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

Environment

National Health Insurance Now, Not Later

By Stephen Fleischman, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2007.


Health care costs continue to skyrocket, and 47 million people remain uninsured. Sooner, if not later, the system will crash. Must we wait for that to happen?
020207story
020207story
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Who's afraid of the single payer health plan, otherwise known as National Health Insurance? Big Pharma and the medical establishment, that's who -- because "single payer" is the big bad wolf that's huffing and puffing and is about to blow their house down. And it's a big house, bloated by excess profits, government subsidies and sheer theft of the people's money.

To paraphrase our former President, Richard Nixon, "you're not going to have America's healthcare system to kick around forever."

Health Insurance has been a political football in this country for decades. It's been on every politician's laundry list, in one form or another, in every election. There have been employer plans; there have been government plans; city, state and federal plans. It's been brought up again and again in every State of the Union address, year after year. Despite all the talk and attention by both parties, census figures show that a record 46.6 million Americans, including 8.3 million children, have no health insurance at all, at a time when the cost of health care has gone through the roof. How can they afford to see a doctor or fill a prescription?

Are we going to go on talking the talk and getting ripped off by Big Insurance forever? Why can't we have what every other industrialized nation in the world enjoys -- some form of national health insurance?

That may be the first question some Democratic Congressman or Senator may ask now that they have a majority in both houses of Congress -- but I doubt it.

A look back at the endless squabble over health care in this country will reveal where this timidity comes from. It all began with the bug-a-boo of "Socialized Medicine" raised by the American Medical Association after World War II when they saw their "fee-for-service" system being threatened. The system was: You go to the doctor, you get a service and you pay a fee; and that's the way they wanted to keep it, by God!

But after the war, something new was blowin' in the wind. People like Henry Kaiser, the auto maker and ship builder, came up with a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) for his employees. You pay a small monthly fee, you get your entire medical and hospital needs free of any other charges.

The city of New York jumped right in with HIP (Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York), a pre-paid health plan for city employees. "Socialized medicine!" screamed the AMA. Physicians and surgeons manned the battle stations. Many saw their seven figure incomes taking flight.

Other HMOs mushroomed around the country. And then, in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson made "medical care for the aged" part of his Great Society package. We know it today as Medicare. Then came Medicaid, medical care for the indigent. The flood gates were opened. For the first time, huge amounts of government money started pouring into the health care system.

The insurance industry knew a good thing when they saw it. Organized medicine, the AMA and its state and county medical societies, did not -- paralyzed by the fear of government intrusion.

Insurance companies relished the enormous cash flow of government money emanating from Medicare and Medicaid and other government programs like Champus, medical coverage for servicemen and their families.


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

See more stories tagged with: single payer, health insurance

Stephen Fleischman, television writer-director-producer, spent thirty years in Network News at CBS and ABC, starting in 1953. In 1959, he participated in the formation of the renowned Murrow-Friendly "CBS Reports" series. In 1983, Fleischman won the prestigious Columbia University-Dupont Television Journalism Award. In 2004, he wrote his memoir. See: www.ARedintheHouse.com, E-mail: stevefl@comcast.net

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! 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:
What The F*ck Are You Talking About?
Posted by: MAD on Feb 2, 2007 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Health care costs continue to skyrocket, and 47 million people remain uninsured. Sooner, if not later, the system will crash. Must we wait for that to happen?"

So let me get this straight:
47 million people go uninsured in the wealthiest industrialized nation in the world, the only one which does not guarantee access to healtchcare as a right of citizenship, and the system "will" crash? I think that ship sailed quite some time ago, Alternet!

I wonder how many other industrialized nations would stand by and watch as such a large percentage of children went without proper access to quality healthcare? Oh, that's right! Countries that aren't busy propping up their Military-Industrial Complex by spending a trillion + dollars on an illegal war of aggression can afford to fund universal healthcare. Silly me!

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

The Clinton Proposal
Posted by: allUneedislove on Feb 2, 2007 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone enlighten me as to how the Clintons dangled a universal health care proposal in front of the American people that they knew would never work....playing into the hands of the insurers? I thought it was political suicide, so I am surprised to read here that it was just a game.

By the way, socialized medicine has always been our only hope. LET'S DO IT!

