Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Health & Wellness

Digging In the Right Place

By David Sirota, Creators Syndicate. Posted January 18, 2008.


There is a simple fix for our ailing healthcare system, and it has the right-wing in a panic.
Advertisement

There's a memorable moment in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when Indiana Jones sees a rival's archaeological excavation and realizes the buried treasure is somewhere else.

"They're digging in the wrong place!" he exclaims.

The line could explain why our national elections leave us feeling empty. By expecting so much so fast from Washington D.C., we are digging for "change" in the wrong place.

Think about it: The White House can only be won by raising truckloads of cash from moneyed interests looking to preserve the status quo. Likewise, the U.S. Senate's filibuster rules allow 41 lawmakers, representing just 11 percent of the population, to stop anything. These are institutions designed to prevent change, not embrace it.

Thankfully, the same cannot be said for the so-called "laboratories of democracy" -- state legislatures. Amid pundits' breathless analyses of Hillary Clinton's tear ducts, these arenas quietly opened throughout America this month. And from beneath the rubble of celebrity-obsessed campaign journalism and the ruins of national political gridlock, change is being exhumed in two bellwether states.

In a move making health care lobbyists quiver, Washington state Sen. Karen Keiser (D), chairwoman of her legislature's powerful health committee, this week introduced the nation's most far-reaching universal health care proposal. Her legislation is the American West's version of a parallel Wisconsin initiative, and the replication suggests this model may begin building the universal health care system our country wants.

The plan is simple: Employers and employees pay a modest payroll tax in exchange for full medical benefits, with no premiums. Patients never lose coverage and pick the doctors they prefer. And for the spendthrifts, here's the best part: According to an analysis of the Wisconsin proposal by the nonpartisan Lewin Group, the plan would save middle-class families an annual average of $750 on their existing health care bills. In all, the state would save almost $14 billion over the next decade.

Seem too good to be true? That's because you're used to being bilked by an insurance industry that drives up premiums, drives down benefits and gives executives like former UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire $1.6 billion worth of stock options in one year. Eliminating that greed is precisely how the Washington state and Wisconsin proposals simultaneously save money and cover everyone.

Unlike the much-touted Massachusetts law forcing citizens to buy insurance from the private profiteers, the Washington and Wisconsin models pool all existing health care expenditures and then replace the middlemen with one publicly controlled, not-for-profit system. That structure attacks problems beyond the immorality of allowing 18,000 Americans to die each year because they lack health coverage.

For businesses faced with crushing health care costs, the Lewin Group predicts the plan will save private-insuring employers almost $700 million a year. For politicians looking to provide economic stimulus in the face of a recession, the nonpartisan Families USA estimates the proposal's investments will create 13,000 new jobs. Even tax reformers have something to like, as Wisconsin's version directs much of the system's savings into property tax relief.

The Royalist Right is distraught about the plan. When an initial draft passed the Wisconsin Senate last year, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board attacked it on the grounds that it "reduces out-of-pocket copayments" and "increases the number of mandated medical services covered" for patients. Wow. Sounds just awful.

The paper then criticized it as a tax increase and labeled it "government-run" -- as if patients are better served by paying even bigger premium increases to corporate CEOs whose paychecks grow with each coverage denial.

The screed showed how little conservative elites care, not just for the uninsured, but for the working-class wing of the Republican Party -- the roughly 40 percent of GOP voters who, according to the Pew Research Center, tell pollsters they "favor universal health coverage, even if it means higher taxes." These voters are part of a new transpartisan consensus -- one that believes the words of the hero we remember this week. "Of all the forms of inequality," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."

Those desiring "real change" should applaud these Washington and Wisconsin leaders confronting that injustice. Unlike the nearsighted nabobs of national politics and the adversaries of Indiana Jones, these state legislators are digging in the right place.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: healthcare, campaign finance, election08

David Sirota is a bestselling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," will be released in June of 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


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:
Saving money equals a tax increase?
Posted by: arieden on Jan 18, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If on the Old Plan I paid Aetna $5K per year for health insurance and on the New Plan I paid the state government $4K per year for the same thing - I would call that a better deal. Do these right wing spinmeisters really think that people care HOW it's paid for more than they care that it's cheaper?
Instead of calling the New Plan a tax increase, we should call the Old Plan a RIP OFF!

