Nothing to Fear Except No Health Care

[Tom Joad]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/15-4

Nothing to Fear Except No Health Care
by Amy Goodman

Fifty million Americans are without health insurance, and 25 million are "underinsured." Millions being laid off will soon be added to those rolls. Medical bills cause more than half of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. Desperate for care, the under- and uninsured flock to emergency rooms, often dealing with problems that could have been prevented.

The U.S. auto giants are collapsing in part due to extraordinary health care expenses, while they are competing with companies in countries that provide universal health care. Economist Dean Baker calculated how General Motors would fare if its health care costs were the same as costs in Canada: "GM would have had higher profits, making no other changes ... that would equal $22 billion over the course of the last decade. They wouldn't have to be running to the government for help."

GM is sometimes referred to as a health care company that makes cars. Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca said in 2005, "It is a well-known fact that the U.S. automobile industry spends more per car on health care than on steel." He supports national health care.

Barack Obama said in 2007 that "affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how. ... Every four years, health care plans are offered up in campaigns with great fanfare and promise. But once those campaigns end, the plans collapse under the weight of Washington politics."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his March 1933 inaugural address, famously declared: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself. ... This nation asks for action, and action now." Deep in the Great Depression, a flurry of ambitious policies followed, detailed by New York Times editorial writer Adam Cohen in his new book, "Nothing to Fear." He writes that FDR developed the New Deal with key, visionary advisers and Cabinet members who enacted bold policies, among them Frances Perkins, the United States' first woman Cabinet member. Perkins, FDR's secretary of labor, pushed for a rapid, national relief program that formed the basis of the welfare system, and for regulations on minimum wage, maximum hours and a ban on child labor.

But Perkins failed to achieve universal health care. Cohen told me: "She really was the conscience of the New Deal in many ways ... she chaired the Social Security committee. And she wanted it to go further ... to include national health insurance, but the AMA (American Medical Association), even back then, was very strong and opposed it. And she and a couple other progressives on the committee said, you know, 'We better just settle for what we can get.' They didn't want to lose the whole Social Security program."

Obama appointed former Sen. Tom Daschle as secretary of health and human services, and director of the new White House Office of Health Reform. Daschle's health care book, "Critical," recalls historical failures to achieve universal care: "Like Clinton, Truman had reason to be confident. His fellow Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and polls showed that Americans were anxious about the high cost of health care and eager for change. But both presidents underestimated the strength of the forces arrayed against them ... (s)pecial-interest lobbyists -- led by doctors in Truman's time, and insurance companies in Clinton's."

Obama knows well the issue -- while his mother lay dying of cancer, she still had to battle the insurance industry. He said in that 2007 speech, "Plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday ... we can't afford another disappointing charade ... we need to look at ... how much of our health care spending is going toward the record-breaking profits earned by the drug and health care industry."

Yet Daschle proposes not much more than tinkering -- improving Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration, all examples of "single-payer health care" -- in which the government is the single payer for the health care -- while preserving the inefficient, multi-payer, for-profit insurance model.

In December 2007, the American College of Physicians compared U.S. health care with other countries', writing, "Single-payer systems generally have the advantage of being more equitable, with lower administrative costs than systems using private health insurance, lower per capita health care expenditures, high levels of consumer and patient satisfaction."

Michael Moore, in his film "SiCKO," includes a recording of John Ehrlichman speaking to Richard Nixon, discussing medical insurance profits: "The less care they give 'em, the more money they (the insurance companies) make."

Obama is in charge now. Who will he emulate -- Nixon or FDR? People across the political and economic spectrum, from big business to the little guy, are dying to know.

[potter]

I'm paying for everyone who has no health care now so universal health care really won't make any difference to me...except to maybe lower what I pay...

[Sulayman]

Originally Posted by potter

I'm paying for everyone who has no health care now so universal health care really won't make any difference to me...except to maybe lower what I pay...

How do you figure that? The cost can only go up and you will lose what choices you now have. Nanny state. You want your health care to be to controlled by someone who doesn't care and doesn't have to? Go live in Britain.

[potter]

Originally Posted by Sulayman

How do you figure that? The cost can only go up and you will lose what choices you now have. Nanny state. You want your health care to be to controlled by someone who doesn't care and doesn't have to? Go live in Britain.

How can the cost only go up? Neither I nor my employer will be paying this huge premium any more and it'll be spread out over everyone instead of just those with insurance like it is now. Take the insurance industry out if the mix and you have a 30% cut in costs right there. You think what I get charged for health care doesn't include the cost of those who cannot pay but receive service anyway? And what about all the minor cases (I have a cough...I have a splinter in my hand....I have a bad headache) that now use the emergency room at a very high cost instead of seeing a GP..because they have no insurance? What about all those who forgo maintenence care because of no insurance and thus have full blown problems that could have been prevented?