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

» RE: The Clinton Proposal Posted by: cinattra
» RE: The Clinton Proposal Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Conservasaurus. Posted by: Grampop
Single-Payer System Necessary For More than One Reason
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Feb 2, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The benefits of a single-payer system, as poined out by Stephen Fleischman, are many. One not mentioned, however, is the benefit of having some central collection point for information on healthcare error and safety. Even relatively small healthcare systems, such as the University of Michigan and the Veterans Administration in Lexingotn, Ky, have found the benefits of keeping patient safety and hospital error data to benefit in systems analysis. Those systems have reduced errors significantly, and have also been able to implement a scheme to help swiftly compensate victims of medical error. This has reduced insurance companies' arguments about the "litigation crisis" (a crisis that has been proven to be non-existent, only a figment of insurance company lies). It allows an errant system to improve, and at the same time compensate those injured by the systems errors. Who could argue with that?
Michael Townes Watson, author of America's Tunnel Vision--How Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law.
www.StopMedicalError.com

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

Careful....You might just get what you ask for.
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Feb 2, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yup....National healthcare. Rationed treatments....long waiting lists.....continually degrading care and a real slowdown in new drugs and treatments. Less folks going into Medicine because they won't be able to make good to great livings because their salaries will be structured just like the care. Worst of all turning over 1/7 of the national GDP to a gummint bureaucracy similar to Medicare/Medicaid. You folks should think this out real good and remember that both the Canadian and the British systems of socialized care are having real problems financially. You really want this kind of care for the American system? You'd be a fool if you did....then again if you're a liberal you've already made up your mind. You FEEL its the right thing to do. Thinking isn't an option for you.

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

» typical right wing troll attack Posted by: zooeyhall
» you're an idiot Posted by: AdamG
» RE: you're an idiot Posted by: solrev
» RE: you're an idiot Posted by: Uncle Crabby
» Who are the fools? Posted by: CollD
look to europe
Posted by: hennep on Feb 2, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Living in Europe i enjoy a social health care system, its paid for by both employer, employee and goverment. I've been in French, British and Dutch hosptials and never have seen a bill for any treatment received, i'm alive because of it, but under the Americian system, i and a million others would be dead and not contrubiting to our countries wealth.
Europe has many diverse systems, all have evolved since WW2, America could learn, but its vested interests and arrogance will not allow it to happen without a lot of kicking and screaming.
The main problem facing social health care is the cost of drugs, unrealisticly raised expectations and the stupidity of the populations who elect to make them self ill by being overweight etc due to ignorance of basic health guidelines which are muddled by the corporates who just want a profit at any cost. Social health care is not just about hosptials and local doctors, its a two way street of responsibilities on both side, sadly we in europe have been infected by the American mentality where responsibility by the population has been eroded so corporations can get rich, thats why some have problems.

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

Name the 2 Lowest Cost Health Providers
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 2, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who are the 2 most efficient providers of healthcare in the US?
The Veterans Administration & the Department of Defense (the Army, Navy & Air Force healthcare systems). Until Clinton screwed things up with TriCare (replacing CHAMPUS), families of servicemen & women had the closest thing to what a NAtional Healthcare System could be like. Despite TriCare it is still a very good system compared to the civilian sector.

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

It's also worth remembering...
Posted by: CriminallySane on Feb 2, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's also worth remembering that the primary purpose of insurance companies is the generation of investment capital. Providing "coverage" in its many forms is at best a secondary function.

The fact is, insurance companies take far more money out of the economy in general than they ever put back in "coverage" terms. Time for a change.

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

Lawsuit Abuse
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 2, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is a major factor in health costs (both in terms of actual jury awards and the cost for malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals.) If you look at Europe (which everyone likes to do) we don't have the 'lawsuit' culture and this keeps costs down considerably. On average doctors get paid less than in the USA but they also don't have the potential career-ending lawsuits and high insurance costs. Unfortunately the "lawsuit" culture is creepy into Europe though, especially in the UK but also beginning in Holland and Belgium. Hopefully they will stop it before it drains the resources as it has done in the US where even illegal, no-pay people go into emergency rooms and then call their "abogado" to get rich quick! In San Antonio, and the Valley right by the border in fact, they have huge billboards with the words, in Spanish, "ABOGADO" and shows a picture of a pitbull, then explains to call if you've seen a doctor. Welcome to America, Get Rich Quick By Lawsuit!!

