Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

More Uninsured Means More Healthcare Corporate Profits

By Adrianne Appel, IPS News. Posted April 10, 2007.


The U.S. is said to offer gold-standard healthcare, but it's the most expensive health system in the world and only people with a pot of gold can get that care.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Drug prices, health insurance, doctor visits and hospital stays are too expensive for many people to afford, while insurance and drug company profits continue to climb.

The nation is entering a healthcare crisis, many leaders and experts say. An estimated 46 million people do not have health insurance because they cannot afford it, and the United States has one of the poorest health profiles of the developed world.

Meanwhile, in 2005, pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson earned profits of $10 billion, and Pfizer had profits of $8 billion, according to Fortune magazine.

Healthcare is bankrupting even well-to-do U.S. citizens, especially people who have the misfortune of becoming seriously ill.

"The reason our health system is so crazy is we treat healthcare as a commodity. That really doesn't work. Most countries see it as part of their job to take care of their people," Meizhu Lui, executive director of United for a Fair Economy, told IPS.

The U.S. system is mostly privatized, which means that individuals alone or through their employers must buy their healthcare and health insurance on the open market. The government provides subsidized healthcare for the elderly and some of the poor and disabled.

Prices of many health services have soared in recent years, and today individuals and the government spend $2.3 trillion annually to purchase health insurance, doctor visits, medicines, hospital stays and special tests, according to Families USA, a health advocacy group.

"Our healthcare is in a car that is accelerating toward a cliff," Alan Sager, co-director of the Health Reform Project at Boston University, told IPS.

The United States has a high rate of untreated diabetes and high blood pressure, which fall disproportionately on African Americans, Lui said.

"Unless you're extremely wealthy, it's almost impossible to buy insurance. I'm in my 50s, and it would cost me $6,000 a year, and for a family it costs $12,000," Steffie Woolhandler, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University, told IPS.

The U.S. system today has created strange incentives, so that high-tech care is abundant for those who can pay for it, while preventive care, like annual checkups, is not encouraged, Woolhandler said.

"It is remarkable we spend so much and yet fail to cover so many people," Sager said.

Healthcare companies wield tremendous political power, Lui noted.

For years, health activists, organizations of the elderly and labor unions have tried to convince Congress to allow citizens and the government to negotiate bulk prices for drugs or to purchase them from Canada, rather than paying full price on the open U.S. market.

Congress has not budged on this or other healthcare reform issues.

Behind the scenes, drug companies, hospitals, insurance companies and doctor organizations spent $400 million in 2005 and 2006 lobbying Congress and federal candidates to enact policies the companies favor, according to Opensecrets, an organization that tracks the records.

"Our government, instead of helping people, is being held hostage by these profit-making companies," Lui told IPS.

According to the Centre for Public Integrity, drug companies recently lobbied against strong safety regulations, and successfully lobbied to include patent protection in trade negotiations with other nations.

Drug companies also benefit because they receive favorable tax treatment from the U.S. government, Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, told IPS.

"They get to write off their purchases of equipment. They get a big break for anything considered research," McIntyre said.

All this adds up to big profits for the companies involved. In 2005, the drug companies Proctor and Gamble, Merck, Amgen and Abbot and insurer UnitedHealth Group were among the 50 most profitable Fortune 500 companies in the United States, according to Fortune.

Many large drug companies richly reward their chief executive officers with salaries and bonuses. Johnson and Johnson's CEO received salary and bonuses in 2006 of $28 million, according to Dow Jones. And Merck CEO Richard Clark received $10 million in compensation, according to AFL-CIO Corpwatch.

When former Pfizer CEO Henry McKinnell left the company in 2006, he was given pension, stock and other benefits worth $180 million, according to AFL-CIO Corpwatch.

But CEO William McGuire, of UnitedHealth Group, a health insurance company, stands alone. His annual salary in 2005 was $124 million, and he has been provided stock options worth more than $1.7 billion, according to Forbes.com. As part of his retirement package, he and his spouse will receive free healthcare for as long as they live, according to AFL-CIO Corpwatch.

This is not the case for the average U.S. family, Woolhandler said. If a parent becomes too ill to work, they may lose their salary and be unable to pay their health insurance.

"We found that three-quarters of people bankrupted by illness had insurance at the beginning," Woolhandler said.

