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

Medicare for All: The Only Sound Solution to Our Healthcare Crisis

By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet. Posted January 16, 2007.


Our $2 trillion healthcare industry is not only unhealthy, it is unsustainable. Why universal Medicare is the way to get universal healthcare without collapsing the system.
01162007story
01162007Story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Guy T. Saperstein

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

We all know that America's healthcare system is collapsing. Andy Stern has written that America's employer-based health insurance system is "dead." Auto executives troop to the White House complaining that they are not competitive with foreign automakers because they pay $1,500 per car for health insurance. Some of the biggest laughs in movies come when America's healthcare system is ridiculed. Politicians, even Republicans, are offering solutions.

In the Greenberg Quinlin poll of November 2006 voters, 22 percent ranked healthcare as the most important issue; likewise, MoveOn.org recently polled its members, received over 100,000 responses, and healthcare ranked as the No. 1 concern.

To add substance to these observations, consider the following: Not only are 47 million Americans uninsured (approximately 18.5 percent of the insurable market), 41 percent of Americans with incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 did not have health insurance for at least part of 2005, up from 28 percent in 2001; 53 percent with incomes under $20,000 lack health insurance.

The number of people without health insurance rose 16.6 percent from 2001 to 2005; average health insurance premiums for a family of four are $10,880, which exceeds the annual gross income of $10,712 for a full-time, minimum-wage worker; lack of insurance causes 18,000 excess deaths a year; people without health insurance have 25 percent higher mortality rates; and, 59 percent of uninsured people with chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes skip medicine or go without care.

There are additional costs to the haphazard U.S. healthcare system: More than 50 percent of the U.S. population has medical debt problems; between 1981 and 2001, medical-related bankruptcies increased an astounding 2,200 percent and 55 percent of personal bankruptcies are now caused by illness or medical debts, despite the fact that over 75 percent of the bankrupts had health insurance at the onset of bankruptcy and illness.

Contrary to popular conceptions, the average medical bankrupt was a 41-year old woman with children, some college education; over half owned homes and over 80 percent were in the middle or working classes.

But for the insured, the United States has the best quality healthcare in the world, right? Wrong.

A Second-Rate System

The World Health Organization ranks healthcare systems based on objective measures of medical outcomes: The United States' healthcare system currently ranks 37th in the world, behind Colombia and Portugal; the United States ranks 44th in the world in infant mortality, behind many impoverished Latin American countries. While infant mortality in the United States is skewed toward poor people, who have rates double the wealthy, the top quintile of the U.S. population has infant mortality rates higher than Canadians in the lowest quintile of wealth.

Out of 30 developed nations, life expectancy in the United States ranks 21st; life expectancy in the United States is 4.6 years less than Japan, 2.1 years less than France and 2.6 years less than Canada. The United States has fewer physicians, nurses and hospital beds than most developed nations. In the United States, 28 percent say it is "difficult to get care"; in most European countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, 15 percent say that. In terms of continuity of care (i.e., five-plus years with the same doctor), the United States is the worst of all developed nations. By every objective measure, the United States has a second-rate healthcare system.

OK, the U.S. healthcare system is not performing very well, but that must be a funding problem, right? Wrong.

The Truth About Healthcare Costs

The United States has the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. Even including the 47 million uninsured, the U.S. healthcare system costs almost double per capita what single-payer systems in Europe, Japan and Canada cost; in the United States, healthcare costs were $5,635 per person in 2005.

By contrast, in Japan, with life expectancy 4.6 years more than the United States (presumably a cost-increasing factor), healthcare costs were $2,139 per person; in the United Kingdom, $2,232; Sweden (the ultimate "welfare state"), $2,520; France, $2,903; and, Canada, $3,001.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: healthcare, universal healthcare, medicare, single-payer

Guy T. Saperstein is a Democracy Alliance partner and past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
where are the doctors?
Posted by: edith on Jan 16, 2007 1:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my doctor and others complain constantly about the mountain of forms they must fill out and how they have fulltime employees whose job it is to deal with the wide range of insurance programs patients bring with them into the doctor's office.

Where is the medical profession on this? It seems to me that doctors would be a powerful lobby for a rational single payer system. Unless their profits are squeezed? Is single payer payer better than the current mess from the doctor point of view? Can the multiple for profit medical practices occupying ever more expensive space in and around hosptials flourish in a single payer environment?