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

» RE: Lawsuit Abuse Posted by: JERSEYDAN
Bah Humbug
Posted by: Mop Cheese on Feb 2, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same old same old.

Governmental interventions intervene in the market, telling us that they're doing it for our own good.

Then problems pop up all over the place as a result.

Then, they tell us that, to fix the problems of capitalism, which were really caused by gov't intervention in the first place, they tell us they need to intervene for our own good.

And so on.

And so on, in an incestuous, amnesiac circle until we wind up with what canada has--people dying off because the get sent around a horribly inefficient system, and every doctor taking the last months of the year off because that's when their gov't mandated billing quota runs out.

Leave it be!

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

» RE: Bah Humbug Posted by: patszar
» RE: Bah Humbug Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Bah Humbug Posted by: patszar
» RE: Bah Humbug Posted by: Jim Shaw
» RE: Bah Humbug Posted by: CriminallySane
» Ahem... Posted by: buffeliscious
Yes, we need single-payer health care. Now what do we DO?
Posted by: CrystalD on Feb 2, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In memory of Molly Ivins, and of Margaret Mead, both of whom knew that individuals or small groups could make a difference, I ask:

Yes, we know that our healthcare system as it stands is a dog's breakfast. We desperately need a nationwide safety net of insurance for all. Now what do we do, where do we go, and who do we contact to get there?

No-one in our wealthy country should go uninsured. No-one needs to lack for health care. I'm making this one of my missions in life. Where do we start?

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

National Health Insurance is Long Overdue!
Posted by: sprachenlehrer on Feb 2, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know for a fact that insurance companies were gearing up for National Health Insurance two to three decades ago. I worked for an insurance company in Dallas that had plans in place for the inevitability. What happened?

As for President Clinton's efforts and those of Hillary, I've seen some of the documents (at the Clinton Library in Little Rock) that came from the task force (or whatever it's called). Their hands were tied by the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical companies, and the medical profession. Every effort was blocked by these greedy sons-of-Satan. Perhaps the biggest obstacle was the use of the Constitutional provision that rights not specifically assigned to the Federal Government are reserved for the States. Thus, the federal effort was dead from the get-go.

I fault President Clinton, however, for not making it his Number One priority to issue an Executive Order to MAKE IT HAPPEN!!! Hell, the Federal purse-strings are used to mandate highway improvements, education standards, etc. in the various States. What's the difference?

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

Headline should have read: "15% of people in the U.S. uninsured!"
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 2, 2007 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 47M figure might mislead the careless or ill-informed readership on the scope of the problem.

The pertinent question is how the majority of us might come together in the humanitarian spirit and find a way to help those among that 15% who are unable to provide for themselves.

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

» Something new or something better? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Something new AND something better Posted by: buffeliscious
» Just "buy more insurance." Posted by: YogiBear
Another point about corporate welfare
Posted by: godsbedamned on Feb 2, 2007 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article. We need to get across, even more forecefully, how this crisis is affecting the economic viability of the US, at every level. This is one way to counter the outdated demonization of 'socialized' state benefits as being anticompetititive, a symptom of a poorly-run bureaucracy, etc., etc. These are false arguments, and we need to show that this is the only way to be productive and sustain any semblance of a quality life in the US. -- Also, it would help to draw out what is invisible in how neoconservatives and neoliberals frame social services: that, while they decry affirmative action and social welfare for poor and minority individuals and women, overall, the government subsidizes it routinely for big business and white men.

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

Caution...
Posted by: anothernewbrother on Feb 2, 2007 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unlike most Americans who think they would like a nationalized heathcare "solution," I've actualy spent some time in countries with such systems (both Soviet-style and so-called "soft" socialism). It's not something that I would wish on anyone. The up-close realities of non-market-based, "idealistic" systems are both ineffective and cruel.

Nonetheless, due to Congress' (and Americans') unwillingness to address the real, complex economic issues causing the healthcare crisis in America (incuding market distortation resulting from third-party (government and employer) payee schemes, government subsidies for some citizens (Medicare, Medicaid) but not for all, insurance industry subsidies (group plans written off taxes by big corporations, effectively corporate salary subsidies), partial market price controls (which drive up costs for those not on government programs at the expense of those on government programs), government inposed limitations on competition and the availability of healthcare services (yes, government does restrict how many hospitals and beds can be constructed and made available in a given regional area driving up the cost of hospital stays due to lack of competition and artifically restricted supply), and so forth, and so forth (I could write a book)), I suspect a nationalized system (whether it be healthcare directly, or healthcare insurance) is what we're likely to get.

