Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
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

Health & Wellness

How Do We Cure a Sick Health Care System?

By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted September 4, 2007.


Johnathan Cohn, author of SICK, discusses why the U.S. is the only developed country that does not guarantee access to medical care as a right of citizenship.
Advertisement

Every day, millions of hard-working people struggle to find affordable medical treatment for themselves and their families -- unable to pay for prescription drugs and regular check-ups, let alone for hospital visits. Some of these people end up losing money. Others end up losing their health or even their lives.

The United States is the only country in the developed world that does not guarantee access to medical care as a right of citizenship. As outrageous as that fact is, why is it so? What does it mean in the lives of individual Americans and their families? And what can we do about it?

Like Michael Moore's critically and commercially successful documentary, SiCKO, Jonathan Cohn's new book, SICK probes the larger problems by focusing on the stories of individuals -- most of them working members of the middle class -- who are cruelly let down by our failing system.

Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at The New Republic, where he has been since 1997. Prior to that, Jonathan worked for six years at The American Prospect, where he remains a contributing editor. A senior fellow at Demos, Cohn has also written for many other publications, and is the author of SICK: The Untold Story Of America's Health Care Crisis -- And The People Who Pay The Price.

Terrence McNally: How did you grow to focus as much as you do on health care?

Jonathan Cohn: It happened a little bit by accident. In the 1990s, I was working at The New Republic both as an editor and a writer, and picked up some stories about health care here and there along the way. This was in the years not that long after the fight over the Clinton health care plan. People in Washington really didn't want to talk very much about health care, and the country wasn't in the mood for another big health care debate. As I started learning about the issue, it quickly became apparent that all the problems that had led to that earlier debate hadn't gone away. In fact, they were getting steadily worse. As I read more about the history of health care in this country, I learned that we keep coming back to this debate every 10 to 20 years.

In Washington we talk about numbers, and we have lots of jargon to refer to this policy and that policy -- "the crowd-out effect" and "reimbursement levels." That's all well and good, but for too long not enough people have cared enough about health care politics to actually make a change. I set out to write a book that could build a bridge between the world of policy and the world of everyday lives.

TM: You said there haven't been enough people caring enough to fix health care. To me, that's similar to the War on Drugs. I believe many people agree that drug prohibition doesn't work, but changing it isn't one of their top priorities. On the other side, however, there's a moneyed interest group -- the correctional unions and the corrections industry -- for whom the status quo is issue number one. In health care, you have a diffuse bunch of people who know something's wrong versus a single minded and well-financed group for whom preserving the status quo is their number one priority -- so far, in both cases, that's a losing battle.

JC: I'm hardly an expert on the drug war, so it would be wrong of me to really weigh in on that. But I think your description of the way the fight over health care has played out in this country is very true.

If you look over the history going back to the 1920s, which is really when our insurance system comes into existence, the roster of people opposed to change has evolved slightly. In general, some constellation of the insurance industry, drug industry, hospitals and doctors move in and out of the list, depending on what period you're talking about and what particular issue.

People who are making a lot of money off the way we provide health care now don't want to change the system, and the number of Americans who find this situation a personal threat to their livelihoods and to their lives has not been large enough to overcome that.

TM: Not large enough or powerful enough.

JC: Exactly. I'm one of those people who would love there to be a world where somehow we could limit the power of corporations and special interest groups. I'm all in favor of things like campaign finance reform. But, I don't think we're likely to achieve that in the next two to three years, so it's incumbent upon us to fortify the support.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: insurance, health care, medicare, privatization, universal health care

Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! 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:
Lets Fix Health Care
Posted by: DrColes on Sep 4, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to fix the health care issue but we cannot fix it unless we know how it is broken. For the answer, please see http://www.InteliOrg.com/

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

healthcare problems and solutions
Posted by: B. Spoon on Sep 4, 2007 3:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our profit-driven health insurance industry has become by FAR the biggest part of our national healthcare cost, quality and access problem. Leaving the thing that is the problem (as Wyden and Hillary would do) in charge of the solution doesn't make sense. When you leave foxes in charge of hen houses, chickens die. HR 676, Medicare for All where the health insurers have to figure out other ways to make money and all Americans are united into one protective pool (no discriminating allowed) would be the best, most reliable and dependable coverage at the best prices for all healthcare consumers. That way we will all finally have totally free choice of independent providers as well as the transparency we need to be able to see who is paying how much for what. Electronic health records will be a disaster unless something changes dramatically, because currently in this country our medical records can and will be used to discriminate against us. We don't need to legislate more Corporate Welfare for Health Insurers, but rather Healthcare for Americans. Perhaps it is impossible for politicians to represent the people and the Good of the Whole when the people do not finance their campaigns. American political campaigns are financed by and for the Welfare of the Few.

