Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

If We Want Good Health Care from Obama, We Better Push Him to Change His Plan

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted September 2, 2008.


Barack Obama's health care plan coddles the corporations that profit from the misery and illnesses of tens of millions of Americans.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Barack Obama's health care plan coddles the corporations that profit from the misery and illnesses of tens of millions of Americans. The plan is naive, at best, and probably disingenuous when it insists that we can coax these corporations, which are listed on the stock exchange and exist to maximize profit, to transform themselves into social service agencies that will provide adequate health care for all Americans. I wish we lived in such a rosy world. I know, and I suspect Obama knows, that we do not.

"Obama offers a false hope," said Dr. John Geyman, the former chair of family medicine at the University of Washington and author of "Do Not Resuscitate: Why the Health Insurance Industry Is Dying, and How We Must Replace It." "We cannot build on or tweak the present system. Different states have tried this. The problem is the private insurance industry itself. It is not as efficient as a publicly financed system. It fragments risk pools, skimming off the healthier part of the population and leaving the rest uninsured or underinsured. Its administrative and overhead costs are five to eight times higher than public financing through Medicare. It cares more about its shareholders than its enrollees or patients. A family of four now pays about $12,000 a year just in premiums, which have gone up by 87 percent from 2000 to 2006. The insurance industry is pricing itself out of the market for an ever larger part of the population. The industry resists regulation. It is unsustainable by present trends."

We face a health crisis. The Democratic and Republican parties, awash in campaign contributions from the beasts they should be slaying on our behalf, have no interest in addressing it. A report in the journal Health Affairs estimates that, if the system is left unchanged, one of every five dollars spent by Americans in 2017 will go to health coverage. Half of all bankruptcies in America are because families are unable to pay their medical bills. There are some 46 million Americans without coverage and tens of millions more with inadequate policies that severely limit what kinds of procedures and treatments they can receive.

"There are at least 25 million Americans who are underinsured," said Dr. Geyman. "Whatever coverage they have does not come close to covering the actual cost of a major illness or accident."

Obama, like John McCain, did not support HR 676, the single-payer legislation. The corporations that run our for-profit health care industry, which would be shut down if the bill was enacted, have vigorously fought it through campaign contributions and armies of lobbyists. A study by Harvard Medical School found that national health insurance would save the country $350 billion a year. But Medicare does not make campaign contributions. The private health care industries do. They have lavished money on Obama. He received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And Michelle Obama is a vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $316,962 annually.

"The private health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry completely and totally oppose national health insurance," said Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, one of the founders of Physicians for a National Health Program. "The private health insurance companies would go out of business. The pharmaceutical companies are afraid that a national health program will, as in Canada, be able to negotiate lower drug prices. Canadians pay 40 percent less for their drugs. We see this on a smaller scale in the United States, where the Department of Defense is able to negotiate pharmaceutical prices that are 40 percent lower."

Sen. Obama argues that we can improve the system by expanding government oversight. The government, he says, should require doctors and hospitals to prove they provide quality care. His plan links payment with reported quality. This would mean that health care providers would have to hire even larger staffs to collect and report this data to the government. There would be a $10-billion federal investment in health care information technology over five years under the Obama plan, in essence turning record keeping from paper to electronic data.

Obama's plan, said Dr. Don McCanne, who writes on health care issues, would actually make health plans "more expensive, which compounds the problem."

Obama says he would require insurance companies to use more income from premiums for patient care.

"There isn't an enforcement mechanism," Geyman said bluntly. "Most states have been unable to control rates or set a cap on rates."

Obama's plan would also not cover all Americans. Unlike in Canada, citizens would not be enrolled in a plan automatically. Americans would have to go looking for one they could afford. And if they could not find one they would remain uninsured. Dr. Woolhandler, who is also a professor at Harvard Medical School, estimates that "tens of millions" of Americans would remain uninsured under Obama's plan. These numbers would swell as employers, who provide plans for 59 percent of those who are employed, continue to reduce coverage.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health care, barack obama

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, is a Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. His latest book is Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Medicare for All ...Now !
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 2, 2008 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chris Hedges has laid it all out. We need Medicare for all now!

The United States spends 17% of GDP on healthcare. The rest of the G8 spend an average of 9% of GDP on healthcare. Government, on all levels, local, state, federal, medicare, medicaid, children's health care and veterans pay more than 60% of the healthcare bill today while the Insurance Companies cherry pick corporate accounts and healthy customers while those with problems lose out. The new Census Report reported that healthcare coverage actually went up, because more people had to resort to Medicare and Medicaid!Coverage under business went down yet again.

"Medicare for all" is a natural campaign slogan yet the Democrats choose to dance around the issue ad naseum. They have their snouts so far in the trough of healthcare contributions they can't seem to hear the cries of their constituents or see that our health care system is not a system but a state of chaos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Medicare for All ...Now ! Posted by: KDelphi5950
» RE: Medicare for All ...Now ! Posted by: KDelphi5950
Congress - A useless entity?
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Sep 2, 2008 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We definitely need Universal Healthcare, which works wonderfully in other countries (European models work fantastically). Our healthcare system is a disgrace - another example of our Congress rarely working positively in behalf of its own people. Medicare Now for All would dramatically change our country and its citizens' lives.