Doctors(the AMA) opposed the original Medicare program. Will they oppose Medicare + that would cover everyone? And why are they always lobbying Congress to increase the cost of Medicare by claiming that they don't get paid enough from Medicare, an increasingly key part of a doctor's income for the year?

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

» RE: where are the doctors? Posted by: DaBear
Insurance Corporations are inherent conflicts of interest
Posted by: dancerkc on Jan 16, 2007 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The simple concept of insurance as a community pool of funds for the mutual benefit and protection of all is what the single-payer (government) system amounts to. The government should belong to the commons and is really the only agency built of populations of people within a geographic area. It is the only agency which sticks around and doesn't move offshore. So, it makes sense that the commons (government, supposedly) should have this responsibility.

But insurance programs in the form of a corporation change the central interest of the agent. No longer there to serve the people of the community the corporation serves the shareholder first. It becomes a money mine. Shareholders buy shares purely for the monetary advantage, not for the sake of what the endeavor/business (i.e. health) is about.

Corporations also make laws purely for themselves. When the author quoted the two-tiered price for medical tests ("...the insurance price, $969.25, the second was the "cash pay price," $678.00 -- exactly 30 percent less...") I was only surprised that they specifically listed the insurance price as higher. More than 20 years ago I found out that price laws for medical charges were that all charges had to be the same (maybe in Missouri?) - the listed charges. Supposedly.

The author is, I think, using this as an example of the higher overhead, and perhaps that is the reason for the two-price system listed. Certainly there is a good deal of that. But there is also the practice of insurance companies to set their own price, not unlike mafia hoodlums coming into a store and telling the owner they will buy things and they will set their own, lower prices.

In reality, paying cash I paid the whole bill. The insurance companies, however, commonly, even then, told the hospitals how much they would pay on the bill (setting their own prices) and that amount was about 2/3rd the listed amount (just like the author's two prices). It sounds as though the high insurance price is an attempt to offset what the hospitals know is the refusal by the insurance companies to pay the full listed tab by dictating what they will pay, and tough if you don't like it.

It is legal, of course. Legal just means people in power wrote rules to favor themselves. Not to go making Nazi comparisons, but I was recently struck by the language of the prosecutor (Richard Widmark) in "Judgement at Nuremburg" who notes that the crimes of these "defendants are charged with crimes committed in the name of the law." This context is different but the phrasing still goes to the heart in this different matter. Perhaps the misery, suffering and death caused by insurance company profits should someday be prosecuted.

In the meantime, better to create a system designed not to triangulate between funding schemes but rather to provide health care. No monetary shareholders. The only shareholding should be the welfare of the commons. People, not bank accounts.

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

» Who will do the voting? Posted by: Leman
The pharmaceutical companies no longer do research, either
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 16, 2007 1:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The research is done at public universities using taxpayer-provided funding via the National Institue of Health; under Bayh-Dole provisions the work is then patented and the patents are controlled by pharmaceutical companies, while the universities get a small cut - which is why our public universities are turning into little more then corporate research parks where graduate students work as low-paid lab technicians on corporate pharma products. A lot of the efforts go into making new knock-offs (minor alterations in previously patented drugs).

See http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001626 "The Truth About The Drug Companies" - it's just a massive ripoff, and often generic drugs whose patents have expired and that are much cheaper work as well or better then the newer, heavily marketed versions. Pharma companies have gotten laws passed that makes it harder for Medicare patients to get the cheaper generic versions, as well.

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

Only problem is that all the public systems are going private
Posted by: Bobsays on Jan 16, 2007 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as this article argues for another way in healthcare, all the great public systems - the UK's, Canada's - are going private. Right now, in the UK, a socialist government is privatising everything they can get their hands on in healthcare. They are doing this while they skip through through the green grass holding Bono/Geldof/Jeffrey Sach's hands in the global fight against poverty and inequality.

Come over to the UK and check out what is really going on, not the myths spread by the left. You will find publicly paid for doctors using their time to run their own businesses on public property. In fact, you will find most healthcare workers encouraged to do the same: think of a British version of what goes on in Russia.