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

Good idea
Posted by: ld7440 on Sep 4, 2007 4:07 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It amazes me how gullible the American public can be, as if everything stated by politicians or in the media is accurate. The book sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately, many people won't take action against injustice unless it happens in their own backyard. By highlighting stories of average people who are touched by the healthcare nightmare, the more fortunate among us will learn that the uninsured are no different than they are.

It's really unfortunate that prevention is not a priority either. State and federal budgets are far more devoted to antiterrorist activity, than to illness prevention for its own citizens.

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

Caesar
Posted by: Caesar77 on Sep 5, 2007 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything in American life is predicated on the almighty dollar. Health care is not a luxury, it is a basic human right. We spend more on WMD to take life.We should be spending money on health care to give life, not to make a profit. Shame on us and those who get rich on the sick and dying.

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

What happens here in Japan
Posted by: akai ringo on Sep 5, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have just come back home from seeing "Sicko". I had vaguely heard of HMOs in the past and was aware that the U.S., as the author of the piece says, alone among developed countries, did not have a universal healthcare system, but until I saw "Sicko", I wasn't really aware of the extent of what by any criteria can only be called a national catastrophe.
Here in Japan, where I have lived for the past 33 years, we have no HMOs, and I, like my Japanese friends and colleagues, am registered with the government health insurance system. That does not mean, again as is pointed out in the article, that the doctors and hospitals are run by the government. The vast bulk of Japan's health care is provided by small or medium-sized private clinics, which compete for clients, mainly by putting up adverts on the nearest station platform. Everyone is completely free to go to any clinic or any hospital they choose, anywhere in Japan.
When I feel in need of medical care, I decide whether I need to go to the dermatology clinic, or orthopedic surgery, or internal medicine clinic, etc, or if I feel the complaint is serious enough, to take a short train jounrney and visit a university hospital. The system is not free. I pay a contribution, both to the doctor and subsequently to the pharmacist if medicine is prescribed, but the bulk of the cost is met by the insurance system.
The system is paid for by an insurance contribution levied on every working adult, but might as well be paid for out of general taxation, as Britain's is. Whatever the precise mechanics of the payment system, I don't think there is any Japanese who would see it as being socialist in any form. Doctors compete for business; that's not socialism! And one thing that sticks in my mind from "Sicko" and that I still don't really understand, is the rabid fear that Americans have of socialism anyway.
But I am rambling. What I want to close by saying is that it is possible to have a system that does provide universal health care as a right, but still contains a fair amount of free enterprise. It's not perfect, of course, but for 30 odd years, I and my family have had no major complaints about it.
I look forward to the day when Americans decide they must do something about their own system.

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

» RE: What happens here in Japan Posted by: Landbaron
Not in the next two or three years. The next two or three centuries?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 5, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exactly. I'm one of those people who would love there to be a world where somehow we could limit the power of corporations and special interest groups. I'm all in favor of things like campaign finance reform. But, I don't think we're likely to achieve that in the next two to three years, so it's incumbent upon us to fortify the support

It appears to me that this is a book written by a defeated person, who is apparently trying to convince everyone else that nothing can be done. The reason that we have a corrupt campaign financing system and an unsatisfactory healthcare system is because the corporate establishment controls our two political parties and our government. Corporate power can be limited. But, the only power that can control corporate power is the government.

I believe that the only answer to these problems and others is for the voters to take control of both political parties. We can force both parties to choose between corporate dollars and our votes. We can do it, not in centuries, not in decades, not in years; we can do it before the next election.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

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

Plutocracy versus Socialism
Posted by: shangrilalad on Sep 5, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plutocracy versus Socialism

They say: Universal Health care is socialism, and therefore bad for you. No arguments allowed.