Congress needs to also:
Vote to stop invading other countries for oil/natural resources and end the Iraq /Afghanistan wars
Rescind the new bankruptcy law
Reduce interest rates on student loans to a permanent low interest rate, including career training loans
Cancel student loans with regular on-time payments after 10 years
End fascist police actions against peaceful demonstrations
End illegal wire-tapping
Totally reform educational systems
Become a parliamentary democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama neverf wanted to change the status quo once in Washington.
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 2, 2008 1:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what makes you think he'll even bother once he's president? Don't believe me? Here, read this:

Mr. Obama Goes to Washington

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two choices
Posted by: Obama2008Fan on Sep 2, 2008 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vote for McCain and get NO health plan at all. Or support Obama and hope he'll improve his.

Not being brain dead, I prefer the latter option.

Obama Fan
Why Hillary fans should vote against Sen. McCain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two choices Posted by: annekarina
» RE: Two choices Posted by: KDelphi5950
Reclaiming our American Heritage
Posted by: using on Sep 2, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree whole heartedly, that we must begin to teach a lesson.
However, I disagree with taking the vote at this point away from the Obama, for he is the only one that has a real chance of getting elected. As I remember it the others are not even on all the state voting machines, are they?
A vote for anyone other than Obama is a vote for McBush.
So, back to I agree, but I agree that we need to be able to take a stand. But what evidence o you have that we are at this point able to? By taking our votes away from Obama and the democrats and helping McBush win, are we really punishing the Democratic party who you say are feeding from the same tough as the Republicans? Will we end up better off with McCain?
At this point, step one is to derail the Republican agenda. Step two is to try and hold Obama to his words and even stand up for more. I believe that we do have to fight for a better health care system but we also have to investigate services (there is plenty to be said there) We have corruption all over, it is just that the drug and health care are strangling us big time.
However, I do beleive that we need to unite -- to become a strong progressive "people count" party that can grow enough power to negotiate changes and support our candidate if need be to grow a strong enough party of our own.
But, for right now, we do not have that power and I do not see where we have organized and are ready to make a stand that can bring about change. However, with Obama, at the least we can gain some time away from the excelleration of the downwards spiril we are experiencing and at the most he will rise to the occasion of great leadership and create some programs and carve some sustainable paths that we can grow on. We are drowning -- and we cannot take a McCain gamble on a Bush type leadership.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Now we finally see... Posted by: jvaljon1
» RE: Now we finally see... Posted by: Bittersham2
» RE: Now we finally see... Posted by: kimbari
Sounds like utopia.
Posted by: Opinionator on Sep 3, 2008 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And maybe someday we will be fortunate enough to have such a comprehensive health care et al plan. However, in the countries that have such health plans taxes are extremely high. I am willing to pay but the voters in this country would probably not.

Obama's plan may be watered down but it's far better than McCain's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sounds like utopia. Posted by: KDelphi5950
» RE: Sounds like utopia. Posted by: dp1228
» You've Swallowed the BIG LIE. Posted by: armorypk
Is a campaign promise a verbal contract?
Posted by: Robert Thompson on Sep 3, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm South African, so I am unfamiliar with US Law, but I was wondering whether in your legal system a campaign promise constitutes a verbal contract?

In our law if you make a promise in exchange for some benefit, like a vote, then a contract has been formed and you are contractually bound to uphold your side of the bargain. If you don't then you can be sued civilly.

It might be an interesting tactic if progressives began suing politicians who defaulted on their campaign promises once they were in office.

Is that legally possible in the US?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Surely you jest?? Posted by: 6399
» RE: Surely you jest?? Posted by: nochicagoboys
Government Cutback
Posted by: Godfather89 on Sep 3, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this spending is ridiculous. America was founded upon Independence for a reason. So our government does not go into debt, but no we want the government to spend even more $$$ away in a bureaucracy that cant even find millions of illegal immigrants let alone have the financial foresight to have seen that the Social Security and Medicare is going to engulf our budget before 2050 (it seems far off however that's when I am eligible for retirement and when I will most likely need care).

America we need independence again, free us from the bonds that bind us to bondage of people who seek to disempower the individual. Revolution! Vote Bob Barr 2008

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally, the fluff is blown away
Posted by: BST on Sep 3, 2008 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This commentary is significant and worthy of consideration for two reasons:

1. The issues it raises -- how are we going to continue on the path of healthcare chaos?
2. It holds Obama accountable. The media has wasted too much time on puffery. This must be true also of MCCain and the GOP.

Let's spend these weeks examining issues and informing candidates by letter of our wishes.

Voters really do have clout, if they want to make the effort to voice their concerns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jane
Posted by: goldpitt on Sep 3, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My fellow lefties, we all know that this is a two party game and that if we vote for some third party candidate, our vote will go to the republican party. I agree that we need universal health care and a slew of other reforms that neither candidate can offer. But this is the system we are under and we all know that Obama is a far cry better than McCain. Our system is broken. It is wrong and we all know it but until everyone steps up on both sides or until it just falls apart, we are stuck with it.

Health care will not be fixed by Obama this time around but it is a start. If we go negative now and risk electing another republican, we'll never have a chance to change anything.

Obama is not the messiah. He can't fix all of our problems in a two party system that is embolden to big money. No one can. The system itself has to collapse.