Speaking of someone who doesn't care and doesn't have to...that describes every insurance company I've ever worked with.

Our system is the most expensive system in the world....it misses what ...75 million people? You saying we can't do better than that? You saying we're that stupid?

We trust the government to keep an army and kill people but we can't trust the government to heal people?

[Sulayman]

Originally Posted by potter

How can the cost only go up? Neither I nor my employer will be paying this huge premium any more and it'll be spread out over everyone instead of just those with insurance like it is now. Take the insurance industry out if the mix and you have a 30% cut in costs right there.

What you would save in insurance costs would go back out of your pocket in increased taxes. There is nothing government can do as cheaply as industry and you will lose any choice you have now.

Our system is the most expensive system in the world....it misses what ...75 million people? You saying we can't do better than that? You saying we're that stupid?

That statistic is misleading but yes we can do better. We have to mandate that everyone carry private healthcare insurance that meets agreed upon federal guidelines then support that with tax credits to help meet the cost.

We trust the government to keep an army and kill people but we can't trust the government to heal people?

Yes, that's right. Any government is pretty good at killing people but not so good a healing them. I know because I've been on both sides of that. Believe me, you do not want the bureaucrats who brought you Katrina, the budget deficit and the housing crisis controlling your healthcare.

[potter]

Originally Posted by Sulayman

What you would save in insurance costs would go back out of your pocket in increased taxes. There is nothing government can do as cheaply as industry and you will lose any choice you have now.

So basically what you're saying is that the private health care industry in the us with it's current incompetence and ineptude is the best we can do?? Health care costs in the US are the highest in the industrialized world and it isn't any better. and a good chunk of our citizens aren't even covered.

2007 levels per citizen:

Canada $3135
France - $3040
Israle - $1972
UK - $2560
Germany - $3171
US - $6096

it looks as if the US is almost double..why is that? I can tell you. Inefficiency and the insurance industry. When I go to the doctor and have one test, I will get a string of 4-5 bills from the doctor and everyone else who saw me which string in over the next year. I never know how much I owe or when the bills will stop coming. That one appointment will require 4-5 separate billing offices. How "efficient" is that?

When I need to see my doctor, guess what, I need to make an appointment anywhere from 2-6 months in advance. How is that quicker service?

Whenever there is a test to be had, you can bet it will cost at least $1,000 and usually much more. Why is that?

My insurance premium went up 22% last year..it goes up like that every year. Why is that?

Doesn't sound efficient to me, sounds like a good screwing from private industry.

I'm not debating that my taxes won't go up, but not paying premiums will offset it, and to be honest, I can't imagine the government running the system any more ineptly than it is now. As far as no more choice, well that is fearmongering.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html

Published: August 12, 2007
Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.
Michael Moore struck a nerve in his new documentary, “Sicko,” when he extolled the virtues of the government-run health care systems in France, England, Canada and even Cuba while deploring the failures of the largely private insurance system in this country. There is no question that Mr. Moore overstated his case by making foreign systems look almost flawless. But there is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care.
Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.

Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs.

Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors.

Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care.

Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world.

Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the “right care” for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.

That statistic is misleading but yes we can do better. We have to mandate that everyone carry private healthcare insurance that meets agreed upon federal guidelines then support that with tax credits to help meet the cost.

How is that going to bring down costs or make it affordable? The same people who cannot afford it now won't be able to afford it then either. What? You gonna make them live in their cars to ensure they have health care? And the same inept crooks who are screwing the American public now will just have more people to screw.

Yes, that's right. Any government is pretty good at killing people but not so good a healing them. I know because I've been on both sides of that. Believe me, you do not want the bureaucrats who brought you Katrina, the budget deficit and the housing crisis controlling your healthcare.

In all honesty, those issues were brought to us by Bush and the republicans....a more inept example you won't find anywhere. To assume anyone else would be as inept as them is perhaps unfair to everyone else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for big government, I just really don't think that in this case private industry can do a better job. In fact they've proven they can't.

[Summerwind]

Originally Posted by potter

<snip>
In all honesty, those issues were brought to us by Bush and the republicans....a more inept example you won't find anywhere. To assume anyone else would be as inept as them is perhaps unfair to everyone else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for big government, I just really don't think that in this case private industry can do a better job. In fact they've proven they can't.

Truer or more accurate words cannot be written. Well said.

[potter]

I would like to go back on one perception of what I wrote. The doctors and nurses I encounter are good first class people.

It's the administrations and insurance systems and corporate boards that bring the whole US system to its knees.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Sulayman

You want your health care to be to controlled by someone who doesn't care and doesn't have to?

You mean like Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies?