The battle for public healthcare universally accessible to all for either low cost or no cost, has been lost. It is over. No country in the west believes in it anymore. Is that right? No. It could have been different but the idea of public healthcare has been so poisoned by human greed it no longer survives in any form. I agree that is sad.

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

when you DO have insurance....
Posted by: ellie on Jan 16, 2007 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the co-pays and deductables keep climbing every year for less coverage at a higher price... especially with group policies from employers, groups and other organizations....

many who do have insurance do not have the money for the deductables and co-pays.... by the time all is said and done at the end of the coverage year, insured folks have paid more out of pocket for being 'insured' then if they have no health insurance and were on a cash basis.... at least with a cash basis, you get the option of making payments on your bill instead of cash up front for deductables before treatment and insurance payments that need to be pre-approved....

it is a sad state of affairs when the insured can not access health care because they do not have the cash on hand to pay 'thier part', many die because of it....

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

» RE: when you DO have insurance.... Posted by: richholland
insituionalized greed the progressive way
Posted by: solrev on Jan 16, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You progressives are no different from the pigs you elect. You just want your turn to feed at the public trough. You fools are already being taxed enough to have universal health care tomorrow. If the social security tax and the Medicare tax were given to the social security administration, to be used for those purposes, you could have universal health care tomorrow with out any additional tax on the people. Why do you status quo progressives let them steal your money? That is taxation without representation and that leads to the final solution revolution. We are growing tired of you. The revolution of 2012.

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

Destroyed By Greed
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 16, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The system has to be universal, single payer, avoid the insurance racket completely and reign in the outrageous salaries many specialized MD's make. The overwhelming greed among M.D.'s has skewed our system so badly that out cities have a disproportion of our doctors while huge tracts of the country lack even the most basic care. We end up with way too many Radiologists & Plastic Surgeons and not enough Family Practitioners.

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

» RE: Destroyed By Greed Posted by: edith
» A different perspective..... Posted by: mjabele
» Watching House is Dangerous Posted by: Jordon
» RE: mjabele Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Destroyed By Greed Posted by: Leman
» RE: Destroyed By Greed Posted by: Leman
Profit motive in health care runs counter to the public good.
Posted by: brunowe on Jan 16, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I think the profit motive is generally a useful and efficient galvanizer in the provision of goods and services, it has exactly the opposite effect in health care. Insurance companies essentially make their money by insuring people who are the least likely to need it and passing on the rest.

With other types of insurance, it might be acceptable to let persons in high-risk categories take their chances as an incentive to lower those activities that cause that risk, thus the profit motive of the insurance business could be said to provide a social benefit. Obviously, with the provision of health, it's morally indefensible to, for example, not provide health care to the overeater with a heart condition or the smoker with cancer.

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

» RE: commonsense too has a role Posted by: richholland
yeah...when pigs fly
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 16, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very well written article, and the arguments are convincing and irrefutable. But I am growing increasingly discouraged that any real reform in health care--or any of the social economic problems we have in this country--will every be seriously addressed. Not unless we have a major crisis like the Great Depression (it took the Great Depression to finally get the U.S. to have old age pensions--30-40 years after other countries).

Until we address the issue of special interest/money influence on our legislative process, all of this is just a pipe dream. Do you really think the insurance lobby, the doctor lobby, and all the others are going to sit on their hands while (as the author seems to think) this thing even comes close to passing? No way!! They probably already have hired experts working on contingecy plans for this---ready to implment in a moment's notice.

But the real root of the problem is the clueless, dopey, self-absorbed, uninformed attitude of the average Joe in this country. I live in rural Nebraska, and have talked to some of the young people around here--Bush supporters all of them--about health care. Most of them aren't even aware that Bush and the Republicans have stymied every real attempt at health care reform since Medicare 40 years ago. Yet these kids are working at $7/hr jobs with no benefits and they think America is the greatest!!! Sheesh!!!

The only way the Chamber of Commerce types and the National Association of Manufacturers types and the Country Club set would even consider health care reform would be if it would be paid by a regressive tax on the riff-raff in the lower income groups---something like FICA and a sales tax. Don't you even THINK about rolling back any of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy!!! Let them die in the hospital parking lot instead.