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

Is This Plan Voluntary Or Will I Be Forced To Pay?
Posted by: left_libertarian on Jan 18, 2008 2:56 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
will I go to jail if I don't?

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

» Read the *cough, cough* article. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Lol, and still no one knows. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» healthy young people... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: healthy young people... Posted by: Intellect
"states' rights" has been a euphemism for racism in the past but it must be
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 19, 2008 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a two-edged sword. Universal health care is a goal well worth working for, not least because of its egalitarian nature. Americans would be less unequal with universal health care and this would reduce crime, drug and alcohol problems and other evils of poverty.

It would increase security and quality of life for everyone. Even the greedy CEOs.

Next thing? Security of tenancy or ownership of one's primary residence.

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

18,000 Americans to die each year because they lack health coverage.
Posted by: bitsfick on Jan 19, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"18,000 Americans to die each year because they lack health coverage. I don't believe it! The next thing you will tell me is that the Republicans, along with their allies the christian right, are being hypocrites when they want to outlaw abortion, stem cell research, and birth control because they believe in the sanctity of life. It has been said many, many times already, but I am so sick of hearing about the sanctity of life by those who's whole goal in life is to kill as many as they can.

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

So happens to the self-employed?
Posted by: hagwind on Jan 19, 2008 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a self-employed person who's been paying 100% of my (regressive) Social Security tax since forever, I get a little nervous at any plan that depends on "employer" contributions. Do they want me to pay both the employee's and the employer's share?

From the mid-1980s through the end of the 1990s, I managed to hold on to "major medical" (i.e., useless unless you get really sick or badly hurt) coverage through a succession of progressive or writers groups. By Y2K I was paying $272/month for "assurance." Then the insurance company was bought out, my monthly premium went to $643 (for, pretty much, nothing), and there were no remotely affordable alternatives offered in Massachusetts, my home state. That was a no-brainer: I dropped it.

After six years without any insurance at all, I'm now covered under one of the "Commonwealth Care" plans offered as part of Massachusetts's compulsory coverage scheme. It's not bad. However, I'm within a couple hundred bucks of not qualifying for any subsidy at all, and if I go over the limit (300% of the federal poverty level, about $30,500/year), I'm back in never-never land: the state says I have to have insurance, but there's nothing commercially available at a price the state says I can afford.

Trouble is, most of these plans are devised by salaried people who have decent coverage through their employers, and they seem to have a hard time understanding the challenges facing those of us who are self-employed, or seasonally employed, or who cobble together two or three part-time jobs in order to make a living. Michael Moore gets it -- I wish the rest of these guys did.

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

As much as it hurts "free marketers"...........
Posted by: cisc on Jan 19, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
something will HAVE to be done about the medical system. In the name of the free market these billion, thats billion with a B, dollar CEO's are being allowed to cannibalize the rest of the economy. That is for one man. How obscene is it that the CEO of Countrywide (mortgage crisis) walks away with $87 Million? In the mean time the weight of employer paid healthcare is destroying businesses and more than anything else (even nafta) taking jobs away from working people. We survived the Great Depression because our underlying economy was strong. Our underlying economy is being broken down and sold off part and parcel overseas while the wolves are buying the henhouse. It will take creative thinking like what is going on in Washington State and Wisconsin to bring us back into balance. Sadly for us and Mr. Gentleman's c- in economics, the consequences of his stewardship of the economy will land at his feet before he can leave office and land it on the next President-unlike the war.

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

Health Care Considerations Nobody Is Talking About
Posted by: Liberty G on Jan 19, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although concerns about affordability of government mandates are (albeit rarely) mentioned, another problem - and solution - is essentially ignored. While many speak of "a woman's right to her own body" re: having an abortion, what about her right to choose what kind of health care she wants for that same body! Many, like myself, avoid dangerous and expensive drugs (prescriptions kill 100s of thousands every year) and opt for safer, cheaper, alternative medicine.