People who have an existing illness, like asthma, are charged double the price for insurance or may be refused altogether, said Woolhandler, who founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which wants the United States to switch to a government-run healthcare system, as in Canada.

A number of companies made headlines recently by trying to boost their profits through illegal drug marketing schemes, cheating on their taxes or skimping on safety, according to Peter Rost, former vice president of marketing for Pfizer and author of the book "Whistleblower."

Pfizer was recently fined $430 million for attempting to defraud a government program. Schering Plough paid a $500 million fine for manufacturing violations and $345 million for improper marketing of Claritin, an allergy drug, Rost says.

The U.S. tax authority, the Internal Revenue Service, has demanded that drug company GlaxoSmithKline pay $7.8 billion in back taxes, while Merck may be facing $2 billion in back tax payments.

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

See more stories tagged with: uninsured, healthcare crisis

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! 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:
Greed is not good.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 10, 2007 1:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having been born in 1935, I remember decades of Americans working together for common goals that continued through the Cold War. Then, suddenly, total selfishness became fashionable, as in “Greed is good” from the 1987 hit movie, “Wall Street.”

President Bush has given new meaning to selfishness with lopsided tax breaks for the rich during a war where the only shared sacrifice is being made by the U.S. military and their families, many of them members of the working poor.

With Shrub for a leader, it should come as no surprise that HMOs and other medical enterprises have taken up Gordon Gecco’s 1987 mantra – with gusto.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

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

» RE: Greed is good. Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Greed is good. Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Swedish Liberal? Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Swedish Liberal? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Swedish Liberal? Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Swedish Liberal? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Swedish Liberal? Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Swedish Liberal? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Chavez = Peron Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: Chavez = Peron Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Greed is good. Posted by: DeeOhGee
» RE: Greed is good. Posted by: funknjunk
What's the answer? I read in Fortune of all places an argument for...
Posted by: ateo on Apr 10, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...nationalized health care. The argument went that right now big companies have to subsidize health care for many of their white collar/skilled workers and it costs about 500 billion a year to do so. But if health care were nationalized that burden could be shifted away from corporations and onto the individual tax payer (workers) by way of higher taxes. Suggestions for the higher tax included a carbon tax or some other way to masquerade it as an environmentally friendly tax.

So under that theory the nationalization of health care would benefit the poor (by giving them health care) and the rich (by removing the need to subsidize health care for skilled employees thereby increasing profits for shareholders) while harming the middle class (those who typically receive subsidized health care plans through their employers).

Kind of a bizarre argument and, of course, it assumes that medical prices on the whole would remain at their current levels under a nationalized plan. That assumption is large and mostly baseless. The government would have no choice but to reign in the profiteering medical industry lest it bankrupt the U.S. more so than it already is.

Of course given the source and its audience (mostly middle class people who wish they were wealthy) it may have simply been a propaganda piece to weaken support for nationalized health care among the middle class. Something to think about, either way.

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

"which fall disproportionately on African Americans"...they always gotta work RACE into it somehow
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Apr 10, 2007 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from the article:
The United States has a high rate of untreated diabetes and high blood pressure, which fall disproportionately on African Americans, Lui said.


Divide and Rule, that is the Rule of Power. The rich learned it long long ago. And they also learned that in order to keep the populace divided, they have to distinguish and encourage racial divisions.

And the thought of american ever having true single payer like europeans scares the rich. THat is why they always try to link welfare state ideas and single payer to race and gender and identity politics. The rich know that the white majority (lower middle class) is furious about the decades long demonization of whites as the Ultimate Evil by the FalseLeft Propaganda Front created by the rich via their nonprofit political propaganda divisions.

So now all the Rich have to do to stave off european style healthcare and social reforms is to tie those european reforms to RACE, and make it appear to the lower middle class white majority that european style healthcare is something for the urban racial blocs. Presto! No chance of healthcare reforms!

I am seeing this same tactic being employed by the major newspaper here in Houston. The mayor, Bill White (a damn good guy, former clinton honcho) is all set to build a municipal wireless broadband system here. Of course the business technology oligarchy will lose billions, so they are using the Houston Chronicle newspaper to slyly slip in references that the wireless system will be used to help the poor (they will get a 50 percent discount or such). Of course the REAL BIG effect is the billions that working class Houstonians will save over the decades.