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

F*ck the patient, I gotsta get paid, bitch!!
Posted by: MAD on Jan 16, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, let's face it. Healthcare is the 800 lb. Piggy Bank that every corporation, doctor, lawyer and quack wants to get their hands into. America's aging baby boombers are poised to burden the system on an unprecedented scale, what with horrible diets, sedentarism and many other poor lifestyle choices. Just imagine all those little [insert color here] pills, angioplasty, chemotherapy, "I've fallen and I can't get up" devices and homecare oppportunities waiting to happen. There is no end to the exploitative nature of our CAPITALIST healthcare system.

While capitalism can serve as a catalyst for the development of new procedures/technologies/meds, the incumbency of the hospital chains, RX corps and insurance companies to shareholders practically guarantees that it will be managed with an eye towards maximizing profits rather than providing affordable, quality healthcare. WTF is that so hard to understand? We may want to rethink tort reform as well. God only knows what kind of impact huge payouts are truly having on overall costs. Oh, and this may be an unpopular suggestion but I'll make it anyway. Put down the Snickers and pick up that *eewwww* carrot and, I don't know, turn off the tv and go for a hike or a swim.

So long as the system is geared towards making *cha ching - $$$$$*, we will be assured a system that herds you into a sterile room only to be attended to by an even more sterile doctor after a 40 minute wait on a cold, pleather table in your underwear. Enjoy!

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

» You are so right! Posted by: Bobsays
» You get what you're paid for Posted by: gellero
Practice Preventive Medicine.....
Posted by: picket on Jan 16, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but there is no MONEY in that for BIG PHARMA. People that have excellent medical coverage often are taking "designer drugs" for non acute conditions that are not GOOD for their health. There is no profit for Big Pharma in the older excellent MIRACLE DRUGS that have fewer side effects.
Older citizens with good coverage are often on a "merry-go-round" of unnecessary consultations. No one without medical training should discourage these precautions BUT trained medical Practitioners should begin to be courageous and buck the system or at least LET their patients make educated decisions.
Why should one outpatient blood test cost $500.00? If you have coverage, do you care?
The Conservative Big Spenders [ trillions for war] will "hiss" Liberal big spenders on [medical care]. Remember Billions of $$$$$$$$$ has gone missing, stolen or just given away to Corporations in Iraq. Remember that Neo-Con BushCo has spent $$ 1.6 Billion on public relations and media consultants in a 2 1/2 period on mostly failed policies and propaganda [ announced by senior Dems 2/13/06].
What do you want YOUR TAX $$$$ spent on?? Do not fall for the liberal-socialist name calling by mostly deluded [ think they are] Conservatives. Progressives need 2008 candidates soon....that LISTEN....it is already getting late.

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

Private enterprise
Posted by: badkitty on Jan 16, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as people believe that private enterprise is more efficient, we will probably not have health care reform. The examples of Iraq reconstruction, Katrina reconstruction, and healthcare are apparently not enough to convince people that well regulated government can be more efficient than the sheer greed and poor quality of much, if not most, of private enterprise. I have worked for both government and private employers (large to very small) and I have yet to see a private enterprise that is as efficient and cost effective as a government agency, even with union workers (and that's using the term worker quite loosely in many cases, but non-union workers in private enterprise are just as lazy and incompetent). I agree, Medicare is a great model, and only the stupid, greedy and truly inefficient oppose it. However, I think this country will collapse before we see single payer healthcare...

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

» RE: Private enterprise Posted by: Lincoln fan
I am shocked...truth in good ole USA???
Posted by: picket on Jan 16, 2007 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Nutty Hemp a Hot Food Trend"..MSNBC Food Editor by Phil Lempert. Here is a cost effective alternative to Salmon for the poor. We all need the omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids for proper brain function.
Preventative medicine...google Tryptophen ....many adults do not have sufficient levels because their intake of nuts, seeds and wholegrains are too low.
Corporate America has and will put a stop to this Hemp info.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16637630/

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

» Interesting article Posted by: Lincoln fan
A different complaint
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 16, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many will think that I'm being facetious but one peril of a good insurance plan is that one is in danger of becoming a cash cow. I am fortunate(?) to have good insurance coverage but like a person with no coverage I hesitate to go to a doctor unless it's absolutely necessary. I feel that when I do go, that I get many uneccessary visits, tests, and prescriptions that waste medical resources that could be used where needed. Also this costs me a great deal of time and inconvenience. Being a firm believer in the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" philosophy, Put my vote in the column for equal, minimal but adequate, health care for all.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

