The Senate Finance committee headed by Senators Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley are going to decide which model of health care will be adopted by this country; they would not have been my first choice to oversee this crucial and necessary need. The fact that it is a finance committee, and not the health care industry, that will decide the type of national health care that will be adopted by the United States sends up a huge red flag in my mind. I believe that Senator Baucus has an agenda to keep America saddled with the status quo, and is resistant to any true reform of our failing health care system. The following is an explanation of HR676 and what I believe is really motivating Senator Baucus.
In my opinion, the best health care plan for this country would be HR676, a single-payer system that would save billions in administrative and third party costs, allowing the bulk of the money appropriated in it to be spent on providing health care goods and services to all American citizens.
The Physicians For a National Health Plan website offers a General Resolution in support of the US National Health Insurance Act, HR676 which notes:
* Everyone deserves access to affordable quality health care.Support for HR676 calls upon federal legislators to work towards its enactment within the current congress.
* The number of Americans without HC exceeds 47 million.
* Millions of people with health care insurance have coverage so skimpy that a major illness or accident would lead to financial ruin. Medical bills contribute to one-half of all bankruptcies.
* Proposals for “consumer directed health care” would worsen this situation by penalizing the sick, discouraging prevention and saddling many working families with huge medical bills.
* Managed care and other market-based reforms have failed to contain health care costs, which now threaten the international competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.
* Administrative waste stemming from our reliance on private insurers consumes one-third of health spending.
* U.S. hospitals spend 24.3% of their budgets on billing and administration while hospitals under Canada’s single-payer system spend only 12.9%.
* American physicians are inundated with bureaucratic tasks and costs that Canadian physicians avoid.
* Harvard researchers estimated that more than $300 billion could be recovered by replacing private insurance companies with a single-public-payer, enough to cover the uninsured and improve coverage for all those who now have only partial coverage.
* “Consumer directed health care” adds yet another expensive layer of bureaucrats-the financial firms that manage health savings accounts.
* Entrusting care to profit-oriented firms diverts billions of dollars to outrageous incomes for CEOs and threatens the quality of health care.
* The US National Health Insurance act would assure universal coverage of all medically necessary services, contain costs by slashing bureaucracy, protect doctor patient relationship, assure patients a completely free choice of doctors and allow doctors a free choice of practice settings.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Jeannie,
After reading your article, I realized that what is going on now is a repeat of what happened in the Clinton administration when Hillary (the bitch) was given charge of "coordinating" a health plan for her husband.
The single payer plan was then the work of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone and was shut out of consideration then as well in a different setting..
The Blessed of Hussein is screwing you all over by not ordering the fucks on the Senate Finance Committee to at least hear out the single-payer concept.
Putting the screws to the Jews - putting the screw to yous. It's all the same in this administration.... For the Blessed of Hussein, it's screwing people over that matters - nothing else.
2 - Bliffle
I'm afraid that this article is accurate.
With the proceedings in the FINANCE committee it is clear that the Healthcare 'industry'only has financial importance.
With the forceful exclusion of advocates for Single-payer it is clear that brutal police-state methods are justified to suppress opposing views.
There seems to be no limit to the extent to which the insurance companies will go. As we see, they control the political discussion and can call out the police, at will, to suppress the uncomfortable truth.
Now we have the specter of MANDATED HEALTH INSURANCE being proposed. Every USA citizen would be obligated from birth to purchase health insurance. In other words, every person would be born into Involuntary Indentured Servitude. There is another word for this: SLAVERY.
So the lust for easy profits will have brought the USA full circle to the kind of oppression that The Founders fought against.
As a minor point, is it 'genocide' that we allow thousands of US Citizens to die every year for lack of medical attention? Have these people simply become of no use to our Glorious System when they can no longer contribute wealth to the treasuries of the Insurance Companies?
We already spend 18% of our GDP on healthcare, the highest in the world, and now I read a report that says that will rise to 34% by 2040.
Are we mad? Are we insane?
3 - Dan(Miller)
Bliffle, Are we mad? Are we insane? Clearly the answer is "yes;" if we weren't crazy, we would all go insane.
The good news, I suppose, is that President Obama has decreed that his health care program be enacted before much else gets done. For a while, at least, the Republic may be safe.
Dan(Miller)
4 - Clavos
For a while, at least, the Republic may be safe.
Quick! Somebody start a filibuster!
5 - Jeannie Danna
I feel a liberal article coming on...:)
(So the lust for easy profits will have brought the USA full circle to the kind of oppression that The Founders fought against.)
6 - Clavos
Customer overheard in PRC dry cleaners:
Oh, press my pants!
I'm here all -- never mind...