But the oligarchy and the media are building up a base among the white populace that this wireless system is just another "welfare giveaway" paid for by taxes.
Same thing that is being done here in this alternet article. The ideas are being planted--ahead of time for the big universal healthcare "debate" that will come in the coming years when all 3 branches will be democratic-- that single payer is something that will help only urban minorities.

And what is the ultimate foundation that this tactic is built upon? The white-hating identity politics of the false Left. The posters of Alternet and DU and Huffpost etc are the very EPITOME of this white-hating fakeLeft. These robots have been created by more than 2 decades of nonprofit propaganda which all starts from small Identity Politics nonprofits funded by huge nonprofits set up and funded by plutocrats and managed by the upper class. The Ford Foundation is the perfect example. I would bet that Alternet has been funded by the FF. PBS is also funded by these same huge nonprofits.

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

» notice that Holland gets to insult me, but if I insult him, I am banned Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties
» RE: Power corrupts Posted by: ateo
» RE: Power corrupts Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Contributing???? Posted by: CatDad
Let's call a spade a spade.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 10, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Our government, instead of helping people, is being held hostage by these profit-making companies," Lui told IPS.

The government is not "being held hostage". Both parties sold out to the drug companies, both parties sold out to the defense industry, both parties sold out to the insurance industry, both parties sold out to the banking industry, et ceters, et cetera, et cetera.

It's painful to face the fact that we are constantly betrayed by the people who we elect but it's true, and it's public record.
When both parties are controlled by the same corporate establishment our elections are a farce. It's impossible to vote the corporatocracy out of power.

We are in the same boat that our forefathers were in in1775. We are taxed but not represnted. This is the American definition of tyrrany. It's time to revolt.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln INitiative.

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

Single payer health care will work.
Posted by: Uncle Crabby on Apr 10, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It will also be sustainable if we invite the investor class back into the tax fold.

When our corrupt tax system is reformed in such a way that people who work for money reported on a W2 aren't crushed by a ridiculously large portion of the tax bill, we will be able to fund social security and medicaid/medicare for all.

This problem, as well as other dire financial collapses, goes away when there is only one line on the tax return where one reports how much money came in this year.

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

» US is already 2/3 single payer Posted by: eddie torres
U.S. needs single-payer health care plan, not health insurance
Posted by: Moonray on Apr 10, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite the kneejerk objections by the "Swedish liberal" above -- hmmm, at least one of those disenchanted Europeans turns up INSTANTLY to post when this topic is mentioned on this site -- nationalized health care is doable, and can be affordable and efficient. Some countries have good systems and others are still struggling.

Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates for president aren't proposing a single-payer system. They want various versions of the status quo, which relies on insurance companies to pay health care providers. That's a recipe for continued price gouging, patient exploitation and record profits for insurers. The Republicans, of course, are worthless on this issue; they allow people to literally die in the street while CEOs celebrate record profits.

We should demand a single-payer system, perhaps based initially on expanding Medicare to cover everyone. Don't be suckered into "shared-risk strategies" -- i.e., the Massachusetts and California plans. Good health care is a right, and the continued denial of that right is a crime against all Americans.

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

» US is already 2/3 single-payer Posted by: eddie torres
We have not only legalized bribery - We have institutionalized it
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Apr 10, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It should be considered treason for an elected representative to sell out the people in favor of corporate interests - and the penalty for that is established in the constitution. Under the rules created by our corrupt polititions, huge amounts of money are necessary to get elected so they can all claim to be victims of the system they created and maintain.

The day of reckoning is nearer than they think, I think.

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

Check out this excellent HuffPo blog on scare tactics
Posted by: Moonray on Apr 10, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the Huffington Post, RJ Eskow recalls how Ronald Reagan spearheaded a campaign in the '50s to smear Medicare as a communist plot to enslave America. I kid you not . . .

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

» RE: Reagan Posted by: CatDad
It Gets Worse
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 10, 2007 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hospitals have followed other employers in the race to the bottom. At hospitals all over the country- non-profit as well as for-profit- full time positions are being replaced with multiple part-time positions, usually on rotating shifts, to keep wages down with no benefits. I'm not talking about housekeeping, record keeping and food service- I'm talking about College Educated, licensed para-professionals in Respiratory Care, Diagnostic Imaging, Laboratory, Neuro Diagnostics, Physical Therapy, Speech Therapy, etc.

