The right path to obtaining universal health care is a constitutional amendment making it a right for all Americans.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say they believe in giving Americans universal health care. I don’t believe them. Anyone who takes the time to understand universal health care should conclude that only a simple single payer system will reform the current outrageous system that benefits the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.…
Article comments
26 - Clavos
Excellent points all, Baronius, and an entire additional dimension to the horror I was trying to depict...
27 - Biros
Universal Armaments Production.
Oh right, been there got that.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison, 1795
28 - Robert Recht
Much of the comments of gov't innefficiency and over charging is correct in the Medicare system. BUT as a medicare senior w/ serious health problems I had the best of care and I guarantee better than the private system I came from before I was on Medicare. Total cost is less/patient for Medicare than the private system of healthcare and this is for the "sickest" members of the population. Medicare has room for improvement and this can be done w/more activism on our part instead of constant complaining about it. It still is head and shoulders above the rotten private system we have w/ exclusions, denials of care, cancellations and raising of rates astronomically etc etc. AND because it is non-profit, it does, in spite of its drawbacks, operate at far less cost than our for-profit system foisted on you people who are not on Medicare. HR 676, Rep John Conyers, MIch promises to bring about a better Medicare to all of us--check it out!
29 - Clavos
Robert Recht sez:
Total cost is less/patient for Medicare than the private system of healthcare and this is for the "sickest" members of the population.
This is not true. The government pays just as much, and in some cases more, for medical services than private insurers do.
This is especially egregious when one considers that the government, as single payer for an enormous cohort of patients, actually is in a strong bargaining position with medical suppliers; but because Medicare is administered by government employees who are not held accountable and who are not subject to oversight or review, the government loses its inherent advantage as these functionaries invariably take the easy way out and merely settle for what the private insurers are accepting for payment.
Robert also mentions "denial of care," implying that it won't happen under a government-run single payer system. Yesterday I had to drive over to the rehab center to which my wife will be transferring from the medical hospital some time next week, to drop off a check for $1,000.00, in payment for the first week of her stay, because Medicare says her rehab benefits have "run out" for this benefit period. If she stays another two weeks (highly likely), each additional week will cost me another $1K.
Universal health care is coming. Before it does, we all need to start harassing those clowns in Washington who supposedly represent us and FORCE them to investigate systems such as Australia's, which appear to actually work, because Medicare is a very poor imitation of a medical plan.
30 - Alesssandro
#24- I'm too busy drinking blood and designing plans to hurt my fellow man to pile it on just now. Maybe later.
31 - Mooja
Joel, imagine a nation of two people; you and me. In this nation we have a right to free speech and right to universal health care. In order to allow your right to free speech I simply do nothing and allow you to proceed. In order to allow your right to universal health care I must be FORCED to provide it to you. Do you see this important difference between a right to free speech and a right to universal health care? One right does not limit the freedom of another, the other right does.
Your suggestion, though well meaning, flies in the face of the principals on which this nation is built.
32 - Clavos
Nice point, Mooja.
33 - Baronius
Exactly, Mooja. Earlier in the thread, people were listing all the free "cares" that they wanted guaranteed. I couldn't help but think about something most every guy would want guaranteed access to. But if we guys tried to pass that amendment, the women of the country would be right to protest it. Something can't be a universal right if it costs someone else.
34 - Dr Dreadful
Don't mind Joel. His basic aim is to tear down the Constitution and rebuild it in his own image. He's not doing his own argument any favors.
But consider this: the government forces you to pay taxes. You pay them, even though doing so limits your freedom, because you expect to receive certain services in return - governance, national defense, infrastructure and other things.
It can be argued that mandated health care actually enhances your natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A man who has to forego a heart bypass operation because he can't afford the health insurance to pay for it certainly finds his First Amendment rights severely curtailed.
And of course, as STM is so fond of reminding us, there's always that pesky Ninth Amendment...
Rights are always going to be in conflict with each other at some point. By Baronius's definition above, it's hard to think of any rights that would be universal - except perhaps speech, and even then words can easily be used to impinge upon others.
35 - Baronius
True, Dread. There aren't many things that can be called universal or human rights. Speech, religion, a few others.
36 - Dr Dreadful
I'll expand on my above points a bit. I think Joel's right in that health care should be a right, but he's mistaken in believing that it currently isn't. It falls, in my opinion, under your so-called universal rights - to Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness and indiscriminate initial Capitalization of Nouns. The failing at the moment is that they are not, in that sense, being guaranteed.
I understand the concerns of some commenters, especially those on the right wing. The state helps to guarantee your rights by levying taxes to pay for national defense and for the three branches of government. This squeezes your freedom to a degree, but most people would agree that the benefits outweigh the infringement.