There are no simple or easy answers to health care reform. Obama is a start and we must take that first step now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jane Posted by: KDelphi5950
» RE: jane Posted by: Bittersham2
Suzanne
Posted by: karin42 on Sep 3, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's thoughts are to begin with something akin to what we have in Massachusetts which is far from perfect but a good beginning. It's unrealistic to think we can just dismantle existing health care, medical and pharmaceutical systems and set up a European health care system. As someone said they pay more than half their salaries in taxes for those services and it's not likely to win support here. So you begin by insuring everyone and lowering the cost. Progressives never win elections in this country because it's always "our way or the highway." Idealism over practicality...Obama's plan is a good start and he is a good organizer. He will put doctors and insurance and pharmaceutical people in a room and tell them to get to work and see what is possible. Let's not beat the crap out of the first chance we've had in a long time to make things better...for once...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Suzanne Posted by: rinpochet
» RE: Suzanne Posted by: nochicagoboys
Obama is bought and paid for by Wall Street.
Posted by: lindat on Sep 3, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of people are going to be VERY disappointed and dismayed when this empty suit gets elected. The FISA sellout was just the begining.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the tentacles of the Beast
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 3, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Getting national health care in this country is going to be a Herculean task. There are several interlocking and mutually related problems (and not only medical care-related) that are going to have to be overcome:

1) The hugely profitable and very influential medical insurance industry, with thousands of employees.

2) Campaign finance reform: If you saw Michael Moore's "Sicko", you have an idea of how many of our congresspeople--of both parties--are feeding at the trough of the corporate medical industry.

3) A media that is totally in the pocket of the corporatocracy that rules in the U.S. Remember the "Harry and Louise" commercials during the last attempt at "reform"? We'll get that in spades if national health care becomes serious again.

All of the above groups, when it comes to money, will fight tooth and nail to block any real reform.

It all sounds so great: "Let's have national health care!" But the corporate-profit Beast that has to be dealt with would intimidate the bravest hero in mythology.

FDR wanted to have national health care in the 1930's. The medical establishment fought it so furiously that it wasn't until 30 years later that we finally got Medicare--and that was only for people over 65.

I am not hopefull.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the tentacles of the Beast Posted by: mtnprivy
Peter Mackrael
Posted by: Peter Mackrael on Sep 3, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Universal Health Care is alive and well north of the border. The following was published in the Toronto Star newspaper on 3 September 2008.

TORONTO STAR, LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Positive brush with Canada's health system
Sep 03, 2008 04:30 AM

As Americans, we know Canada has socialized medicine and that its reputation was one of having to wait and wait to get help.

But our opinion, and respect, was significantly changed recently (June 26-July 3) when we had a first-hand experience with it. We had come to Toronto with friends for simply an overnight outing, when my husband had an acute heart attack at 1 a.m. What so amazed us was the overwhelmingly responsive, knowledgeable and skilled care we received from the moment I called the hotel desk asking for an ambulance through what would be an eight-day stay in Toronto General Hospital.

Literally, within five minutes of talking to the hotel operator, a manager was at our door to help; within 10 minutes, the Toronto fire department and the Toronto Ambulance Service were on site. The EMT expertly transported him, while notifying Toronto General's Coronary Intensive Care Unit (CICU). They in turn called the doctors in so that, within another 10 minutes, he was being examined. Thus, within one hour, my husband was on the operating table with the best surgeon possible.

The nursing and follow up care was exemplary. The knowledge, the style, the process – all first class. The communications between every staff member was exemplary. The attention to the patient was remarkable – every shift, every day. It was a major difference from what we have experienced in the States: no endless paperwork, nurses were respected by the doctors, everyone worked as a team – and one which was not threatened each day with a lawsuit or a swab-by-swab accountability. The patient benefited!

In this case, the entire city (Intercontinental Hotel staff, Toronto's fire department, the Toronto EMTs and Toronto General Hospital) fit together hand-in-glove and gave world-class treatment to an ill visitor to their country. Thank you and congratulations! By the way, my husband recovered in record time and is back playing golf.

Linda Keefe and Lou Hohman, Rochester, N.Y.

To read a brief argument in favor of universal health care, Google "universal health care" and select "The Case for Universal Health Care in the United States".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peter Mackrael Posted by: KDelphi5950
» RE: Peter Mackrael Posted by: mrmystery
» RE: Peter Mackrael Posted by: cmaciain
Rep Copnyers HR 676
Posted by: KDelphi5950 on Sep 3, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
covers eveyone via Medicare , and is supported by almost al the Dems in the House, adn most of the Senate. If Obama would say he would back it/sign it , if it came to him--I'd vote for him! As HIghtower said, "Those who say it cant be done should not interfere with those who are doing it"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Balancing the Equation
Posted by: Romans1 on Sep 3, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Natioalized health care will bankrupt the country if there are not provisions for controlling costs. Controlling costs begins with salaries. A you willing to cap doctor's salaries at something reasonable, say $100,000 per year?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Balancing the Equation Posted by: Peter Mackrael
» RE: Balancing the Equation Posted by: Romans1
» RE: Balancing the Equation Posted by: Peter Mackrael
» RE: Balancing the Equation Posted by: crashgrab
the problem isn't corporations
Posted by: mrmystery on Sep 3, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the main problem with our healthcare isn't the private corporations. It's the fact that our citizens are so sick these days that our country can't afford the money it costs to give them healthcare. Our country as a whole pays much more in healthcare costs than any other country by far, and the amount we spend on medical bills continues to increase dramatically every year. This is why a single payer, universal healthcare system won't work for us right now. Too many obese people, smokers, drinkers, etc. etc. ...not to mention the thousands upon thousands of jobs that would be lost from closing private healthcare corporations. Humana is a large scale employer in Green Bay, a town that is already very economically depressed as it is. What do you think would happen to Green Bay if Humana closed down?? Do you think the people of Green Bay would agree with your opinion? Do you think they'd choose healthcare over their jobs??