As someone with many of complex and rare healthcare problems, who has had his private healthcare insurance cancelled after a major medical claim (with the full and complete blessings of Congress and government reguators), and who is currently uninsurable, and therefore dependent on an insurance-of-last-resort program (along with hundreds of thousands of other Americans who have had their health insurance cancelled with the blessings of Congress), you might think I would feel differently, but I have also seen the long term consequences for everyone (not just for myself) of what nationalization does to any industry and I know that in the long run it will only make the problem worse. I also don't want investment in new medical technology and new pharmaceuticals grinding to a halt in the face of nationlization. Nor do I like to think of my nieces and nephews dieing prematurately while they wait on years-long waiting lists for needed medical procedures (as often happens in countries with nationalized systems, where bureauocrats make healthcare decisions rather then doctors).

As the Chinese say, be careful what you wish for.

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

» RE: Caution... Posted by: YogiBear
Caution (2)
Posted by: anothernewbrother on Feb 2, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, in answer to the inevitable, what should be done instead? Start with addressing the issues raised in the laundry list above, including: remove all restrictions on the constructions and supply of healthcare facilities; get rid of the price-distorting tax deductibility of group health plans for corporate business (which leads to insurance companies canceling private plans because they can make easier money on group plans); remove competition protections from doctors (let them compete with nurses, physicians assistants, midwives, etc. for all non-life threatening conditions); abandon the price-escalating prescription system for all but the most life-threatening drugs; replace government managed systems like Medicare and Medicaid with cheaper and less marketing distorting systems, such as vouchers that keep all consumers in the same market; require uniform pricing for medicare, medicaid, insured and uninsured patients; require that all medical facilities advise patients in advance of the cost of medical procedures (ask your doctor, right now he doesn't even know himself the cost of things); do not let any insurance company cancel a covered person who has a condition that would make him/her uninsurable once he/she was without insurance coverage; make ALL insurance COVERAGE (not the plan, note the distinction) (and especially government programs) portable (including, across State lines); and make ALL medical and insurance costs tax-deductible. And that's a just a start... its a complex problem and it will require a complex solution that is mindful of the realities of market economics and human behavior.

I wonder how many of those who think a national system is the solution didn't even bother to read the above carefully, let alone give it any consideration. If they aren't willing to invest time and serious thought into a solution, why should we let them push through some candy-coated fantasy that will impact our lives for generations?

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

» RE: Caution (2) Posted by: Mewsician
» RE: Caution (2) Posted by: Mewsician
» RE: Caution (2) Posted by: Mewsician
I can't wait till it crashes!!!
Posted by: Landbaron on Feb 2, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm in excellent health and can easily afford top of the line insurance ($5.00 deductible) but our medical system is so interested in profit!!! So CRASH AND BURN BABY BURN!!!! LOLOLOL

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

Health Care Should NEVER Be "Market-Based"
Posted by: ZPaul on Feb 2, 2007 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The up-close realities of non-market-based, "idealistic" systems are both ineffective and cruel."

There is a Spanish saying (Spain is a country with a Socialist government and a National Health System) that goes: 1) Salud. 2) Dinero. 3) Amor. People might debate whether to put Love in first place or not, but putting selfish economic interests before the health of a country, which is, IMO, a far more important "capital", is simply being small-minded and short-sighted.
If we do not all have access the health care, forget about talking about life quality of life. That is first and foremost. The idiots are the ones who don´t see this are the same ones who believe in pushing a U.S.-dominated "free market" on Latin America.

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

If Socialized Medicine So Bad, Why Does Everyone Want To Keep It!
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 2, 2007 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interestingly, we have the usual "chirpers" popping up about the "problems" of healthcare that is socialized in Canada or Western Europe. But, here is the reality: NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY with socialized medical care, many democracies included, has ever repealed it. And, many satisfaction surveys in Canada or the Scandanavian countries have high ratings for the system. By, the way, I am not talking about healthcare in third world countries like socialized medical care in China or Russia. Be fair, compare America with Western Europe and Canada. Countries at equal levels of development. As for costs, Medicare's efficiency is only 3% overhead, a socialized system already. Private insurance efficiency is at best 12-15% overhead. Socialized medicine therefore can already save tens of billions. Socialized medicine, funded properly, has been proven to work exceedingly well, as in Canada and Europe, and whould do so in America.