And this is the crux of the debate. Over the course of 200-plus years, the government has proven itself to be pretty darn good at defense. But I grant you that its performance in other areas doesn't inspire great confidence in its ability to guarantee the health aspects of your rights.
37 - Marlowe
Joel... Don't let these guys get to you - they'd argue against the stay of their own impending execution. Most of them belong to the realm of the Big-Little Republican: angry, frightened, slightly overweight White men who have their car radios tuned to either Rush Limbaugh or Easy Listening...
There isn't a need to insert another amendment into the Bill of Rights concerning health care. It is right there in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
You're right of course. With a four lobbyist for every congressman inside the Belt Way there is no way to break the logjam they've thrown up.
This is one reason you're seeing more states going at affordable/universal health care on their own. Likely too the only way to have the RIGHT of adequate health care recognized is VIA the state-by-state route.
And actually, there are OTHER ways to amend the Constitution besides Article Five...
P. Marlowe
38 - Maurice
I am always sensitive to stereotyping and profiling. This Marlowe dude is extreme!
Put the broad brush aside, man!
There are some very sensible remarks here (Staci #25 is one...) made by people that don't fit your predjudiced description.
39 - Zedd
Folks,
Universal HC is a standard around the world. What is the debate about? Are you all alright? Its like insisting on using horse and buggy and debating on whether man can fly. Uhmmmm Its done every day. Is it me???
Are you saying it cant happen on principle? Or you don't want to feel socialistic even though it would work or you don't want to put saddle makers, blacksmiths and buggy lots out of business? What is the real problem? It's odd. I'm guessing its like the switching to the metric system. We don't wanna cause....... well, we just don't wanna.
40 - Maurice
Zedd,
read Clavos #29
41 - bliffle
UHC is cheaper than this system we have now. We pay extra to prop up this ramshackle system.
So, why not just abandon it and embrace UHC?
42 - Dave Nalle
You do not have a right to healthcare, you have a right to equal access to healthcare.
To say that you have a right to healthcare is to say that you have the right to compel others to provide goods and services to you at no cost. It is to say that you have the right to make doctors and nurses slaves of the state. It is to say that you have the right to use the force of government to take money out of the pocket of your neighbor to provide for your needs. To demand a right to healthcare is to demand tyrrany.
What you actually have is the opportunity to be responsible for your own healthcare and to demand that it be provided in a fair and equitable way. You have the right to have the government protect your access to healthcare as part of the 'general welfare' guaranteed in the constitution. That does not mean compelling others to pay for or to provide your care free of charge. It means assuring that health care and insurance are regulated and provided at a fair price and without unreasonable restrictions or conditions.
Dave
43 - Clavos
UHC is cheaper than this system we have now
Since we've never had UHC in this country, that is an unwarranted, baseless assumption.
The closest thing we have to UHC at present is Medicare. I am very familiar with Medicare and the prices it pays for goods and services. It consistently and regularly overpays for nearly everything.
We MIGHT be able to provide UHC more cheaply, as long as we don't let the government do anything but pay the bills, without ANY administrative responsibility, and especially, without regulatory authority.
For the reasons why, see my #29, above.
44 - Joel S. Hirschhorn
As usual Nalle and Clavos demonstrate their complete bias and/or ignorance. UHC is all about providing affordable insurance available to everyone (despite prior medical conditions) and that emphasizes preventive care and includes mental health care and drugs.
It is ALL about ensuring access to medical care, leaving the choice of medical care to the individual. Right now access is denied because health insurance is either too expensive or just not available at all because of a person's medical history. Then too, increasingly even health insurance that is available imposes such huge costs for copays etc that it prevents use because the costs are just too high for millions of people. Employers increasingly are either not offering subsidized health insurance or offering only limited/costly insurance of little use.
As to Medicare, here too there is nothing but disinformation coming from the usual right wing loonies on this site; in fact, Medicare is more financially efficient than the entire private health insurance industry; while there is always some fraud waste and abuse (including in the private insurance market), the fact is that the administrative costs in Medicare are profoundly lower than the private health insurance industry, because PROFIT levels are so extremely high in the private health industry sector. STOP confusing insurance to get access versus health delivery that without insurance is simply too costly for all but the wealthy.
45 - Clavos
the fact is that the administrative costs in Medicare are profoundly lower than the private health insurance industry...
As I have mentioned repeatedly in the past, this is true, as far as it goes. However, "administrative costs" are a drop in the bucket compared to what Medicare pays overall for the services and goods it pays on behalf of its clients, and I have 2 1/2 years worth of EOBs to prove it.