Progressives and the left need to start realizing that there are tons of issues that require everyone's help to fix, such as healthcare. Everyone needs to start taking responsibility for their own health, their kids health, to insure that we can bring down our country's healthcare costs and fix the economy to the point where we can actually think about starting a single payer universal healthcare plan that works, self-sufficiently. There isn't a quick fix, and to just try to instate a universal, single payer plan now would be disastrous and simply leave millions of people underinsured instead of uninsured.

It's just like global warming. There are too many people that think the government needs to take care of the problem. Yet, they refuse to eat less meat, change their lightbulbs, and recycle. It's up too all of us to take care of our problems, not just the government. As barack likes to say, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" Barack's change is just as much about inspiring people to be strong and change their own lives as it is about his policies changing our government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the problem isn't corporations Posted by: Peter Mackrael
» RE: the problem isn't corporations Posted by: Peter Mackrael
» RE: the problem isn't corporations Posted by: Peter Mackrael
the American Hell--the fundamental flaw
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 3, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me give you my take on why we in the U.S.--of all the great countries of the world--still doesn't have guaranteed health care for it's most helpless citizens.

The great Romanian theologian Richard Wurmbrand was once asked how he envisioned his idea of Hell. He said it was a place where he saw a large group of people seated around a table where a sumptuous dinner was placed. He asked one of the people seated at the table: "what is your punishment?". The person replied: "we are all starving, but none of us are allowed to lift the food from the plate to our own mouth". Pastor Wurmbrand then asked "But why don't you just feed each other?". To which the condemned soul replied: "What? Feed HIM??? I'd rather go on starving!"

Pretty much and image of early 21st century American society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only way to go, really is
Posted by: steven w on Sep 3, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
socialized medicine, or we will never have health care worth a damn because they OVERCHARGE! and I don't see that ever changing. We could try, but I'm not too hopeful that things will ever change. John Kerry had a fairly good plan. But, the question is- How do you keep these little bastards from overcharging?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress
Posted by: Wildman on Sep 3, 2008 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lobby your Congress folks. If they send him better legislation,, he will likely sign it, but don't expect him to spend any political capital trying to move Congress toward a better plan than the one he wins with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't throw the War to win a long standing battle
Posted by: Purple Girl on Sep 3, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes it amazes me how issues like this become a 'NEW' Issue. Let me tell you this has been a long standing entrenched issue. It will not take one candidate to change this.We must change All our Public Servants stance. Health Insurance has been screwed Up for as long as there have been Health insurance companies skimming off health care.
Finally somone has had the Balls to design a Program which we have seen in action around the world for ever!
Finally this country has begun to think with it's head instead of it's ass! Remember when such Proposals were Called 'Socialist'. When it was thought you were a Traitor for even mentioning the idea of cutting out the middlemen?
So the Concept is not New, It has only been destigmatized by a System melt down and soaring costs.
Baby, People like me- who has worked in Long Term care, with Medicare and HMO's, KNOWS Universal (Socialized- Human Focused) Healthcare is the ONLY Healthcare plan which benefits People and Not Bricks & Mortar!
So Welcome Aboard- We're glad you finally showed Up!
But if you haven't noticed, Your life revolves around, and is controlled by, alot of Logo's.
So You want healthcare Taken back by the Dept of Health, You should also want your energy to be Owned & controlled by Your US Dept of Energy. Your Economy Run by the US Treasury, the US Labor Dept and the Commerce Dept- Not the Private Banking Firm "The Federal Reserve", Wall Street, or international Trade Commission.
You should want your National Defense be provide by those Who have an allegience to our country, not just their paychecks and Profit margins.
You should want your Food produced by independent farmers, who have committed themselve to this 'Labor of Love'.Who's product quality must be competitive to remain profitable. Instead of large Corps who hire 9-5's who know nothing about food safety and sound animal husbandry practices.Packingmore animals on to small areas- causing neglect,abuse and Disease
It's taken the Corps about a century to Conquer Our Democracy and Free market- it may take a Honest leader or two to Reclaim it.
At least there is an Opening for US at Obama's table....Mac's is swamped with Lobbists.Mac's Plan = a Bandaid & an Aspirin for Our gunshot wound.

Support Rep Conyers HR 676- It's a Human Issue , NOT a Political Issue

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It Is Time To Take Control of Our Health.
Posted by: Btelfare on Sep 3, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have agreed with the idea of universal health care for years. I started thinking about the health insurance plans over the years. People don't to think about prevention measures so my monthly contributions went up. The old primary care physician at the emergency room is expensive. Corporation America isn't going to do it. "Give them something to make health problems" may be their motto. American need to start a true campaign of prevention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New England Journal of Medicine has been doing many editorials on the candidates' plans
Posted by: fanny666 on Sep 3, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure if anybody can get to these pages, or if I'm just able to get to them because I'm at a university with an institutional subscription.

The New England Journal of Medicine did a poll to see what doctors think of the candidates' plans. 19% support McCain's plan. 34% support Obama's plan. 47% favor neither plan. The problem is that the Democrats aren't listening to Edwards- the insurance companies are not our friends, we should not be using taxpayer money to pay them. Like Edwards said, we need to take them on and beat them.

"Health of the Nation" panel discussion

The Partisan Divide — The McCain and Obama Plans for U.S. Health Care Reform (good overview of the plans)

Editorial: Health of the Nation — Coverage for All Americans

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Must Change!
Posted by: thinkverybig on Sep 3, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out this video folks and share it with everyone you know please!

http://www.talk-it-out.com/video/video/
show?id=1876466%3AVideo%3A10190

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dipconsult
Posted by: dipconsult on Sep 3, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in France we have perhaps the best health care system in the world - though there are poor regional patches. True, the British system (which way back post WWII the French studied to their advantage) has become inefficient and excessively expensive mirroring the sad decline of British administrative standards under successive governments.