Originally Posted by Sulayman

Go live in Britain.

Go take a flying leap on a bicycle without a seat.

By the way Sully, where are you from?

Sometimes you post like an American and sometimes like a Limey.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by Sulayman

How do you figure that? The cost can only go up and you will lose what choices you now have.

Based on what evidence do you conclude that the cost would ONLY go up?

Originally Posted by Sulayman

Nanny state.

Only if it's a dictation of the government to do things a certain way, I don't see how universal health care would go about establishing such that current health insurers don't already do.

Originally Posted by Sulayman

You want your health care to be to controlled by someone who doesn't care and doesn't have to?

You think that current private insurers in the US actually care?

Originally Posted by Sulayman

Go live in Britain.

This country is moving towards universal healthcare, so if you're really going to stick with this "like it or leave it" mentality it would seem it would be those that share your sentiment that will need to leave.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

You mean like Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies?

To be fair, pharmaceuticals actually do produce life saving drugs that have significantly improved the ability of physicians to treat illnesses.
Insurance companies though? nothing, each time I go to see a physician the insurance company is always sending me a form to attempt and label my visit as a "pre-existing" condition which they are unwilling to pay for -blood sucking leaches.

[Sulayman]

Originally Posted by potter

In all honesty, those issues were brought to us by Bush and the republicans....a more inept example you won't find anywhere. To assume anyone else would be as inept as them is perhaps unfair to everyone else.

NO. That's just your bias talking. Do you really think the stooges who work for FEMA and the Treasury are all going to go away when Bush leaves? No such luck. They stay on year after decade after decade protected by civil service rules. You can't get rid of them any more than you can get rid of the useless union shcool teachers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for big government, I just really don't think that in this case private industry can do a better job. In fact they've proven they can't.

Actually it sounds very much like your for the biggest possible government.

The rest of your post is propaganda and I won't bother with it.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by jfuh

To be fair, pharmaceuticals actually do produce life saving drugs that have significantly improved the ability of physicians to treat illnesses.

True, however they have spent millions lobbying our government in order to insure that they can continue to gouge us for billions in excess profits.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

True, however they have spent millions lobbying our government in order to insure that they can continue to gouge us for billions in excess profits.

As has virtually every single industry in the US.
It's to their benefit to lobby the government.
But I'm sure you will agree that that is really a problem with lobbying than it is anything with a particular industry. IOW a problem with how government functions than it is with a particular industry.

[R Lance]

<<<<<<<<<< True, however they have spent millions lobbying our government in order to insure that they can continue to gouge us for billions in excess profits.>>>>>>>

One of the things that drive up drug cost in the US is we have to subsidize other countries. Ie you cam buy the same drug in Canada or Mexico , made by same factory ,often in the US for 1/4 -1/2 the price in US. The other countries force the dug co. to charge less, resulting in the difference in profit to be made up in US.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by R Lance

<<<<<<<<<< True, however they have spent millions lobbying our government in order to insure that they can continue to gouge us for billions in excess profits.>>>>>>>

One of the things that drive up drug cost in the US is we have to subsidize other countries. Ie you cam buy the same drug in Canada or Mexico , made by same factory ,often in the US for 1/4 -1/2 the price in US. The other countries force the dug co. to charge less, resulting in the difference in profit to be made up in US.

Lance, they wouldn't sell them in other countries at those prices if they weren't making money at those prices.
The prices we pay here in the states are excessive.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Lance, they wouldn't sell them in other countries at those prices if they weren't making money at those prices.
The prices we pay here in the states are excessive.

I agree that the prices here are excessive, but a lot of that has much to do with the entire process of bringing the drugs to market here because of the need for retailers to be profitable as well as paying for the insurance premiums associated with the establishment and licensing to dispense the drugs as pharmacists - not an arbitrary value that the industry assigns to the drug itself.

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by Sulayman

What you would save in insurance costs would go back out of your pocket in increased taxes. There is nothing government can do as cheaply as industry and you will lose any choice you have now.

Government is not a "for profit entity." Insurance companies only have to give back 51% of all money in premiums that they take in...Thus, 49% of it stays with the insurance company.

Is there a government agency that has a 49% overhead?

[Sulayman]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

Is there a government agency that has a 49% overhead?

Before or after the waste, fraud and abuse?

[EstebonRober]

Health care accounts for 20% of GDP. . .It does hold us down and something must be done.

Cap on medical malpractice lawsuits. Cap on health insurance rates based on new standardized rates for service (some fluctuation allowed). Free med school for the talented and achieving. Reduction in some of the high end salaries of doctors.

I just made health insurance affordable for the masses without putting it in big brother's hands.

Nationalized health = loss of rights, sin taxes galore, and eventually tyranny by the mob.