked the Nixon formula in 2006
when he helped devise a second round of Massachusetts health care
reform: employers in the state that do not offer health coverage face
only paltry fines, but fines on uninsured individuals will escalate to
about $2,000 in 2008. On signing the bill, Mr. Romney declared, “Every
uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health
insurance.” Yet even under threat of fines, only 7 percent of the
244,000 uninsured people in the state who are required to buy
unsubsidized coverage had signed up by Dec. 1. Few can afford the
sky-high premiums.
Each of these reform
efforts promised cost savings, but none
included real cost controls. As the cost of health care soared,
legislators backed off from enforcing the mandates or from financing
new coverage for the poor. Just last month, Massachusetts projected
that its costs for subsidized coverage may run $147 million over budget.
The “mandate model” for
reform rests on impeccable political
logic: avoid challenging insurance firms’ stranglehold on health care.
But it is economic nonsense. The reliance on private insurers makes
universal coverage unaffordable.
With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic
presidential hopefuls sidestep an inconvenient truth: only a
single-payer system of national health care can save what we estimate
is the $350 billion wasted annually on medical bureaucracy and redirect
those funds to expanded coverage. Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Mr.
Obama tout cost savings through computerization and improved care
management, but Congressional Budget Office studies have found no
evidence for these claims.
In 1971, New Brunswick became the last Canadian province to
institute that nation’s single-payer plan. Back then, the relative
merits of single-payer versus Nixon’s mandate were debatable. Almost
four decades later, the debate should be over. How sad that the leading
Democrats are still kicking around Nixon’s discredited ideas for health
reform.
Laurie
Garrett's comments from her book: "Betrayal of Trust"
"Ronald Reagan swept
into the presidency in 1980. His two
terms in that office were marked by the dismantling of public health's
regulatory powers. Within eight years the Reagan administration had so
thoroughly defeated its regulatory adversaries that public health was
forced into defeat, even on issues of bona fide community health
threats, its most outspoken voices of environmental concern sidelined
along the margins of academia and political activism" Laurie
Garrett "Betrayal of Trust" page 580.
A report from the U.S.
Department of Health "made clear that
the infrastructure upon which the national public health system
functions requires definition, coordination, and strength to realize
the universal public health mission. [The report] documents continued
deterioration of the national public health system; health departments
closing, technology and information systems outmoded; emerging and drug
resistant diseases threaten to overwhelm resources; and serious
training inadequacies threaten the capacity of the public health
workforce to address new threats and adapt to changes in the health
care market." "Betrayal of Trust" Pg 559.
See also Mountain
Beyond Mountains, the quest of
Dr. Paul Farmer, a man who would cure the world: by Tracy Kidder. It
will surprise you, after reading US media, how Farmer admires the Cuban health care
system. Excellent book. It is persuasive in arguing that health
care is a right, not a commodity.
The Hidden History of American Healthcare: Why Sickness Bankrupts You and Makes Others Insanely Rich by Thom Hartmann (Hidden History Series) – September 7, 2021