Meanwhile, the 'administrative' layers get larger and the gulf between paper pusher pay and those more educated, licensed to do the work, with direct patient contact continues to divide. The MBA types brought in are doing the same thing to health care that they have done to every other segment of our economy- create a 'ruling' business class of suits while pushing down the wages, working conditions and benefits of those actually caring for the sick and injured. Welcome to the BushWorld NeoCon nightmare.

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

» RE: It Gets Worse Posted by: Swedish liberal
» RE: It Gets Worse Posted by: eddie torres
Sucker economics
Posted by: eddie torres on Apr 10, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Appel: The US system is mostly privatized, which means that individuals alone or through their employers must buy their healthcare and health insurance on the open market. The government provides subsidized healthcare for the elderly and some of the poor and disabled.

The US government actually underwrites 60% of the US healthcare industry. Half of that 60% is direct funding of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration; the other half is tax deductions by corporations for employee healthcare benefits that would otherwise be paid into the US Treasury. Economists call them "tax expenditures".

However, there is no "cost certainty" in this arrangement. Because cost increases by healthcare providers are passed along to insurers, and are then passed along as premium increases to business, which are then passed along to taxpayers through increased deductions.

And if you have nobody to negotiate on your behalf? See ya, sucker!

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

theexog
Posted by: theexog on Apr 10, 2007 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until the good people of the USA come to the realization that healthcare should NOT be a for-profit enterprise, and get the insurance companies out of the loop, things in this country are only going to get a lot worse. As a Canadian living here I am appalled at the lack of compassion exhibited by the "ruling" classes. As middle class people with what is considered good quality health insurance we are still out of pocket by ever increasing sums each year, and each year our share of the premiums increases, this last time by 72%. Since the government has been purchased by the healthcare providers and the pharmaceutical industry, the only ones making money are the investors, and they, under this administration, pay a proportionately miniscule share of taxes. America needs universal health care like Canada, which contrary to the view promulgated by the "industry" actually does provide a high level of care for all Canadians. Don't believe the horror stories. You'all would be surprised how many people of Canadian birth living in the United States actually go back to Canada to get care - and they don't have to declare bankruptcy to do so.

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

Bush's New Tax Subsidies Proposal will only Worsen the Current Situation.
Posted by: yellow on Apr 10, 2007 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's ignorant proposal to tax employer contributions to employee insurance premiums as income is based on the even dumber assumption that the real cause of medical care costs running so far ahead of the rate of inflation is the "overuse" of the system by so many of the insured who have low deductable "gold plated insurence." This is both insulting and ludicrous. The total average annual cost of family health coverage premiums is about $13,500 about a full third higher than it was two years ago. The deductable for such insurance could be written off one's federal income taxes up to $15,000 under the proposed Bush Plan. The higher the deductable the bigger the write off. This will not allow poorer families to purchase high cost health insurance (because they already pay very low federal taxes) nor will it lower health care costs but only shift more income from the working and middle class families already over burdened to the multi-billion dollar corporate health care providers and insureres who already currently waste billions in redundant overhead costs, administration costs, advertizing, and very high CEO salaries. Many families need the high deductables because they have kids who need frequent routine care.

Bush's proposal is the dumbest most offensive excuse for a plan ever made. There is NO Democrat who hasn't come up with a better plan. The current, totally market based system is rife with underuse not overuse. This is a real problem because catching health problems in time makes them easier, cheaper, and less painful to fix with a far higher probability of success. Taxing the insurence premiums of the poor while allowing deductions for high deductables is discriminatory and redistributive in favor of the corporate rich with no effect on the total level of uninsured in America. Even Bush himself says that his proposal will add no more than 3-5 million more to the insurance rolls, a paltry 12% at best and even this is highly doubtful. Meanwhile many more will be harmed with higher outlays especially as health care costs continue to rise. The only solution is universal, single payer coverage now. We won't get this from Bush or any other Republican Administration.

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

Why Won't You People Just Die Already??!!
Posted by: MAD on Apr 10, 2007 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Attention useless Americans of poor constitution and lowly character: please die - and die soon!!