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

» Echo your statements. Posted by: mjabele
PREVENTION IS OUR ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS FIASCO
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 2, 2007 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the end PREVENTION IS OUR ONLY WAY OUT. A "disease care" system is not economically sustainable

Here is my plan put forth in 1995

GROW UP AMERICA-A HEALTH CARE PLAN FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS- proposed by Richard. A Lippin MD*

-Stop prolonging death. It’s both expensive and dehumanizing at best, greedy and cruel at worst.

-Empower US citizens to assume increased individual responsibility for health and convince medical consumers that it is in their best interests not to assume the role of helpless, dependent victims/patients.

-Yet also recognize that we have medicalized America’s social problems. So we must provide healthy and safe jobs for all able citizens thereby reducing poverty and all its subsequent health impacts (possibly 1/3rd of Health Care Costs)

-Provide healthy environments including healthy air, water, soil and food.

-Rebuild America’s public health infrastructure to ensure we provide appropriate macro and individual interventions to especially low income citizens such as childhood and adult immunizations and response to man-made and natural catastrophes.

-Face the reality that a very large percentage of illnesses, injuries and hospitalizations are entirely preventable. Subsequently, the elimination of tobacco, alcohol, drug, medication and dietary abuse alone could immediately reduce medical costs by a factor of at least fifty percent.

-Incent and train physicians to maintain the health of patients and populations. Radical changes in provider re-imbursement and medical education strategies are necessary

-Recognize that early childhood preventive medical education can profoundly affect lifelong health behaviors.

*proposed in June of 1995
Revised January 2006/2007

Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

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

» Some Clarification Posted by: MAD
» RE: Some Clarification Posted by: JERSEYDAN
» RE: Some Clarification-OK JerseyDan Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: Some Clarification-OK MAD Posted by: drricklippin
Canadians Considerably More Healthy Then Americans!
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 2, 2007 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Canadian Infant Mortality: 4.7 deaths per 1000 live births
Canadian Life Expectancy: 80.2 years

American Infant Mortality: 6.4 deaths per 1000 live births
American Life Expectancy: 77.8 years

(Well, yes sir eee, that govimmint healthcare is so bad! you all can see that above can't you,....)

Once again, the idiots against national healthcare, proven wrong.

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

» Speaking as a Canadian here... Posted by: MatthewSavage
In a word: generics
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 2, 2007 6:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big Pharma is facing a crisis, partially put off by the billions transferred to their shareholders via Project Bioshield - it's called patent expiration and the rise of cheap generics - because the truth is, the cost of production of drugs is tiny compared to the final price.

Once I made $100,000 worth of enzyme (*retail price) in two days using about $500 worth of raw materials (true, I had access to a research lab back in those days...) - that's the reality.

Big Pharma's solution? They're so awash in cash they can afford to buy up all the generic manufacturers and take their products off the market - no kidding - and no one (well, I think Leahy is pissed off about the anthrax attack on his office and is trying to stick it to the pharma corps that were behind it, but that's just my guess) is talking about it.

Remember, it's just a few letters from BIG PHARMA to IG FARBEN - and if you don't know who they were, recall this helpful quote: "Farben was Hitler, and Hitler was Farben". They're the ones who built Auschwitz to provide slave labor for their Buna facilities.

IG PHARBEN - all you have to do is move the B and switch the MA to EN... and there you are.

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

Out of control!!!
Posted by: Landbaron on Feb 2, 2007 7:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blue Shield just raised my kids rate another $20 per month and he very rarely uses it!!

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

ALERT: Forced Vaccinations forced on the public in Texas
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 2, 2007 8:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.kcentv.com/news/c-article.php?cid=1&nid=12012
The governor of Texas previously famous for taking public and private land, by eminent domain, and giving it to Sintra (a Spanish company with King Juan Carlos as major investor) to build the first leg of the tolled NAFTA Superhighway (The TransTexasCooridoor) and for wanting to take already build roads and 'converting' them into tolled roads has now pushed through a bill to REQUIRE vaccinations for all girls in Texas. Families, or individuals, CANNOT opt out but MUST be vaccinated. They CANNOT opt out for any reason whether religious/ethical, questions over the effectiveness or science, or other medical issues that might contraindicate vaccinations.
MERCK gave much money to Perry's campaign and to quote YahooNews:
"Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Susan Crosby, the group's president, also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.