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

» A cash cow Posted by: churchofone
truly free markets
Posted by: rtdrury on Jan 16, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The line "Politicians, even Republicans, are offering solutions" made me cringe. Remember that the dismal performance of the U.S. healthcare system is precisely the result of the simplistic "free market" idea pushed by Republicans. Are progressives still not convinced that the Republicans' "free market" idea has been fully discredited? Actually U.S. markets are not truly free, but controlled by producers. A market can only be free when driven by the public will, in the public interest. This means greatest efficiencies for the public benefit, i.e. greatest value, the most outputs for given inputs. We should recognize as dysfunctional producers eeking higher volume, higher prices, higher profits, instead of higher efficiencies. Please note that other cultures embrace higher efficiencies for the public benefit. It's called common sense. Not surprisingly, the market theory going way back to Adam Smith is based on the assumption that markets ultimately serve the public interest. The proper role for government is to ensure that well-informed consumer demands are honored by producers. There isn't much indication that progressives see this as important today. Producers not only control markets today, they control the govenrment too. Reform of healthcare should include the reform of all markets, with the govenrment handing responsibility to the public for ensuring markets serve the public interest through informed consumer demands. While relatively successful socialized healthcare in other countries may not place the responsibility upon the consumer, those would be much more resilient with mass responsibility.

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

It all comes down to money
Posted by: Ambrose Pare on Jan 16, 2007 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The healthcare system is flawed from the get-go.

There's profit it people being sick. No profit in curing.

Good if you make drugs, bad if you foot the bill.

The government should remove the corporate element from medicine, its too easily abused.

In Ontario the government is the only one who can sell alcohol. Works great, the profits go to social programs.

If the government wants to save some money on healthcare, research into the cause and cure of disease. Ulcers once thought uncurable, a short coarse of antibiotics cures 90% of people. That little bit of research saved billions of dollars.

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

A couple of things
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jan 16, 2007 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, you should read Paul Krugman's article in the March 23, 2006 NY Review of Books called, The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It

Second, you should explore the book The Truth About Drug Companies by Marcia Angell, who is a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. The whole concept of drugs that are either re-patented for a new use, or just treat the same problem as an older drug, but never tested to see if the new drug is more effective than the older, often now generic drug.

Third, while at University of Toronto I paid $180 for 6 months coverage in my first year (1989-90), and nothing in my second through fourth years (1990-1993) for Ontario Health Insurance Program (OHIP). After my first year they changed how legal residents, I had to show my student visa, contributed (or not) to the costs of coverage in OHIP. Granted I was rarely sick, 2 strep throats treated at the campus clinic, so never had first hand experience in using OHIP.

Fourth, while at U of Toronto, we had a field camp class to Costa Rica (1992) for the geology program (just 2 weeks) and ironically the only person that bought traveller's insurance managed to dislocate his pinky in a small town while playing soccer with the local kids. They set it in town, then drove 30 miles via ambulance to the larger clinic to check to make sure it wasn't broken by x-ray. His out of pocket expenses (before travellers insurance) was about $10. Costa Rica has a socialized health care system and it worked quite well for my friend.

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

It's Our Right from the Constitution
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 16, 2007 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'To Promote the General Welfare',Hmmmmm,I seem to recall this very notion written down on a very important document,oh yeah,the Constitution.
This 'we'll get 'er done in a hundred hours' bunch has failed as bad as Bush on Iraq. Healthcare could have been brought up,seconded, passed,next case. Just that easy. Anyone tells you any different,they're liars. They say they need a 'study model', they have one. The same style of healthcare they give everyone in the Armed Forces can be the working model to plan the cost of paying for it. A cost I think most Americans would be glad to pay if both the 'Healthcare Plan' and the 'Iraq Plan' were laid on the table for all to see.
This 'Democratic' congress has gone down in flames in it's first 100 hours. They failed to give us healthcare,they failed to raise the minimum wage effectivly. By the time it takes effect,some of the people that need the help the worst will be dead. Plus this congress failed in the single most important task of it's life....take back the power to use force on another Nation form a insane president

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

Belly up!
Posted by: Falang on Jan 16, 2007 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all the money coming from K Street to buy politicians your country will go belly up before you have universal health care.