Ever increasing populations, decreasing natural resources and economic globalization are setting the stage for perpetual war, pestilence and famine and capitalism is fanning the flames. In the short run, our plutocrats will benefit from all of the above, but eventually they too will suffer the consequences of their actions. Naturally, poor and middleclass Americans will be sacrificed first and most because that’s what our system was designed to do. The powerful always prey on the weak. That’s the irrefutable history of the human race.

Americans don’t question the system because we’ve been conditioned to believe that this is the natural order of things. How do we know? because they tell us so every day of our lives. To this day, a majority of Americans believe that we have a democratic form of government, but we don’t and never did. We have always been ruled by powerful sociopaths. In fact, that’s also the irrefutable history of the human race.

How have the cunning and powerful few managed to fool the billions of people who have lived an died under this system for thousands of years? The answer is human nature, and how they have defined it for us. They say: “The masses are irrational brutes incapable of self-governance, and we protect you from one another because you can’t.” But doesn’t that seem like an extremely dubious assertion when you consider that democracy has never been allowed to get off the ground. If it’s never been tried, how can democracy be called a failure?

Because they tell us so, every day of our lives.

But still, this system hasn’t and isn’t working for the good of billions of people, and that is growing more apparent every day. War, pestilence and famine are increasing everywhere, and will continue to increase unless we change the system. They’ve had more than enough time to prove their point, but they’ve failed to protect us from one another, and in fact they have pitted us one against the another. Cooperation they say is the problem, and competition is the solution. Survival of the fittest, and all that. With a bible in one hand and sword in the other, they command us to go forth and conquer for the good of the system.

Their failed plutocratic system.

Socialism is evil, or so they say, and millions of Americans believe it. But since neither democracy or socialism has ever been tried in America, how can we be sure?

Are you willing to try something they’ve describe as evil, after considering their track record?

They tremble at the thought that we will.
.

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

» RE: Plutocracy versus Socialism Posted by: akai ringo
How do we cure a sick health care system? Answer...
Posted by: Trazom on Sep 5, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Opt out of the insurance scam. Take away their revenue. If enough people do it, things WILL change. Much more effective than going through Congress. If you can't pay the medical bills that come, then don't! Or better yet, pay what you think is appropriate, then throw the bill collector mail in the trash. They don't have enough bill collectors to go after everyone!

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

» the few are millions Posted by: B. Spoon
» RE: the few are millions Posted by: Trazom
» not what I said Posted by: B. Spoon
The Failure of the "Markets"
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 5, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America's failure with an exclusive preoccupation with privatization and "the markets" is demonstrated by:

The current health care system, a fiasco by any measure.

Enron, California's past attempt to privatize electrical supplies, and now the meltdown in the housing/mortgage and credit sectors.

The increasing number of contractors; despite a declining number of federal government employers, the number of real government "employees" (but now under contract), has doubled. It is in excess of 1 million plus for the Dept of Defense. How is this saving anybody any money?

But, regardless, Americans continue with their obsession with the so-called "free market." Meanwhile, corporations lobby, pay large sums (campaign contributions) to their favorite politicians, and jack up every contract and fee they possibly can for more money. And, services for the people continue to decline.

By giving up, and abrrogatting, the public sector, America is essentially giving up on her people. And, as the "tax cutters" rampage in the state legislators, these same legislators continue to "privitize." Here, in Florida, many roads "are going private." The state, of course, getting a cut of the money made. For what, to pay the contractors even more money, of course.

Meanwhile, America's health system continues to decline. Only the wealthiest can afford often even basic care. However, the money continues to flow, more and more to the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals.

Government needs and must reclaim the public, governmental sector. Otherwise, America is reduced to non-functionality.