As I've also said repeatedly: I'm not opposed to providing health care for all Americans; I'm not even opposed to paying for it with my taxes.
Just don't let the corrupt, crooked inept American government handle anything but paying for it. And watch them carefully. Can you say $600 hammers?
46 - bliffle
Speaking as one who spent several years in the Medical Fraud Detection business, I can attest that ALL medical systems suffer from extensive fraud. Both providers and recipients commit fraud. If someone breaks an arm it may get reported six times for payment, by either the recipient or the provider.
Fraud is so extensive and common that we could send a salesman to give a seminar on Fraud Detection to prospects and he would find actual live frauds in the prospects database.
That is true of both government systems and private systems.
The difference between government and private systems is that Federal Medicare (and medicaid) law REQUIRES that the State systems employ a certified fraud software system in order to participate, which means that every state hires a certified system.
No such fraud detection software is required for private systems. In fact, private systems (perversely) have a vested interest in leaving fraud undetected because their profits are basically derived from a surcharge on expenditures. There is no competition because Federal regulation is prohibited by a 1945 law. It's a racket.
As a result, while Medicare overhead runs about 3% private insurance runs about 40%.
47 - Dave Nalle
As usual Nalle and Clavos demonstrate their complete bias and/or ignorance. UHC is all about providing affordable insurance available to everyone (despite prior medical conditions) and that emphasizes preventive care and includes mental health care and drugs.
It is ALL about ensuring access to medical care, leaving the choice of medical care to the individual.
As usual, Joel sets up straw men to argue with because he can't address the actual issues we've raised. If his description of universal healthcare were true, accurate and representative of ANY of the proposed plans, then there would be no argument here. But the truth is that the plans which are being proposed are not about providing choice and affordable care. They are about mandating care and replacing the free market with government micromanagement. All we're asking for is a better way than putting it all in the hands of government bureaucrats.
Dave
48 - Clavos
It's not just the fraud, bliffle, it's the stupidity and indifference of the government employees who staff Medicare, as well.
I have a number of EOBs I could show you in which we are billed $2 or $3K by CMS, the Medicare billing division. In each case, my wife, who is a REAL insurance expert, has taken them, and after a few days of calling Medicare, usually escalating up to senior management before she finds someone who knows as much about medical billing as she does, brings them back to me with instructions to pay $80 or $100 on a bill originally submitted for $2,500.
I can well imagine how much overcharging goes on in the households where the family doesn't know enough to object cogently.
By contrast, similar mistakes from our private carrier (for me; I'm not Medicare eligible) are much rarer.
But then, employees in the private sector are held accountable for their work.
49 - Maurice
Clavos, my friend you make very good points.
Well written.
No doubt all us want good, affordable health care and certainly you and I have worked the system. I keep thinking about Staci's comment #25. I have to agree. It is weird that insurance is connected to the employer. Why couldn't there be a group insurance plan that is not associated with the employer?
50 - Zedd
Dave,
I am frightened by your legalistic description of what humanity owes one another. We would not have made it as a species had everyone been as selfish and legalistic as yourself.
In your romantic libertarian society of the past, it was an unspoken rule to come to the aid of the ill. Not doing so would not have been looked upon as a choice to be made, one would be shunned and thought to be lacking in the qualities that distinguishes us from other species. Now that we have evolved and have become more "civilized" we organize ourselves through more elaborate systems. The unspoken expectations of old are spelled out through policy and regulations. Perhaps you should embrace the evolutionary process of mankind and adjust.
51 - Clavos
Maurice #49,
Thanks!
You're right; we must insist that any proposed new plans must include portability.
52 - bliffle
"But then, employees in the private sector are held accountable for their work."
They are held accountable for costs and revenues but not health delivery. The cost accountability is what has led to a lot of abuses, especially about 'pre-existing' conditions and elective surgery , etc. Revenue accountability has the perverse effect of motivating them to inflate your bills.
If the private insurance business were truly competitive then 'clients' would be able to hold the companies accountable, but it is not. The McCarran-Ferguson act of 1945 specifically exempts them from federal regulation, leaving only the ultra-weak state regulators. As a consequence they have formed an oligopoly wherein they share markets by mutual consent. The client is closed out of the decision system.
What we have is an administered economy, not a Free Market economy. And it's administered by the companies themselves. For their own benefit, not the clients.
Employer provided healthcare became common after WW2 when employers sought to add non-wage benefits to employment offers in order to use non-monetary compensation to build loyalty at low cost through insurance. Large companies had the management and fiscal skills and market clout to keep the insurance companies honest. When the insCos tried to screw the corps with unreasonable premiums the corps retaliated by 'self-insuring', whereby the corp would endow the pool funds themselves and just hire out the paperwork at low rates to the insCos. That worked good because the corp generally looked out for their employees.