Don't let those dung-laden after school specials fool you. NO ONE really cares that you're alive and we'd certainly prefer that you die, and please - DO NOT procreate before doing so! Egads!! We're already taxing our magnificently creative brains trying to dispose of the extant masses of trash - we don't need any more St. Ides swilling rejects to erase. You've clearly brought these so-called medical problems on yourself, what with your sedentarism, poor diet and lack of exercise. And you've got some nerve implying that our corporate-governed nation may in any way, shape or fashion be responsible for your *sniff sniff* neurological problems and junior's sloping forehead! Hummppph!

Please stop inhaling my oxygen, consuming my food and otherwise consuming resources that are simply too valuable to be wasted on you commoners. The wealthy clearly deserve superior health care because they're simply better than you. It's always been that way really.

I don't know where your plebian logic takes you, but better medical care for better people sounds pretty fair to me. The fact of the matter is, we have been blessed with more moral fiber and intelligence and therefore deserve the best treatment available. The cream always rises to the top and all that . . . . The sooner you keel over and die, the sooner the rest of us can get on with dividing up the paltry wealth your meagre existence has amassed. There is a reason 46 million of you don't have insurance . . . we want you to die!

Yours Truly,

America's top 5%
Smithkline Beecham
Pfizer
Merck
Johnson & Johnson
Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Cigna
Bill & Hillary Clinton
Beezlebub - Prince of Darkness

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

» ? Posted by: Jeanne
One more recitation of the same old news about healthcare.
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 10, 2007 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I hear that states in New England and elsewhere in the US are experimenting with single payer health care. I hear that Hawaii has now for a long time had subsidized health care for all, or something like that. I don't know because journalists would rather wallow in the drama of private health care's history.

Of course we don't have good health care. Doctors and hospitals are right below investors, insurance companies, and real estate providers of political contributions. They do that to keep anything from changing. And they've been successful at it.

And nothing will change by repeating the same old, same old news about how we are ripped off by big pharma and doctors/hospitals.

Now, finding out what is just beginning to happen would take some investigation. Reporting the same old news only requires reading what others have already written about it. Lazy journalism sucks.

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

Race & Healthcare
Posted by: DP26 on Apr 10, 2007 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't been following the apparent battle & bad blood between some of the commenters here (& have no interest in getting involved) but say, for the sake of argument that Guy # 1 has a good point, & that would be that the national healthcare debate is getting skewed in advance by attempts to make it a big race issue (if not race, class; anything divisive by which the rich & corporate profit-takers protect the status quo). The fact is, the non-wealthy aren't now benefitting from the current sytem, which doesn't cover enough preventative care. The reasons may be age, infirmity, low income, lack of good insurance, which can happen to anyone in America regardless of race. It's intuitive that non-whites & the ELDERLY--that is, anyone who has more limited financial resources than the mean, will suffer disproportionately. It's about the cost, not about race per se. Now can we get back to a more productive discussion?

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

Crazy system
Posted by: Jeanne on Apr 10, 2007 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's an anecdotal story. An elderly woman who is on Medicare and on some prescription plan for drug coverage, along with supplemental Medicaid assistance to pick up the co-pay and/or where the insurance do-nuts out, finds herself in hospice care as the cancer she has had for two years begins the final onslaught which will end her life. Hospice services begin, and prescription drug payment hell begins. The two-layer coverage of Medicare/private insurance and Medicaid become intertwined with Hospice coverage. Obtaining refills, etc. suddenly becomes a complex orchestration between all parties (to see who doesn't have to pay!). Some medications can be got the old routine way from the pharmacy she's been using all along. However, others must be obtained from the Hospice supporting pharmacy. Everything, apparently, requires new forms to be completed and it appears that Medicaid is now off the hook as far as reimbursements are concerned. Without a health care advocate, I can't imagine how a weak, frail, nearly bed-ridden individual can navigate this new territory, especially if paying for the drugs in part or in full were a critical problem. Our "wonderful" system is baffling and daunting when one is young, vibrant, and basically healthy. With the challenges of age, terminal illness, and isolation, I imagine a lot of the elderly might die prematurely or suffer unnecessarily. Witnessing this from the vantage point of middle age is frightening. Everyone should be covered, automatically, period. Let the wealthy buy more insurance for the spa-experience in medical care. The basics should be available seamlessly for everyone.

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

  • 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