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

» RE: The Failure of the "Markets" Posted by: richholland
Stop funding 'Black Projects' and we'll have Healthcare!!
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 5, 2007 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For better that 150 years we've been stoking the fires of hell in creating the Industrial Era. Chief agent in this energy debacle was coal. It gave us alot of things we did'nt have before,steam heat, better indoor heating, fuel for industry,soot so thick you could taste it. Adding the fossil fuel of oil and gas and you had the total chemical gas package.
Now we all have been exposed to the horror stories of acid rain,CO2,global warming, changing atmosphere. They are all true. They just left out the real bad part,the part that would have shut them down 150 years ago, and the reason the Government OWES US HEALTHCARE. Fossil fuels are chuck full of millions of years of MERCURY.
Now fast forward 150 years to today and what have we got?
Metric tons of the crap falling on us,contaminating the ground,the plants we eat, the water we drink,swim in,bathe in,boat in, It has creeped into every cell in our bodies and will do so for hundreds of more years.
Because the Government has set the air quailty standards, they bear the responsibiliyt of caring for the people they have affected by their laws,ALL OF US. Mercury damages the circulatory system, the heart and veins and arteries. It can cause them to malform,cause weakness in the walls of the vessels and you die from them blowing up. Mercury destroys the nervous system in the body. Giving us autisim, slowed brain develpoment , strokes,migrains,numbness and sensitivity issues. Mercury in pregnant women causes embryo development problems, problems carrying the baby full term. Mercury contamination will lead o early death.
The three compounds i've detailed are alone enough to say to the government, " GIVE US HEALTHCARE!" There's hundreds more compounds in the air and just as deadly. I say " YOU OWE US HEALTHCARE" They the "Elected Ones' have been vomiting up plan after plan and yacking about who is the one that shot it down,and they're all full of bullshit. If it was'nt for the fact that most of them have contributors that want to see healthcare in private hands,we would have had it a long time ago. I think the line 'to promote the General Welfare' pretty well screams healthcare,but I'm told you don't have to live up to a preamble. Horse shit!!
If the thoughts were strong enough to to be expressed they should certainly be honorable enough to follow as domestic policy.
That's why Healthcare would be in an 'Always Funded' sector of the Federal government, Black Projects are there,we'll just dump a few and that will be that. Dare to imagine a healthcare system where you could get treated for any ailment at any age,advances would be rapid because they would'nt be fight over R/D dollars. We can have it that way. Hell we deserve it that way.
They've been poisoning us for generations. Their 'price of progress' has a toll.One we can no longer pay. We can have the nation we want we just have to;
THINK OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM

DRAFT JEFFREY7 FOR PREZ '08 it's the only vote that counts!!!

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

» Mercury!! Posted by: gellero
If push comes to shove...
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 5, 2007 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with people demanding true reform in this country, it ain't gonna be pretty. It all sounds so simple--"Let's have universal health care for all!!" Do you think that the plutocracy and powers-that-be are actually going to allow this? They realize that if they give in on this issue, then there will be demands for income equality, political and social reforms, restoration of a progressive tax rate, demands for unionization of industries. You really think the guys that have been running the country since Reagan was elected aren't going to give up without a fight?

I genuinely fear that if it came to that, we would see a replay in this country of what happened in Chile in 1973. Only this time with Blackwater mercenaries hauling off and "disappearing" social and environmental activists, union organizers, liberals, "leftists", gays, "radicals". With FOX news the only station on air, broadcasting government propaganda about how the coup yesterday was necessary to protect the U S of A from all the terrorists and other dark ones out there. And you know something? there are MANY ordinary folks in this country who would support it. I live in rural Nebraska, and people around here are more worried about the right to carry an M16 than they are about health care for their newborn baby.

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

» RE: If push comes to shove... Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: If push comes to shove... Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Answer......... Posted by: gellero
» Babies?? Posted by: gellero
» RE: Babies?? Posted by: Trazom
TAKE A LOOK BACK NOT THAT LONG AGO 30-40-yrs.
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 5, 2007 1:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good health care was availablt to everyone when hospitals were run by non-profit organizations. Pharmaceutical companies did not make profits in the double digits and most of the profit went back into research and development not advertising. And still people earned a decent living in the field of health care. Doctors were at the top of the list but they did not make obscene salaries. The poorest were treated for free . But there were fewer of them then. Thanks, ANNA

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

Botox or potentially cancerous mole?
Posted by: Landbaron on Sep 5, 2007 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The average wait time for an appointment for botox is 8 days but to checkout a potentially cancerous mole is 28 days. "That's money at work for you", said the newscaster.

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

PREVENTION IS OUR ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS MESS
Posted by: drricklippin on Sep 5, 2007 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both individual and institutional prevention is our (and for that matter other nations') only way out of this economically unsustainable paternalistic and corrupt disease care system we currently have.