7 - Doug Hunter
"In other words, every person would be born into Involuntary Indentured Servitude. There is another word for this: SLAVERY."
I hope one day your eyes will be opened to the fact that it's the government, not business, who is enslaving you. Business has never made me buy anything or forced me to pay anything or told me what I could do with what I did purchase or told me how I should or should not live my life. Government has done all these many times over.
8 - Doug Hunter
Nevermind my previous post, you have no interest in ending slavery but expanding it. Socialism, whether you think the ends justify the means or not, is slavery. It's the enslavement of the workers and thinkers in order to subsidize those that do neither.
9 - Bliffle
You're a fool, Doug. I'm not in favor of socialism, neither the communist kind or the kind being foisted on us by fake republicans with unnecessary wars 10,000 miles away, or monopolies so powerful that they can propose these mandates.
10 - Cindy
Jeannie,
Did you know you can put videos in your article?
Here is the video of the protest at the Senate Finance Committee meeting.
What does the government say when you want your voice heard? We need more police.
"No Government is Good Government."
11 - Doug Hunter
If you're going to go around shouting words like slavery and genocide be prepared to defend them. A question for you: If once we ration based on availability instead of income our survival rates for cancer and heart attacks drop to that of other systems like those in Europe and Canada (20% higher mortality for common cancers) will the deaths of those people constitute genocide? When we necessarily cut our medical research budget to secure every available dollar for handing out care will the thousands of medical innovations that aren't realized factor into the equation?
I looked up the stats for another comment:
Medical Nobel Prizes (10 year period)
US born 12
Foreign working in US 3
All others 7
Medical Research Expenditures
US (all sources) 98 B
US government 35 B
EU Govts (combined) 8 B
The rest of the world lets the US shoulder the lion's share of R&D so they can then just copy or spend their money on universal health care.
That research and that innovation and all the lives it saves every year is what we risk losing by wholesale change in our system. That's the 'silent' genocide we risk by changing a system that has served the entire world well.
12 - Jordan Richardson
When we necessarily cut our medical research budget to secure every available dollar for handing out care will the thousands of medical innovations that aren't realized factor into the equation?
You were challenged on this assertion the last time you brought it up and you didn't respond. I guess I have to do it again.
The system America has now is far, far more expensive than any proposed universal health care system run by any other country with UHC on earth. That means you save money with health care, Doug. That means you have more "available dollars" to spend on R&D and you continue to lead the world in that area.
By having a cheaper, more efficient system, how do you figure you lose any money from medical innovations? There's no such thing as "necessarily" cutting your medical research budget, that's a total fabrication brought up on your behalf.
Look, I get that people like you fear change no matter what it looks like. But change isn't always bad and it doesn't always involve the results you think it does. Had you done more complete research, you'd discover that there are countless possible angles for UHC plans that cost less and run more efficiently.
With a system that uses information technology to handle records and streamline the system details alongside basic health care for all, you're going to save money. There will be less money tied up in all the red tape of figuring out insurance (most of America's health-care spending is administrative, btw) and less fiddling around with various companies to figure out which one is compatible.
One more thing:
If once we ration based on availability instead of income our survival rates for cancer and heart attacks drop to that of other systems like those in Europe and Canada (20% higher mortality for common cancers) will the deaths of those people constitute genocide?
Canada does have a higher life expectancy by over two years, while America has a higher infant mortality rate. Canada also shows lower rates of cancer overall because we have more access to preventative care and tend to catch cases of cancer earlier.
But that's possibly related to the fact that America just has higher rates of obesity and diseases to begin with, again partially due to a lack of access to care and health programs.
By the way, you can pretty much find studies on both sides of the border that will suggest our differences in health are insignificant. Health Canada and the Canadian Cancer Society recently revealed that our cancer mortality rates are about the same. So really, the deeper you get into statistical comparison the more you find that there are, in fact, less differences than originally thought.
13 - Dave Nalle
I agree the bliffle that a state mandated system of forced insurance is a terrible solution to this problem. But at the same time, Jeannie's single payer system is unacceptable to the American people who want some semblance of choice and control over their health care.
In a nutshell this is why we haven't had a national healthcare system up to this point, and I don't see the problem going away.
Despite Jeannie's long list there are really only two issues here.
1. The number of uninsured.
2. The high cost of services and thus insurance.
We need a more modest and pragmatic approach which addresses these two specific problems without degrading the quality of healthcare which, as Doug points out, is far higher than in most nations with socialized medicine.
My proposal for problem 1 would be a system of gap insurance which would extend medicaid coverage to those who are not insured but could theoretically afford insurance, recouping some of the cost of their care from their earnings after the fact.