But that excluded non-corp people like the self-employed and unemployed or retired, who found themselves confronted by ultra-high premiums and exclusions.
Now, in these modern times, the corps don't care about their employees or their loyalty, in fact may be antagonistic to their own employees, so even corp employees are thrown into the pool of lonely disorganized individuals easily exploited by Big Bully insurance cos.
The only organization remaining to represent the interests of individuals is the government, and that's why UHC is in our futures.
53 - Clavos
The only organization remaining to represent the interests of individuals is the government...
And it doesn't (thank goodness!!).
You certainly paint a grim picture, bliffle.
You think health care is bad now...
54 - bliffle
Clavos insists on ignoring the information available at the end of his nose. UHC exists in most of the other industrialized nations and is always less expensive and easier to use than the ramshackle USA system.
Habitually ignoring evidence is what leads people to be called ignorant.
55 - Fraud hunter
Regarding Bliffle in the Federal Fraud hunting busienss. The current systems employed by Mewdicare and Medicaid amount to counting the number of horses rounded up afer the barn door is unlocked. This is the only business in the world where the customer (us) pays bills without any verification that any service was acutally delivered. At least in the private sector you get an explanation of benefits and have an increasing portion you are responsible for. In medicare and Medicaid, providers can bill to their hearts content and nobody gets a notice saying "this doctor billed on your behalf" . Furthermore, there is no way to adequately report fraud.
Instead of playin cops & robbers, they should use existing technology to precent fraud. It can be done.
56 - Clavos
UHC exists in most of the other industrialized nations and is always less expensive and easier to use than the ramshackle USA system.
You obviously haven't read any of the horror stories emanating from countries with UHC, bliffle.
In those countries where it works, they don't have the US government operating it for them; if they did, it wouldn't be working. As I've said a multitude of times before, I have direct, hands on multi year experience with US government health insurance.
It's a nightmare, with deficiencies in every area the consumer is forced to deal with.
Your endorsement of government interfering yet more in people's lives, while not ignorant (except for your faith in the integrity and efficiency of the US government), does seem to be one of advocacy beyond the well being of the people. Are you a government employee, active or retired?
57 - bliffle
Not at all. Medical care that I and my relatives and in-laws have experienced in Europe is easily available, good quality, and inexpensive.
And no one in Europe wants the US system.
58 - Clavos
And no one in Europe wants the US system.
Understandably. What's not understandable is your desire to turn the management of the health care of the people here over to the worst possible entity in the country.
Let the Feds (i.e. US) pay for it, but hell give it to Mrs. Smith's third graders to run rather than letting our government of bumblers and slackers do it.
The kids will certainly do it better.
59 - Zedd
Clav,
Come on. The entire world is aboard and they are all fine. What are you arguing? Who says that UHC would be administrated in the same way that you've experienced state medicine? Who said that? That seems to be the premise by which your argument arises from. But I have heard NO ONE say that the administration of UHC would be the same as what exists or has existed. So what are you all in a tizzy about? Okay, we get it, you were annoyed by the processes that you had to under go. But what does that have to do with the ridiculous system which leaves millions of Americans in a bind, especially as the population ages?
OMG I just realizes something. You've been discussing substantive issues for three days. Are you alright? Now we have to work on you being right :o)
60 - Cannonshop
A couple of observations- we have TWO examples of "Universal Healthcare" to look at in operation in the U.S.
1. Medicare.
2. VA (Veteran's Administration) or Military health-care.
Neither has a good record for providing good quality of care. Both are notorious for financial mismanagement, poor patient care (Walter Reed anyone?), frequent mistakes (Overbilling, fraudulent payment, "Losing" money and resources, not to mention poor response to consumer issues!)
Now,there are lots of countries that don't have these problems (or, at least, don't admit to having those problems.)
those countries don't have guys like Karl Rove or George Soros influencing who holds office, nor do they have the kind of corruption the U.S. Federal Government suffers from and has suffered from since the Grant Administration.
y'see, here in the U.S. the people who make a life of Civil Service usually do so, because they lack the ability to make a life OUTSIDE of civil Service. It isn't like much of Europe, where Merit actually matters and kids WANT to go into government, study to go in, and it has a respectability. HERE, everyone knows what a "Civil Servant" really is-he's isolated from economic down-turns and can't be fired, is never held accountable for mistakes, and is usually someone incapable of earning a living outside of a Federal office.
"Rule by the Worst" or Kakocracy.
61 - bliffle
All are arguable points, cannon, but I have more interesting things to do at this moment.