But there is no need to tolerate bad administration. The French don't. And America should not.

Mrs Clinton does seem, from what we read, to be the politician with by far the best ideas about establishing an effective US health care system.

My suggestion both to get universal health care in the US and to help Obama's still all too uncertain chances of winning the November election: he should announce (of course after asking her!) that Mme Clinton will be his health czar with full powers if he is elected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We cannot possibly hold Barack accountable
Posted by: sbrown13 on Sep 3, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chris Hedges is right about the problem, as usual, but wrong about how to solve it.

It would be great if we had an alternative party or candidate we could threaten to vote for if Barack disappointed us.

But that is an unconvincing threat. No matter how bad Barack becomes in this election campaign, it could never be bad enough to convince us to vote for McCain. Consequently, the Democratic Party can continue to rely on its eternal boast to progressives: "You have nowhere else to go."

We could build a viable third party, some day -- but this election is now. If McCain gets in, there is no doubt we will lose the Supreme Court, our civil liberties, our environment, and very likely our lives, as the world goes up in flames as a result of one or another of McCain's macho-driven imperialist ventures.

So we have no leverage to exert on Barack before he is elected. After he is elected, we will have even less. Except for one remote possibility -- remote because it seems so alien to American political culture -- and that is the General Strike.

In Europe, such a strike, or even its mere threat, has toppled ministers and even governments. That is because Europe has large and vigorous student and labor movements. They can call a hundred thousand students into the streets and many times that number of ordinary workers.

They can shut down vital services, bring their countries to a screeching halt, and often (not always, but frequently enough) bring their leaders to their senses, or at least to a proper respect for how far they can push their citizenry before their citizenry push back.

Yes, we have sometimes held large anti-war demonstrations in which hundreds of thousands participated -- in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and elsewhere. But these were only marches, staged mainly for the TV cameras and media. They were not well-planned attempts to disrupt (legally and non-violently, of course) the smooth functinoning of oppressive government machinery.

We cannot, alas, in this country -- as in France or Spain or Holland or Sweden -- persuade the scientists to leave their desks, corporate IT managers to walk away from their network servers, truck drivers to stop trucking, bus and taxi drivers to refuse passengers (or carry them for free), teachers to walk out of the classrooms, students to stop walking into them, retail stores to close, bank tellers to refuse to dispense cash, lawyers to cease litigating, and the few Congressmen and Senators on our side to commandeer the floors of their chambers to cheer the rebellious strikers on.

We cannot do that here because we lack not only a politically aware student population, but also a real labor movement (private sector union membership has plummeted from 37.9% in 1948 to a paltry 7.9% in 2004).

But we should still try. Only the threat -- and hopeful fulfillment -- of mass civil disobedience on a huge scale after the election is over -- will make our newely elected leaders honor the promises they made to get our votes, but which they will surely break as soon as they begin their terms of office.

Our only effective check on a presidential candidate whom we cannot afford to vote against is to follow the exhortation of Mario Savo:

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

But it won't happen here any time soon, if ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!!
Posted by: bthespoon on Sep 3, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't have said it better myself, and it's past time someone else did.

Let's keep doing more of the same until America's light bulb turns on again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: XCELLENT ARTICLE!!!! Posted by: landru
The Left should give up on the State
Posted by: James W. Harris on Sep 3, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Government health care will fail utterly for the same reasons that everything else the government does fails.

Government is simply incapable of doing anything worthwhile. There is no accountability. Politics trumps compassion. The ballot box provides poor and inaccurate feedback. Special interest groups will milk the system dry.

Gov't health care will be as bad as:

* Gov't schools -- violence, illiteracy, racism;
* Gov't war on drugs -- more drugs and worse drugs, more available than ever; racist enforcement;
* Gov't foreign policy -- ie, Murder, Inc.
* Gov't police -- a bigger threat to our safety than criminals;
* Gov't spooks -- CIA and FBI, gotta love those guys;
* Gov't mail -- worse service, ever-higher prices;
* Gov't immigration control -- invasion of our civil liberties, and pushing around good people from other countries who just want to come here and work hard.....

....... and on and on.

Everything the government tries to do ends in a disaster for all except our rulers and their corporate buddies.

The Left needs to realize the gov't is just institutionalized violence. It always fails, it always disappoints.

Far better to build organizations outside of gov't to accomplish what is needed.

If you wanted to give a million dollars to help the poor, would you give it to federal Health and Human Services, or to a local volunteer food bank or homeless shelter?

The Left should be anti-State, for the same reason it is anti-war and pro-civil liberties.

We will never get what we want from politicians. They lie and sell out to special interests.

Ten years from now, if we have national health care, it will be nothing like what any of us want in the way of health care. Surely we must all realize that, in our hearts. So why spend so much time and money fighting for something that is doomed by its very nature?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Universal health care and the election
Posted by: CJC on Sep 3, 2008 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chris Hedges is right about our needing a version of what is sometimes called "Medicare for all."
But his suggestion to cope with Obama's failure to embrace this goal by voting for Nader is irresponsible and even bizarre.

Voting for Nader is just throwing your vote away and taking a potential vote from Obama and in fact increasing McCain's margin. Doesn't Hedges remember the 2000 election? If Nader hadn't run it's likely that Gore would have won the election by a large enough margin that the Supreme Court would not have had the chance to give Florida to Bush. Does Chris Hedges really believe that our country would be in the same shape it's in now if Gore had won??