The corker is that countries that cover that kind of treatment get better health results for less money! England has 5 homeopathic hospitals, includes that and other alternatives under the National Health Plan, and spends $2,000 to cover everyone, vs. $7,000 or so per capita in the U.S. with 47 million uninsured.

By the way, one of the reasons people are wary of universal health care with a single payer system is that it means the government has total control over what medical treatments you can get, unless you are rich enough to buy it yourself. It's true that corporations, if anything, care less about you than the gov., but there is at least a small number of different choices, not one size fits all.

It's interesting that Washington state is proposing this plan. They have already taken an innovative step that could cause me to move there some day - required health insurance companies in the state to cover all certified alternative practitioners, including naturopaths, homeopaths, acupuncturists. Now, that's a plan!

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

» "Sickness care" the AMA, FDA & EPA Posted by: Itsthewater
» yep... Posted by: somegirl
Congratulations to Wash. State & Wisconsin!
Posted by: fsuthai on Jan 19, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so nice to see a "good news" article now & then. Not many news items these days are 'feel good' stories! Nearly all of the articles here are interesting and informative (and the commentaries are frequently innovative & thought compelling), but with all of the depressing news in today's world, it's nice to hear something encouraging...if only occasionally!

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

Sirota's aside in the fourth paragraph is the crucial point
Posted by: Earthian on Jan 19, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best part of this article is the fourth paragraph:

"Think about it: The White House can only be won by raising truckloads of cash from moneyed interests looking to preserve the status quo. Likewise, the U.S. Senate's filibuster rules allow 41 lawmakers, representing just 11 percent of the population, to stop anything. These are institutions designed to prevent change, not embrace it."

This is the key point. The Constitution and resulting antidemocratic institutions, are designed to prevent change, especially when the demographic difference between the smallest and biggest states is nearly 80 to one, and the Senate and Presidency have veto powers.

Sirota's paragraph singles out two of the crucial problems of legal political bribery and Senate minority rule.

But the problem extends to our constitutional amending Article V which allows 13 legislatures in the small states representing less than five percent of the population to block any constitutional amendment.

So whether the Washington state universal medical plan is the best is immaterial. It should be pursued as others states should pursue similar or differing plans. Then, over time, the states become labs that develop best practices for universal health care and to meet other needs.

Bravo to Sirota for pointing out electoral and constitutional problems. Progressives need more of that kind of thinking. For more on structural and constitutional problems that we need to remedy read Sanford Levinson's "Our Undemocratic Constitution" and Steven Hills's book "10 Steps to Repair the American Democracy." Also, read Dan Lazare's "Frozen Republic."

Meanwhile, the states are the key for progressive change. Take a look at Montana's constitutional amending article if you want to see something quite democratic that improves on the national Constitution's Article V.

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

state health care legislation
Posted by: adoxis on Jan 19, 2008 5:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last year California passed landmark universal single payer health care,
said by the Lewin Group analysis to save $8 billion in California, while giving universal medical care, dentistry, eye care, hospital care, preventive medicine, and so on. Economies come from avoiding profits, marketing, and bureaucracy, and creating delivery efficiency. The problem was that Schwarzenegger did not want to become a national hero, like the Canadian founder of universal care. He vetoed the bill.

But it still is a model.

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

Most people are not even in the health care question loop
Posted by: common intelligence on Jan 19, 2008 7:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There aren't even any statistics that address most us. As far as the "system" (of interwound/related profiteers) are concerned....they're not.

It just proves the politiciasns and corporate machine is out of touch with any reality but their own interests. Like what ever our national interests are, which they NEVER tell us that it is what is in their best interest.

There is a hugh percent of us that are left out of the loop.
Don't even mention Insurance companies.

Somehow people have been lead to believe everyone works normal 8 to 5 jobs and are on regular weekly pay checks 52 weeks a year. But no even though we maybe lead to believe this as the media reports to us , actually we all know it is not true. But this is what the news media continues to portray as what is true.This is the false premise this whole insurance trip is based on.