I deeply admire the contributions of Mr. Cohn (SICK) and Mr. Moore (SICKO) but I urge them both to embrace a prevention model

In 1995 I published a #6 point plan which Hillary liked

GROW UP AMERICA-A HEALTH CARE PLAN FOR MATURE AMERICAN CITIZENS

-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.

-Face the reality that a very large percentage of illnesses, injuries and hospitalizations are entirely preventable. Subsequently, the elimination of tobacco, alcohol, drug and medication 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.

-Rebuild US’ public health infrastructure to ensure a healthy environment, healthy workplaces and response to manmade or natural catastrophes.

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

proposed by
Dr. Rick Lippin
June, 1995
Revised 2005 after 9/11 and Katrina

Politically I am for a modified HR 676(Medicare for All) but with much more emphasis on prevention

My forecast is that if a DEM gets elected President in 08 we will indeed see major reform by 2010 or at the latest 2012.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

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

chile and argentina have guaranteed health care
Posted by: icha on Sep 5, 2007 9:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i´m now in chile with my husband´s family and we just got back from Argentina. We learned that health care is free in Argentina and it is recommended by the citizens there, and in chile my husband´s propanolol medication cost him 800 pesos which is less than two dollars, which in the united states costs $160 if you pay out of pocket. that immensely higher price is definitely not because of the cost of production, so where´s the extra $158 dollars going? I also just saw a dermatologist in a public hospital here in chile for 50$ out of pocket where they were efficient, clean, and gave me an appointment the day after I called for it. In chile all citizens have guaranteed right to either public or private health insurance, which they have to contribute 7% of their salary up to $150 dollars, but no more. people that make below a certain amount don´t have to pay anything. My husband said that before he came to the united states he never ever gave health insurance a second thought, now we´re in perpetual fear of whether he´s going to get appointed to enough classes at the university where he teaches to be able to maintain our insurance. We´ve been denied private insurance because he takes one medication. It is flat out wrong that working people are not guaranteed health care.

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

In the Ozone
Posted by: gellero on Sep 5, 2007 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As always Dr. L. believes the masses are as intelligent and concerned as him.
What 'incentives' will physicians get to 'keep people healthy'.....hey, I've got a good way..........cull out the uneducated and lower classes from your medical practice......that always works. And 'prevention'...????

All the info is already out there for those who choose to get it. You gonna ban potato chips and hot dogs? How about sugar? And who says the dogma of the medical establishment is truth? Are doctors gonna prescribe red yeast rice extract instead of lipitor? Doubtful. But the population may be persuaded to take lipitor because of 'incentives' offered by government. How about the BS about flu shots? Part of your 'prevention' plan? So where is the Swine flu, the Bird flu??? How many people were paralysed by Guillane-Barre syndrome secondary to unnecessary flu shots, promoted by those who force 'prevention' on an ignorant public. Is that your agenda? Would MDs be penalized for not promoting vacciations for patients?? Is that the kind of Medicine you forsee?? Not good....in fact, very bad, very ignorant, very unethical.

These ideas are a utopian delusion.......not unlike Marxism.....a great idea......but it just doesn't work !!

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

» RE: In the Ozone- I DOUBT IT Posted by: drricklippin
» agreed Posted by: gellero
disappointment with free market
Posted by: richholland on Sep 6, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the socialistic medicen system in Eastern Europe was inefficient and for good medicine sometimes you had to go to the black market.
After the collapse of Russia some people believe that the "free"market will make us happy.
strange enough in the netherlands and germany the socalled privatization did NOT lead to lower prices and due to competition better products and services.
i.e
1 the housing corporations for the working class were supposed to be bureaucratic and inefficent.
now they are profit centers; houseprices wentup and are unpayable for workers on one income. But the managing directors make more then the prime minister.

2 From the midieval ages we have a system controlled by the guilds, later trades unions of health care.
Now the control is in the hands of profit oriented managers and corporations.
prices go up, services went down. The government will support with subsidies.

Albeit a warning, still the only way must be a combination of community and capitalisme.
History proved that socialistic production didnot work, but history also proved that so called free market capitalisme leads to extreme wealth for a few and misery for many and the environment.
The saying the rich mens war is the poor mens death includes now the quality of life of the middleclasses

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

Socialized Medicine Is Already Here
Posted by: Liger on Sep 6, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Canada may have the most heavily socialized health care system in the advanced world. Yet America's system is as much a tragedy of the commons as the Canadian system, where health care is ostensibly "free." In each country, only about 14 cents out of every dollar of medical spending comes directly from the patient.