To throw one's vote away because the candidate who's generally closer to your values doesn't agree with you on everything is really not to believe in democracy and to be a self-defeating pessimist.

To vote for Nader because he's not campaigning on a platform of universal health care is irresponsible.

Re incremental steps - they really are better than nothing. Massachusetts, according to recently released data, now has the highest percentage of its population covered by health insurance. It's not 100% and it's not good enough yet, but what's Nader going to do about it? It's up to all of us to keep working for universal health care and to be hopeful that Obama will be smart enough to listen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Government and Health Care
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Sep 3, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, I dont think government will ever "straighten out" health care. there is just too much money (profit) in health care and they like it just the way it is. So basically, health care has politicians in their back pocket because you can rest assured they are getting nice kick backs in the form of CASH.

Jess
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Chris:
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Sep 3, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In order to, as you say, punish BOTH PARTIES for their disgusting mendacity--Barack worse than McCain, cause from McCain you KNOW what you're gonna get which is zero--Barack needs to be replaced by someone else. Hillary Clinton is out of the question--God Forbid Hillary gets anywhere NEAR the White House, or even Health & Human Services, that's why this whole Barack sleight-of-hand charade was put on by his Insurance and PharMa sponsors--so that leaves only one other person to vote for, and that one other person is: Ralph Nader.

All you who watch Lou Dobbs, know about Ralph Nader. All you older ones also know him, he's the guy that wrote "Unsafe at any speed" the book that accurately skewered the auto industry for making attractive rolling family deathtraps, and finally brought the auto industry to heel. One man did that. Is there any doubt in anyone's minds that the same man, couldn't make Big PharMa AND Big Insurance, come to heel?

I'm talking now, not just to Chris, but to all disaffected voters. I'm talking to the ones who will "vote for Barack anyway because at least he's not McSame": no he's not. McSame at least is what he looks to be. Barack is flying under way false colors (no pun intended here) and he doesn't mind lying to get his way. A silver tongue only gets you so far and then people know you for what you are, when you're a liar. I'm talking now to the women who are going to stay home, and/or vote for McCain, in their rage at being done out of Hillary. That's my rage too, and I'm no woman.
I'm one pissed off black man who is NOT gonna serve as no stepping stone for a liar like Barack Obama. I'm talking to you all who feel just like I do, and the lesson we can ALL OF US SEND TO THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THIS: Neither Republican OR Democrat--we can all go vote Independent. In massive numbers too great to ignore, or even to fiddle around with. In other words, the Mother of all Backlashes. Here's my reasoning:

Voting Indy is NOT WHAT IT WAS IN YEARS PAST--a ploy to split the 2 parties and create "close" elections that the right could then go on and steal with impunity. The ranks of Independent voters have--and continue--to swell daily, thanks to Lou Dobbs, and this time it will be possible to wrest power from BOTH the Corrupt Republicans and the Corrupt Democrats. I don't know just how big is the huge jump in Independent registrations--I just hear that this year, it's off the wall. Probably because of Dobbs--but who cares, why? Thing of it is now,--WE CAN FINALLY TEACH THE POWERS THAT BE, THE LESSON OF THEIR LIVES.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just shut the f*ck up and die already . . .
Posted by: 6399 on Sep 3, 2008 12:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear American Saps,

Why can't you people contract more serious illnesses requiring one of Big Pharma's many life-giving elixirs? Then, if it isn't too much to ask, could you please linger on for a few months, or even years, so our fine network of hospitals and clinics (100,000 medical-error fatalities per year and counting!!) can bleed you and your family of the entirety of your hard earned money?

Then, die in dramatic fashion so we can fuck you even as you take your place in the next world. We really like heroic measures - that's usually good for another $5K. But we really, really like comas and ventilators a la Terry Schiavo. They're the holy grail of exorbitant medical treatments. Hey, you'll be dead, so what the fuck are you bitching about? What did your kids and grandkids ever do for you?

Regarding overpriced insurance, please stop bitching and just pay your goddamn premiums like good little mindless drones; we'll cover your treatment if we are so inclined that day. It's time you people learned your rank and order of importance in this capitalist health care utopia of ours.

1. Share holders
2. CEOs
3. Dirty politicians (shareholders)
4. 'Hookers and Blow'
5. YOU

Ok, got it?

American-brand health care is a privilege, not our obligation. You goddamn ungrateful snots don't even realize how fortunate you are. You'll take your $75 Tylenol and $400 saline solutions (that's salt water to you uneducated buffoons) and goddamn well like it!

Thanks for your patronage,

Big Health Care
xoxoxo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, a little rough...but good! Posted by: rancespergl
» Try this for 'rough' Posted by: 6399
Retirement is a near-death experience.
Posted by: landru on Sep 3, 2008 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bold You might want to figure out how to get Obama elected first or figure out how you can get your agenda past John McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats = Republicans Who Don't Dye Their Hair
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Sep 3, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Hedges, as usual, is absolutely right. The Dems, including Obama and Biden, should just stand up and tell the voting public: "Hey, you fucked up. You trusted us."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Language
Posted by: Ahimsa on Sep 3, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am pleased to see this article.
It establishes, laterally, the main difference between two factions the nation is divided into:
Those who will question authorities and popularities and those who will accept anything their authority figure tells them, who will gorge in disinformation and thoughtlessly repeat slogans like parrots (not like the "left" is immune to this.) The puppeteers don't count, what they do is calculated.