When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.
Dom Helder

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

» RE: Belly up! Posted by: richholland
Single-payer is necessary, but not sufficient
Posted by: pharmawatcher on Jan 16, 2007 7:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was a great article that documents very well the shortcomings of the existing system, and persuasively argues that only a single-payer insurance system can put us on the road to a healthy health care system.

But, in my view, single-payer, while necessary, isn't sufficient.

Some interesting data just out shows why. According to the latest study from CMS, total U.S. health spending in 2005 rose just 6.9 percent in nominal terms compared to 6.2 percent nominal for total GDP. So health care is now rising at about twice the rate of inflation, but only slightly faster than the economy as a whole, not the 14 percent mentioned in Mr. Saperstein's article.

Moreover, the same report showed that Medicare spending was rising faster than private sector spending, over 9 percent for Medicare versus under 7 percent for total private spending. And this was the year before the Medicare drug benefit kicked in, so that can't be blamed. Aging society may account for some of this (more people relatively on Medicare), but that only accounts for a small percent of the increase. Overall, it suggests that providers are having an easier time manipulating CMS than the insurance companies, at least under this administration. So regulatory reform (i.e., reempowering CMS) has to be on the agenda.

I'm with you that the private insurance system is pure waste. But getting rid of it is a one-time savings only. Then we're still confronted with costs rising at 2-3 times the rate of inflation year in and year out. Why? The bottom line is that the health care delivery system has been captured by providers: drug companies, device companies, durable equipment manufacturers, hospitals, physician guilds, etc. They've captured the regulators, and imposed costly medicine that delivers the very poor results you so well document. Don't forget, even after subtracting the insurance company administrative waste, we're still spending as much as the most costly nation in the world after us (Switzerland).

In other words, get rid of the waste, and you still have the U.S. with among the worst outcomes in the industrialized world for all its spending.

My bottom line is that any health care reform movement must not just include a single-payer insurance system for its efficiencies, but must simultaneously address the issues of cost control and quality, which are complicated issues that entail challenging the providers of health care over what they're providing, not just the insurers.

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

» Absolutely on target! Posted by: jlohman
Follow the money!
Posted by: jlohman on Jan 16, 2007 8:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, follow the money. $100 million in campaign contributions per year are dispersed to both political parties by the health care industry to keep the system broken, and the money works exactly as intended. The only answer is to get rid of the long-timers in congress. We need new blood everywhere, then we'll start to see progress in not just health care but everything else as well.

Jack Lohman
Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America

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

» RE: Follow the money! Posted by: Earthie
» RE: Follow the money! Posted by: Gregor
Medicare - But with remediation
Posted by: Earthie on Jan 17, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been a practicing doctor of chiropractic for over 25 years, and have always been, and will continue to be, an advocate for a single payer system. However, Medicare is not without problems, and many of us who accept Medicare as a patient's insurance plan do so as nearly pro-bono work. It would be at best difficult, and in some instances impossible, for providers to survive financially if Medicare were adopted "as is".

A single payer system could be relatively easily created (though I'm seriously skeptical at this point that politicians have the will and the understanding to do it right). The part of Medicare that makes sense is to pay for care out of a general fund, created through taxation. Existing insurance companies would be contracted on a regional basis to simply process claims. They're well equipped to handle this mundane chore and should not be completely eliminated from a new system.

A panel consisting of health care providers, economists and consumers should be created to develop a fair and rational compensation schedule for all health care technologies currently utilized by the public, with provisions to review and include new ones.

The old canard that private industry is always more efficient than government is blatantly false in the instance of health care, as shown in the above article. But it's true that politicians should not be making health care decisions, which is why a panel of providers and citizens should be created to design the package of what should be included and for what fees.

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

Decrease profits
Posted by: kathat on Jan 17, 2007 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only way universal medicare would work is if Congress makes it competitive. Lobbyists for doctors and drug companies and insurance companies have ruined health care in this country and will continue to do so even under Medicare unless there are strict limits on profit versus costs.
Since medicare people cannot take certain expensive drugs, and everyone was on Medicare , it would force the insurance companies to lower their prices.
Doctors complain they don't get enough money from medicare, but in real life anyone,including doctors, should only be able to charge what the market will bear.
For most of my life I have heard socialism scorned and anyone who tried to address helping the lower class was threatened with the 'label' of communist. We were told it is a free market society and dog eats dog etc....The TRUTH that although lower class people do not recieve any subsidies or help....drug companes and insurance companies and doctors have certainly recieved advantages and look what we have now.