How can America's health care system be "socialized" when we rely on the private sector more than any advanced nation? Because it doesn't matter whether the dollars and the hospitals are owned publicly or privately. What matters is who controls how they are used.


Socialized Medicine Is Already Here

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

The Problem with US Health Care is Private Profit.
Posted by: yellow on Sep 7, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to David Sirota,

In 2003, HMOs nearly doubled their profits from just a year before, adding $10 billion to their bottom line. That year, top executives of the 11 largest health insurers made a combined $85 million in one year. In the first three quarters of 2004, HMO profits increased by another 33%. The sheer numbers behind these profits are staggering: In 2004 alone, the four biggest health insurance companies reported $100 billion in revenues. That's $273 million a day, every day, 365 days of the year!

According to Sirota, the HMOs spent over $600 million lobbying and bribing politicians in Washington DC since 2000, about half of which was spent just on lobbying in 2003 alone! This is the problem with our health care system. It is run as a politically corrupt private scam. Today there are more than 47 million Americans without health insurance. They deserve better.

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

Driving a Stake Through Clinton Myths- Part 1
Posted by: oregonscribbler on Sep 7, 2007 12:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read Johnathan Cohn's book yet, but I would assume that a professional journalist with a book about the American health care crisis would have real expertise in the matter. It is puzzling then that Mr. Cohn simply parrots the official media story about the Clintons' health care plan. This story— that the Bill and Hillary plan was an audacious stand for universal health care and against corporate profiteers— is a well-orchestrated myth that deserves to have a stake driven through its heart.

I heard a friend and recent biographer of Hillary Cointon interviewed on the radio recently, and the woman refused to answer any of the interviewer's specific questions about Hillary's policies, saying that it would be wrong for Clinton to commit to specifics before assuming office. The only question she answered directly— and emphatically!-- was when the interviewer asked her if Clinton would support a universal single payer system. Her reply was emphatic. "No Way!!" The interviewer then asked the biographer, "Who will get health care, then?" And the biographer actually giggled a little. "The lucky ones!" she said.

Fact is the Clintons' 90's plan was a complicated nightmare, combining the worst of both worlds, socialized and private medicine. No honest plan to solve our health care crisis needs to be that complicated— in this field multi-layers of payers and complicated flow charts ought to be a big red flag that says watch it— smoke screen for pocket-picking just ahead!

The article below, by Norman Solomon and Jeff Cohen from 1993, gives the full, largely unknown, story about the Clintons plan, which Ralph Nader said set the cause of universal health care back 25 years.

http://www.jeffcohen.org/docs/mbeat19931124.html

Media Beat, Nov. 24, 1993
By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
Clintons vs. Insurance Industry: A Media Myth

Buoyed by NAFTA's victory, the White House will now concentrate on its other major policy initiative -- health care reform. We can expect mainstream news outlets to paint a picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton in mortal battle against the big bad insurance industry.

It's a vivid picture, but it distorts reality. As in the NAFTA battle, big corporations are in the president's corner.....

NOTE: Entire text of this article posted in Part 2, analyzing how the original Bill-Hillary plan was drafted (hint: it was drafted by the biggest insurance companies in the country) and why it failed...

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

Driving a Stake Through Clinton Myths- Part 2
Posted by: oregonscribbler on Sep 7, 2007 12:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.jeffcohen.org/docs/mbeat19931124.html

Media Beat, Nov. 24, 1993
By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
Clintons vs. Insurance Industry: A Media Myth

Buoyed by NAFTA's victory, the White House will now concentrate on its other major policy initiative -- health care reform. We can expect mainstream news outlets to paint a picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton in mortal battle against the big bad insurance industry.

It's a vivid picture, but it distorts reality. As in the NAFTA battle, big corporations are in the president's corner.

In a much-publicized campaign aimed at whipping up populist support for the administration's health plan, Hillary Rodham Clinton blasted insurance companies opposing it. She denounced their "homey kitchen ads" airing on TV-featuring complaints from "Harry" and "Louise" about the Clinton plan. "There must be a better way," laments Louise.