A top official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government."

Also, on this day they are beginning a "trial period" of sobriety checkpoints at random on public roads in Williamson County, TX as a test for state wide implementation.
RIP Freedom (once again.)

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

Son of.............
Posted by: bohdan on Feb 2, 2007 10:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So,.....regarding the healthcare proposal:

Bush will cut the taxes with a deduction ---then raise taxes to pay for it.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul, who will still have to pay in spite of the deduction.

Son of Voodoo Economics!

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

ANTI-ROBIN HOOD
Posted by: aztec on Feb 2, 2007 11:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Except for a few decades after WWII, ordinary Americans never had health coverage. Health care coverage started out as a way to for companies to get around the WWII wage freezes in a tight labor market. The unions picked it up from there.

Now when corporations (as Bush made them) are above the law with the coercive power of the state at their backs, labor has been commoditized once again. Wages (even when the 431-1, executive pay to medium income is included) are the lowest percentage to gross profits than they ever have been. It's back to you work until you drop. The American Dream only existed during those post-war years, except for those who were able to benefit from the land and resources taken through the genocide of the Native Americans before that was completed in the 1890's.

War is the wet-dream of capitalism. War creates it's own unquenchable demand for war machines and munitions needed for escalation and those destroyed, damaged or expended. Profit margins are fat because of war's exigencies, cronyism over competition, and bargaining with the greatest cesspool of fraud, waste and abuse, the War Dept., and a close second, the Fatherland Security Dept. And since Bush is privatizing government functions at breakneck speed, there will be no oversight of the plundering of the Treasury.

The US will never have universal health care. It's not compatible with the haves' ideology of the law of the jungle for the have-nots (the Gilded-Age rulers framed it scientifically as Social Darwinism) and the ideology of Greed .

Besides, the American people can't even get rid of the degenerate, lying, corrupt to the core, traitor, war criminal, war profiteer, mass murderer of Americans by failing to uphold US labor and health and safety rules and admitted felon who now occupies the White House. But then he's our first MBA; he can hardly be expected to have other than the morality and values he displayed when he ran Harkin Energy (using most of the tricks 'Kenny Boy' Lay used to run Enron) and of our Enron corporate executive culture. The only difference was that Bush had his daddy and the Saudi's (including the bin Ladens) to bail him out.

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

» RE: ANTI-ROBIN HOOD Posted by: Trazom
demand better value
Posted by: rtdrury on Feb 3, 2007 12:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dikaiosyne, why don't you explain to us from the right wing perspective why all that excess healthcare administrative overhead has not been purged by the "invisible hand" of market forces? Why such an inefficient resource allocation? I would expect such waste in a planned economy, but not in a free market economy. Maybe the free market in America is not so free after all. The healthcare consumer ought to have the means to demand better value and thus purge the waste from the system. Maybe if the American people are given the information, and the responsibility, to engage the markets in the better interests of the society, we'll have the most efficient resource allocation, and far greater progress, for the benefit of all.

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

» RE: demand better value Posted by: richholland
Until we have Universal Health care?
Posted by: Landbaron on Feb 3, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll be ready to marry someone with healthcare or transfer all my assets to relatives to get it free of charge! SAME GAME, I'M TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT TOO!!!

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

Why is it
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Feb 4, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That people who are so aghast at the government we have today the same folks who want to give the Government the power over thier bodies?Granted there are an awful lot of bad circumstances , but heres a little somthing that has not been raised....If you are uninsured you are still allowed to get treatment, and then you can set up a payment plan.... Back when I was uninsured I broke my leg at the begining of my growing season... Big bummer, but I told the Hospital that I cannot pay it in full, but can we set a up a payment plan? And naturally they agreed. Bottom line is that businesses wnat to get paid, so of course they willo set up a payment plan. If you are a scumbag you refuse to pay someone for thier services...The problem as I see it with the idea of single payer healthcare is this idea of entitlement. People in this country think they DESERVE things based on thier citizenship. Its just not true. If you are willing to make an effort most companies will work with you. If you do not communicate your inability to pay, they cannot work with you. Is the system broken? Yes.. but I do not know the best solution... I just have learned that it is much better to be self sufficient and be open about your inability to pay when you cannot pay. They will not deny you service.