This is also a reason why many conservatives don't respect progressives, because we are "whiny" "angry" and can't "agree" on anything...
Comparing both "ideologies" is unfair. I use the quotes because I am not sure being a progressive is an ideology at all. One is an open-ended system with myriad of questions, the other a closed one with dogmatic answers and formulas easy to register.

Strangely, we must now learn the upside-down language of Babel, imposed by our tyrants, in order to communicate with about half of our own people, and use it before they accept voting against all of us, citizen's interests again...
At the same time, we have to speak straightforwardly and strongly to our own representatives to keep them from caving into private interests.
We have to "relate" and be "elitists" on two fronts, at the same time.

What schizophrenia!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cut the doctor fees
Posted by: edgar1 on Sep 3, 2008 3:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
doctors have a defacto monopoly in most regions. networks refer the patient from the internist to the specialist; it's the ultimate old boy network. why do mris and scans cost so much once the initial cost of development are recovered?

People fear death. They will pay anything to get better. Whether public or private, unless a national system cracks down on this extortion, insurance rates or taxes devoted to health care will be high and a drag on the economy. Of course Mrs Obama is a paid PR flack at 300 grand per year to promote big medicine and its fees. The Congress, both parties, passed the stupid Medicare prescription program to benefit drug companies. Recently all the Democrats voted down efforts to stop the doctors from overcharging on Medicare. Medicare, VA costs and any federal program of health will eat up funds needed for other programs or drive govt borrowing. Interest rates and a weaker dollar are a kind of tax too. There is no free lunch. And no less expensive health care until we realize doctors are not worth anymore than postal workers, teachers, sanitation workers and miners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3rd party
Posted by: grmartin on Sep 3, 2008 3:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Medicare supporters, check out the tale of Tommy Douglas, premier of Sask., Canada, who brought in universal healthcare to Canada in the 1960's. But it took a popular revolt, a 3rd political party, and a fearless and determined politican (he was later voted best Canadian) to slay the dragon. He was labeled a communist lunatic by the medical and insurance lobbies, and of course by the two dominant political parties. Today in the US, the enemy is worse, the stakes are a zillion times higher, and the opposition is still thinking about it. Time to get serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 3rd party Posted by: Liberty G
Let's face it, folks
Posted by: willymack on Sep 3, 2008 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's "health care plan" SUCKS. I wrote him a letter stating (among other things), that I wont give his campaign a goddam dime unless he makes some very important changes in his platform, including going after the bushies for their hideous crimes, and a true universal health care plan (minus the insurance and drug industries). No answer as yet. I get the feeling he needs to get millions more letters. How about it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too little too late..!
Posted by: TJColatrella on Sep 3, 2008 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a little late for that, when I was trying to push for real change and real Health Care Reform in regard to Obama I was banned from many liberal sites like, the Daily Kos..

The left bent over for this guy getting nothing in return..!

Now it's too late...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

REDUCING HEALTH CARE COSTS
Posted by: Peter Mackrael on Sep 3, 2008 4:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“While it is certainly true that the best health care in the world is available in the United States this does not necessarily mean the United States has the best health care system in the world.” See http://cthealth.server101.com/ “The Case for National Health Insurance”.

McKinsey (Jan 2007) research shows that the U.S. population is not significantly sicker than in OECD countries and concludes that there are potential annual savings of $480 billion (or 23% of the $2.3 trillion spent in 2007).

According to WHO data, Americans are more obese than Canadians but average blood pressure and cholesterol levels are almost identical. The United States spends twice as much per capita on health care than Canada - yet US mortality rates are higher.

There are fewer outpatient visits and hospital days in the United States per person than in other industrialized countries so there is less access. Reduced access means less prevention, reduced efficacy and higher overall costs. Excess capacity in healthcare and the structure of existing insurance schemes encourages the use of unnecessary procedures and overuse of expensive equipment and medical specialists. Insurance companies charge twice as much for prescription medications than the provinces (which administer health care) in Canada. The use of hundreds of different insurance schemes makes the US system unique and results in far higher administration costs than single payer national health schemes used in all other OECD countries.

The additional cost to subsidize these insurance companies was about $350 billion in 2007. If prescription drugs were sold at Canadian rates, a further $100 billion could be saved. Initially, these savings would pay for extending coverage to the 45 million uninsured. Increased access would facilitate preventive care that will reduce per capita costs.

The single-payer system would be administered by a not-for-profit trust controlled by a board of health care providers, health care advocates and taxpayers reportable to government rather than administered by the government itself. See Rep. Conyers’ House Bill 676.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama will be next President
Posted by: Bao on Sep 3, 2008 4:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama will win and he will support us by having new health care plan and more job opportunities for the people!!!

http://www.freebieoffers.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama? Yo mama
Posted by: halg on Sep 3, 2008 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's plan would also not cover all Americans. Unlike in Canada, citizens would not be enrolled in a plan automatically. Americans would have to go looking for one they could afford. And if they could not find one they would remain uninsured

Sounds just like the current health system. What is the "Change we can live with" here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you hate your life...
Posted by: douglashoyt on Sep 3, 2008 5:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vote for either of the two phonies: McCain or Obama.

If you want to live a better life vote for Nader.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If you hate your life... Posted by: nochicagoboys
What does it mean to fight for universal healthcare?
Posted by: mary0902 on Sep 3, 2008 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course it's true that we need real universal healthcare, and that Obama's current plan will not put our country on the level of humaneness that is shown by others. But this is probably not the best time to try to derail the 2-party system. So as this is a supposed democracy, we will have to fight for the sort of health care we want, letting our candidate know that we only support him conditionally.