Let me just say I would rather work the way I do, charging fair 3 or 4 times more, as an independant contractor, and work half as much than work full time in an 8 to 5 position for 30% as much and have no time to my self. But still only left with the same return on work done.

The Americans have somehow been lead to believe working like a fool your whole life at breakneck speed is the right thing to do. While in reality the 8 to 5 group are the ones with most of the medical overhead because the stress factor breaks down their immune systems much faster. Then they are forced by guilt or treats of being terminated if they miss to much work. This results in them passing their ill health on to everyone else in their work place.

But schools and industry would have us believe we work in order to advance technology and mankind. But only to benefit a very few!

I believe the root of the excess of illness that is costing the "System" so much is dual fold.

1) The materialistic driven capitalistic driven economic system demands more than is healthy for the people, the planet. Even the ecosytem is sick. It's the perfect mirror of civilizations health barometer.

2) People are expendable!.

Now don't you think civilization should advance to where health care and concern for the well being of mankind is paramount to being qualified as a goal for the advancement of the species.

SO where is the advancement of the species at?

Money should not be an issue. It shouldn't even be a part of the equation.

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

good start, but
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 21, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i don't see there is any provision for the unemployed that don't qualify for medicaid; or for the self-employed like musicians, artists and freelance writers...any of these ideas have to be totally universal and must cover EVERYONE.

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

Mandates or other changes? Me be little baby, no want....Waaaaaaaaahhhh!!
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jan 21, 2008 3:47 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Waaaaah!!!!

Goshes, if we change this horrible system, I might have to bear responsibility... and face a bit different paradigm that challenges my selfish thinking... waaaaaaahhhhhh!!

Let's just keep this thing the way it is and I'll take the chance that I'll go bankrupt or die because I can't get care. And forget about doing anything about my teeth or other nagging little problems for years.

Yeah, that's a system I can be proud of. I'm with the people who are royally screwing me and you by denying us care... they're right... any change will make me whine and cry... waaaaaahhhh!!!

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

I did the math on the Staff of Ra...
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Jan 22, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and guess what? One kaddam (or q'adam or however it's spelled) equals one foot. No kidding!

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

Those with Insurance --what coverage do they have?
Posted by: seaseal on Jan 23, 2008 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I had insurance, they wouldn't cover a test one doctor said I should have; they didn't cover another doctor's treatment because she wasn't AMA; they didn't cover my acupuncture for chronic pain; they didn't cover my chronic pain (pre-existing condition); they didn't cover the tests for blood in my urine; they didn't cover...

So who's paying attention to the millions who have insurance but who still don't get treatment.

We need a new system without the insurance companies deciding who gets medical care.

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

this idea isn't anything new and won't work
Posted by: mrmystery on Jan 24, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm an insurance broker that wants Universal coverage. The tragic stories I hear every day are disgusting for me, and I would easily give up my job at the expense of everyone in this country having insurance.

But, this plan isn't anything new. The only thing I like in this article is the idea of replacing profit driven corporations with a not-for-profit entity. However, you don't mention how many jobs would be lost as an outcome of this. Or, how different cities with large insurance company residents would be effected. Humana is a large scale employer in Green Bay, WI, a town already effected very negatively by our slumping economy. Do you think those people would take health insurance over their job??

The idea of employers paying a tax to cover health insurance for their employees is being promoted by all the democratic candidates running for president and many state governors such as Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, it does nothing to address the needs of the self-employed or unemployed. Many self-employed citizens have families too. Plus, this like your first statement is really digging in the wrong place. The main problem with our health insurance system isn't corporate greed. Though, I agree that is a major issue. But, I think it's actually the massive amount of medical costs our countries citizens need. Our people are obese and eat crappily food happily sold to them by Mcdonalds. I also believe that our people generally do not sleep well. If you were to put our country's medical costs against Canada's National Health System, it would cause Canada's system to destruct.

there's too many unexplained in your article and you seem like another left winged writer that really needs to spend time studying our health insurance system before writing an article about it. Trust me, it really makes democrats and liberals look bad when ignorant stuff like this is written.

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