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

» Totally agree Posted by: YogiBear
Where is the choice?
Posted by: CollD on Feb 4, 2007 1:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see a lot of people here confusing socialized medicine with single payer systems. People yap their mouthes crying about government interference and they don't even know what they are talking about. Insurance companies need them on their side, because they are making a killing off not only us, but our government and doctors. Universal Health care is not run by the government. They provide the insurance, therefore all claims go to one entity, not hundreds. We pay more per capta than any other country, and what do we get? The worst health care for our money. Lets talk about choice, I pay 500 a month out of my pocket for health care, and i can't even choose what doctor i can go to, it has to be 'in network.' never mind the fact that i have doctors i have seen for years who know me, too bad, not paying for it. They also choose what meds my doctor can provide and what procedures doctors can order. Health insurance companies control all the choice, thats not free market, thats B.S! Where does the majority of that money go to? Administration (because of the hundreds of different forms which would dissapear if we had universal) and advertising, and the huge profits of the CEOS and other company personal themselves. Would you rather the profits go to some douche bags 2nd house, or put back into the system for quality care? The status quo only benefits the insurance companies. If we had national healtcare, the government would not be making the decisions, which is what most of the ignorant people here think. The bureauocrats who everyone is afraid will make healthcare decisions already are. They are called Blue cross and blue shield and your friends at COBRA.

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

» RE: Where is the choice? Posted by: richholland
» RE: Where is the choice? Posted by: CollD
HR 676 - Demand its passage
Posted by: DCostello2 on Feb 5, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More than 47 million Americans are now living without health coverage. Representative John Conyers's United States National Health Insurance Act (HR 676) would create a single-payer healthcare system by expanding Medicare to every resident. All necessary medical care would be covered -- from prescription drugs to hospital services to long-term care. There would be no deductibles or co-payments. Funding would come from sources including savings from negotiated bulk procurement of medications; a tax on the top 5 percent of income earners; and a phased-in payroll tax that is lower than what employers currently pay for less comprehensive employee health coverage. With 78 Congressional co-sponsors, and the endorsement of more than 200 labor organizations as well as healthcare groups, there is muscle and momentum behind this bill. To get involved, check out www.Healthcare-Now.org.

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

one of these things is not like the other
Posted by: Kslip on Feb 5, 2007 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as the idea of health care is associated with the concept of insurance no econonomical, equitable policy will be possible. Insurance is designed as a wager on the part of the insurer that the insured will not suffer a loss. When maintenance activities like health care are funded by insurance policies the nature of insurance dictates their cost will be enormus. The danger in the current headlong rush to universal access is that it will be cobbled together out of the existing, insurance based system and result in a riunously expensive program which does nothing bur enrich the insurance carriers. The status quo is far from perfect but a "compromise" program of mandated private coverage would be worse. Let's take the time and expend the effort to do this right, a national plan for basic health maintenance, supplemented by insurance for accident and chronic illness would provide a more efficient and for less costly system than the quick fixes being pushed by political opportunists from all parties.

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

Research would interfere with your beliefs
Posted by: B. Spoon on Feb 8, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So I woudl advise against it.

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

What is funny to me is
Posted by: CollD on Feb 8, 2007 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am willing to bet all of the people here who think universal health care is a bad idea and liken it to socialism and how people should have to not expect everything to be provided for them.....have cushy health care plans from their employer. Well lucky you. The status quo suits you just fine and dandy. Still doesn't mean it makes sense. The country is crippled by health care costs and gets less quality for more money here. SHould we talk about choice? We have no choice on medical care, it's run by insurance...who also have the choice NOT TO ENROLL you. Yeah, i don't mind paying for my own health care, but that doesn't apply to people who can't get picked up by insurance, and when they can, costs them 10,000 to 20,000 dollars a year for coverage. Try paying that on minimum wage, or even as a middle class person. Its impossible. Its not democratic. It makes no sense. WHy should my hard earned money go to adminitrative costs, advertising, and obscene profits? It should go to medical care, period. Medicare has very little overhead, lets base a national plan on that. And not only for people under 25. FOR EVERYONE who is a citizen.

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