But what does that mean -- that we have to fight for what we want? I mean concretely. Does this mean organizing rallies, writing letters, withholding money from the campaign? Some hints would sure be useful from whoever has ideas. I'm certainly up for writing some letters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ALL OF US HAVE BEEN DUPED ....
Posted by: drricklippin on Sep 3, 2008 7:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. into thinking we need organized medicine to be healthy. WE DON'T! They have made us dependent on them and we have been kept infantilized.

My health care plan? MEANINGFUL SAFE AND HEALTHY LIFELONG JOBS FOR ALL ABLE AMERICANS!

Grow up America!

Save your hard earned dollars. Get of the organized medicine tit filled with toxic milk!

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

alternative health care info...
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Sep 3, 2008 7:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a link to a program aired on "Frontline" a while back, in which they compare health care system in the US to 5 other countries. I believe they are the UK, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and Thailand.

It shows how health care WORKS in other countries. A must view!!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How would voting for Nader help?
Posted by: CJC on Sep 3, 2008 10:46 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I asked above (Universal Health Care and the Election), how would voting for Nader help move us closer to universal health care (or for that matter to the solution to any other single issue)?

We don't have a parliamentary system, so on a national level a 3rd party is impossible.

Voting for Nader would generally take votes away from Obama, so to advocate voting for Nader is to say McCain can't be any worse and maybe the Democrats will "learn" a lesson.

That's not how our political system works. Come Jan 2009 we will have an Obama/Biden administration or a McCain/Palin one. With Obama/Biden there's some hope that we can make progress toward universal health care. It's not fundamentally against Democratic Party values to go in that direction. I think there's a groundswell of disgust among the population at the inequities, ineffeciencies, unfairness, poor outcomes and huge wasteful expenditures that mostly make insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical supply companies rich. High doctors' fees are not really the problem. So concerted political action has some probability of succeeding. With McCain/Palin there's not a prayer of any useful reform. It's totally against the ideology of the Republican party.

So, a vote for Nader is not only a waste but counter productive. We can only hold the politicians' feet to the fire if the Democrats are in the White House and the Congress.

If someone can provide a realistic scenario of how voting for Nader would be more effective - say in the next 4 years - than voting for Obama, I'd love to read it. Everyone is more articulate about the problems than suggesting any real political solutions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How would voting for Nader help? Posted by: Peter Mackrael
» RE: How would voting for Nader help? Posted by: Peter Mackrael
Panic or Thugs at work?
Posted by: walmarter on Sep 3, 2008 11:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why has the original title of this article been changed? Originally it was "Curb Your Enthusiasm for Obama" which was much more accurate.

Are the dems in panic mode or what!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

COMPARATIVE WAIT TIMES AND MORTALITY RATES FOR CARDIAC SURGERY
Posted by: Peter Mackrael on Sep 4, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some patients die before medical care can be delivered. There are many factors but for cardiac surgery, longer wait times mean higher mortality.

Here is some data from Ontario. Between October 1991 and June 1995, 29,293 consecutive patients were scheduled for cardiac surgery at the nine cardiac surgical units in Ontario. Average wait time was 17 days. There were 141 deaths (0.48%) among 29,293 patients, prior to surgery.

A study of 311 patients at a public hospital in Texas found that average waiting time was 26 days for insured patients and 49 days for Medicaid/uninsured patients. Four of these patients died (1.28%) prior to surgery. Perhaps 2 of these patients might have lived if they had access to care in Ontario.

I could not find similar data for US private hospitals, but some wealthy Canadian patients pay for their care at US hospitals citing shorter wait times. So I expect that for US private hospitals, average waiting times are shorter and outcomes are better than for Ontario. If this is true, the mortality rate must be significantly lower for patients with private insurance. Does someone have any data for US private hospitals?

Should a patient's wealth (ability to pay for insurance) determine the level of health care he receives? Should for-profit insurance companies decide which patients to ensure, which doctors they can see and which medical procedures they will allow?

A single-payer system could be administered by a not-for-profit trust controlled by a board of health care providers, health care advocates and taxpayers reporting to government rather than by the government itself. See: http://cthealth.server101.com/ “The Case for National Health Insurance” and Rep. Conyers’ House Bill 676.

Data Sources:

http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/79/4/345

Google: JAMA vol 282 #2 Queuing for Coronary Angiography During Severe Supply-Demand Mismatch in a US Public Hospital

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bottom Line
Posted by: Liberty G on Sep 8, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I may be too late for anyone to get around to reading this, have to note that:

1. The U.S. health care system has a fatal flaw - it is controlled by big Pharm and High Tech corporations and their greed. And they control the government.

2. Looking to the government to run the show is just giving the store completely to the corps.
At least with multiple health insurance companies, alternative policies are possible. With single-pay, your options for different kinds of care are nil.

3. Other countries save money and get better health results by covering natural and alternative remedies and treatment. The only hope I see for that here is Washington state's requiring health insurance companies there to cover all licensed practioners - including the alt-med folks.

4. Watch out for "Greeks bearing gifts" - the Clinton and MA plans claimed to "give" us universal health care - but instead mandated our paying for health insurance most of the uninsured could not afford.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Only Health Care Solution.
Posted by: luciennh on Sep 13, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I missed it somewhere along the way but I didn't see anything about preventive medicine, you know the things our parents used to do for us to prevent the overwhelming diseases we have today. It also kept the family in the dough and with almost no bankkrupcies. Of course, profit and greed guide our nations ways today when the only solution to this mess is preventive medicine, so simple and almost cost free and our future president must know these simple facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]