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

» RE: Decrease profits Posted by: jlohman
corrupt Congress when will we end it?
Posted by: kathat on Jan 17, 2007 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lawmakers' Lobbying Spouses Avoid Hill Reforms
Washington Post Staff Writer
When Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) rose to the Senate floor last summer and passionately argued for keeping the federal estate tax, he left one person with an interest in retaining the tax unmentioned.
The multibillion-dollar life-insurance industry, which was fighting to preserve the tax because life insurers have a lucrative business selling policies and annuities to Americans for estate planning, has employed Dorgan's wife as a lobbyist since 1999.
Some examples of senators whose spouses are registered Washington lobbyists:
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) had pleaded for restraint as she urged colleagues to avoid overreacting to the news that the Bush administration had let a United Arab Emirates company take over operations at six U.S. ports. At the same time, her husband, Robert J. Dole, a former senator and presidential nominee, was registered to lobby for that company.
At least half a dozen congressional spouses have jobs as registered lobbyists and several more are connected with lobbying firms, but reining in the practice to prevent potential conflicts or the appearance of them has not been a priority among congressional leaders. Even modest proposals such as banning wives and husbands from lobbying their spouses or using their spouses' floor privileges for lobbying have gone nowhere.

"As long as it is not retroactive, Senator Reid supports efforts to ban spouses of sitting members from lobbying in the future," spokesman Jim Manley said. Vitter said he will not support Reid's proposal. "I think this goes to one of the fundamental issues in this whole debate and that is officeholders using their office to increase their personal and family income. It doesn't get any more basic than that," Vitter said.

Vitter's legislation does not apply to the House. It also does not address lawmakers' siblings and children, another growth area in lobbying. Vitter said he wanted to make the plan broader but was not assured of a vote, so he scaled it back to Senate spouses.

Kimberly Olson Dorgan is registered as a lobbyist for the American Council of Life Insurers and worked on several issues, including the estate tax. She now has moved into an executive job. Barry Piatt, a spokesman for Byron Dorgan, said that the senator long opposed repealing the estate tax, that his position was consistent with that of most Democrats and that his wife's job had no bearing.

Among the other senators with lobbyist wives are Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).
Lucy Calautti, Conrad's wife and a former chief of staff to Dorgan, is registered to lobby for Major League Baseball's commissioner's office, which paid her firm at least $360,000 in the first half of 2006, according to the most recent lobbying reports on record with the Senate.
On the House side, Abigail Blunt, the wife of House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), has lobbied for years for Altria Group, the parent company for Kraft Foods and tobacco firm Philip Morris. And Jennifer LaTourette, the wife of Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), has been registered in recent years to lobby for several interests, including health-care companies and Cleveland's port authority.
Other congressional spouses have ties to lobbying even though they aren't formally registered in Washington. Ray Hutchison, the husband of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), works at the Vinson & Elkins firm, whose lobbying clients have included corporate giants such as 7-Eleven, Goldman Sachs and Halliburton.
Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin's wife, Loretta Durbin, runs a lobbying firm called Government Affairs Specialists. www.washingtonpost.

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

leading to:
Posted by: Gregor on Jan 17, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this money involved in something that is necessary to human life: Healing, will result in a plague. Ooops, you mean AIDS doesn't count? And look how inefficiently the system has helped Africa. Not at all. Although now that outrage has focused some attention on it, some true help is actually getting there. But even in civilized nations, we're poised for a big epidemic and with everything costing so much, people will be reluctant to go to doctors, and so it will spread.

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

Root of the problem is that the form of government is corporate empire
Posted by: amacd on Jan 17, 2007 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most major problems that frustrate the average American people regarding both foreign and domestic policies: the middle east war(s), economic inequality and stress, health care, environmental disasters, governement spying on citizens, global warming, crooked weapons makers, CEO corruption, politicians not representing common interest, etc, etc, -- the root problem of all of these things is the common denominator being that the form of government that we think that we live in, a democracy, has been entirely surplanted by a global corporate empire --- which is simply not responsive to the vast majority of average people/citizens, but totally controlled by, and responsive only to the desires of the ruling-elite global corporate empire. It's just that simple, folks!!