"What you don't get told in the ad," charged Hillary Clinton, "is that it is paid for by insurance companies... It is time for you and every American to stand up and say to the insurance industry: 'Enough is enough, we want our health care system back!"'

The Democratic Party countered with its own ad promoting the White House plan: "The insurance companies may not like it, but the president didn't design it for them."

The rhetoric was hot-and the TV networks swallowed it hook, line and salsa. NBC's Tom Brokaw spoke of Hillary Clinton's "scathing attack on the health insurance industry." A CNN anchor declared that the administration was "engaged in something close to all-out war with the health insurance industry."

A full-blown media myth was born, with most reports omitting basic facts:

** The Health Insurance Association of America, which opposes the Clinton plan and produced the Harry and Louise ads, represents small to medium-size insurance companies. They would lose out to bigger firms under the administration's "managed competition" plan.

** The "Big Five" of health insurers-Aetna, Cigna, Metropolitan Life, Prudential and Travelers-have formed the Alliance for Managed Competition, which is sympathetic to the Clinton plan. That's because those firms, heavily invested in Health Maintenance Organizations, would be enriched by it.

** Operating through the Jackson Hole study group, the insurance giants helped draw up the managed competition blueprint, later adopted by the Clinton administration. Contrary to the Democratic Party ads, the Clinton plan was designed for -- and by -- big insurance interests. In a 1992 article in Health Economics magazine, Jackson Hole leaders bluntly argued that managed competition is the only way to avert a government takeover of "health care financing" and the "elimination of a multiple-payer private insurance industry."

What the Jackson Hole group feared was a Canadian-style system in which the government (the "single-payer") controls costs while paying all hospital and doctor bills. Single-payer rids health care of private insurance companies-along with costly bureaucracy, profiteering and wasteful advertising.

Despite the fact that a single-payer proposal has been endorsed by 95 members of Congress-plus groups like Consumers Union and Public Citizen -- most major media have pushed it to the margins. A recent computer search found only one mention of the single-payer proposal on ABC's World News Tonight in all of 1993.

When media do mention a Canadian-style system, it's often dismissed as 'politically unrealistic." Yet according to General Accounting Office and Congressional Budget Office studies, only single-payer has a realistic chance of extending universal coverage without raising costs -- the goal politicians claim to be seeking.....

Continued in Part 3

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

Driving a Stake Through Clinton Myths- Part 3
Posted by: oregonscribbler on Sep 7, 2007 12:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(continued ....)

In a MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour segment about the various ads debating health care reform, anchor Margaret Warner proclaimed that "interest groups on all sides of the issue have taken to the airwaves."

Not quite.

One ad, supporting a single-payer system, has been kept off the airwaves from San Francisco to Boston to Washington, D.C. Produced by the grassroots group Neighbor to Neighbor, the ad features an engaging elderly woman, who asserts: "If we get rid of health insurance companies, we can have complete coverage for everyone for the same money. But any plan that keeps these guys in business will cost billions... To me, it's a no-brainer."

TV station managers offered a variety of excuses for rejecting the ad ("it's a call to action"; "too broad"; "undocumented"). According to Neighbor to Neighbor, one station executive candidly explained: "Many of our major advertisers are health insurers. We don't want to take any hits from the insurance companies."

While one side can't even buy its way into the debate, many news outlets offer a narrow health-care discussion pitting the Clinton plan-supported by large insurers-against smaller insurance companies that oppose it.

Something's wrong with a spectrum of debate no broader than the confines of the insurance industry.

by Norman Solomon and Jeffrey Cohen, 1993

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

Healthcare is a Business
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Sep 7, 2007 8:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is time we wake up and realize that health care here in the US is a business - run for profit first, last, and always. You have CEOs, COOs., CFOs, CIOs, and Directors of everything raking in giant paychecks while jacking up prices and cutting clinical staffing. You have insurance companies playing fast and loose with health insurance plans with easy cancel trapdoors. Everybody at the top make the big money and everybody gets a used bandaid for health care. What this country needs is a single payer plan based on expanding Medicare to cover all citizens. This needs to be a comprehensive plan and those who want boutique health care can buy supplimintal coverage for the downsized insurance companies. The $147 billion wasted on Iraq is enough to cover the total bill and the rest comes from taxing All Income - including the rich and corporations 5 %

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