Most of these varied topics on Alternet are just different aspects of debating and complaining about the same fundamental thing ---- that we actually live in an empire rather than a democracy.

Hannah Arendt simply and accurately noted that, "Empire abroad entails tyranny at home".

Who would argue that we do not currently have "empire abroad" AND "tyranny at home"??

We can keep commenting and complaining about the various and widely varied aspects of what this empire is doing TO we the people and FOR their only real constituancy --- ruling elite corporations, until we are blue in the face. But this is somewhat like complaining about all the aspects of a mad dog in your home: "he bites our own children", "he pees on the carpet", "he destroys the furniture", "he already killed the neighbor's child" etc., etc. But ultimately such venting about the common problem of the 'mad dog' is just distracting and delaying from the fundamental and commmon solution to all these varied problems. Ultimately any sane person facing such varied problems becasue of a 'mad dog' has to just say, "Well, he used to be a good dog, and we used to like him around, but now that he has gone mad, I quess the only real solution to all these dangerous problems is to shoot him before he kills all of our own family -- in addition to the neighbors that he has already killed".

We simply need to recognize the common source of our problems as a mad dog that has gone mad, and shoot him --- before things get worse.

In our case we have a mad dog in our living room. Or a mad elephant in our living room. We haven't yet even admitted to ourselves that the big, mad, distructive dog/elephant is even in our living room --- perhaps because we don't want to admit it to ourselves. After all, the living room of America used to be clean, beautiful and inspiring, and we werre proud of it. But today that living room has this massive mad dog/elephant that pretends its not even there, but which is wrecking havoc on ourselves, our children, not to mention people throughout the world and on the environment of the world itself.

Despite the old Orwell short story, its time to shoot the mad dog/elephant folks.

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

emgscot
Posted by: emgscot51 on Jan 17, 2007 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Medicare for all is not the answer. I have Medicare but because it pays only 80% of COVERED procedures and has no limit on out of pocket expenses, I need additional insurance. For example, with Medicare the patient pays $992 per day for a hospital bed. Medicare Part D is a joke. Many medications are simply not covered at all and the patient pays the full amount. The other drugs are put in tiers with the majority in the highest tiers.
I have put off surgery and don't get expensive prescriptions filled.

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

Sorry, you're wrong about Schwarzenegger
Posted by: susanhathaway on Jan 17, 2007 7:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You made mostly good points, but you're wrong about Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal for "universal coverage." What the Governator is actually trying to foist on the State of California is a system in which people would be *required* to purchase health insurance (as they are now required to buy auto insurance) within the existing for-profit system, though there would be financial help available for low-income people. These insurance plans would have high deductibles (about $10,000), which would leave most people effectively without coverage while still paying whatever premiums the insurance companies feel like charging.

Yes, Schwarzenegger has caught on to the fact that it is now a politically good idea to seem to be in favor of providing health coverage for everyone, but providing coverage means nothing if it there is still no access to affordable care.

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

physicians for a national health plan
Posted by: lifewriter on Jan 18, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
check out pnhp.org

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

Did anyone mention AMA?
Posted by: dianne.quilts on Jan 18, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't the purpose of AMA to protect the wealth of doctors by any means? The strong AMA lobby has historically opposed public healthcare and a single payer system. Our government must intervene to stop the exploitation of the sick and injured by the rich and powerful. "For profit" and "healthcare" are mutually exclusive terms.

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

California and Pennsylvania Plans-FALL SHORT!
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 18, 2007 1:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See my posts on http://medical crises.blogspot.com over past week on both Governors Schwarzenegger's and Rendell's Heath Care reform plans from California and Pennsylvania respectively. Both plans fall short!

Thanks AlterNet for this article

I stand with you

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

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

Not The Truth emgscot
Posted by: gellero on Jan 19, 2007 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Emgscot above is not exactly telling the truth - Medicare HMO's cover 100% of costs.....FYI

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

UNTRUTH
Posted by: gellero on Jan 19, 2007 4:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And what Mr. Saperstien calls the 'medically bankrupt' is a misleading lie.....he's only referring to bakruptcys that listed medical bills on their court petitions. Not exactly those whose medical expenses bankrupted them. Another example of the 'big lie' for the hoi polloi

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