For the second problem we need close oversight and regulation from outside of the medical establishment and the government medical bureaucracy. I envision something like citizen review boards, though I wish I could think of a free market solution.
Dave
14 - Dave Nalle
Jordan, I previously pointed out to you the extensive statistics from Canadian government studies showing how dramatically worse wait times are in Canada, which is a matter of life and death in many cases. Also provided data on the hundreds of cases brought to the US from Canada because they cannot be teated effectively there. But still you persist in claiming the systems are at all comparable?
Dave
15 - Jeannie Danna
What Jordan said-(Look, I get that people like you fear change no matter what it looks like. But change isn't always bad and it doesn't always involve the results you think it does. Had you done more complete research, you'd discover that there are countless possible angles for UHC plans that cost less and run more efficiently.)
Doug #7
(Business has never made me buy anything or forced me to pay anything or told me what I could do with what I did purchase or told
me how I should or should not live my life.)
Your wrong here because we have allowed corporate America to dictate our values to us for way too long. I don't need a whole lot of money, a big fancy car and the latest potion or lotion to make me feel alive. You know what pisses me off the most? Corporate America took all the bling from the 70's, my generation, and sold it to my kids! but they left all the good stuff behind like the peace, the love, the sharing and all the things that made us so good. Ask most people what they remember about the 70's and you will hear "the drugs." It was the demonization of an entire generation because they couldn't make any MONEY from the ideals of it! The 70's if we had allowed it could have brought us to a whole new level. Well maybe I'm wrong..:(
Cindy, There is a video in my article. Did you click on Baucus 13? This is when Dr. Flowers was on The Ed Show :)
Ruvy, Mellow out and stop referring to President Obama as "whatever it is your calling him" I pictured you as a nice man with a sweet wife named Adena and now I'm not so sure.
Dave, Stop with the statistics and go with your family on vacation to Canada. Once there you can interview real live Canadians and see that Jordan is not lying to you.
Biffle, Thanks for not beating me up too bad. I am not a socialist....yet
Clavos, Thanks for editing my piece here. I am trying to write correctly right now but without grammar check it's hard for me to see my mistakes. Next article should be about dyslexia...:)
Well one more thing folks as we fight and argue over HR676. Please call your Senators and Representatives today and tell them to pass it!...:)
16 - Arch Conservative
I know that articles can be designated as "opinion" or "satire" but this one should have been filed under propaganda.
17 - roger nowosielski
But Archie. I think she believes in what she's saying no less so than you believe in whatever it is that you post. I don't think any of us ever questioned your sincerity. So unless you have evidence that Jeannie is getting paid for this article, it is her opinion - though you strongly disagree.
18 - Arch Conservative
Yes but what she's saying is absolute horseshit Roger.
First of all...that 47 million uninsured number is thrown out quite a bit but what it doesn't take into account is that a chunk of those are actually young people who choose not to have health insurance even though they could because they're in good health and don't feel it's worth it. Also thrown into that 47 million is roughly 12 million who are here illegally and should not be receiving any type of welfare that's subsidized by legal citizens.
Second...medicare and medicaid are already run by the government and they're not doing so great. Any type of government management of the payment or delivery of healthcare will necessarily increase taxes while reducing the quality of healthcare. If the government gets involved we will have the rationing of healthcare. Just look at Britian. Anyone in their sixties in Britian is refused most major procedures or costly treatments because they are too old to be deemed worth the cost. Is that what we want?
Jeanie is just another shill for big government. She talks a good game about the evils of big business but her only answer to our problems is more government. My guess is that she, like all zealous advocates of big brother, is that she cannot make her own way in the world so she must, despite all the evidence, rely on false prophets like Barry Hussein Obama.
After spending a few trillion dollars what have we to show for it? Mortgage rates are climbing, unemployment has continues to rise, inflation is just around the next bend and we're still getting articles on here and other praise is the MSM about how insightful King Barry is. It's nothing short of pathetic.
But I'm sure Jeannie and her ilk will have some pretty clever (not really) responses about how it's all Bush's fault. If they're feeling really froggy they may even manage to throw in an Enron reference along the way.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
19 - roger nowosielski
"Jeannie's single payer system is unacceptable to the American people who want some semblance of choice and control over their health care."
That's a lame excuse, Dave. Which people, again? The rich, who can afford the best medical care possible? I do hope you realize how vacuous your proposition is.
And why shouldn't the rich be able to continue to get the best medical care possible so long as they pay for it. Anything wrong with a two-tier system? And does a single-payer system preclude this possibility? I don't see why it must be so.
So let's put the blame where the blame is: the powerful insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies; it is they who stand everything to lose, not the American people.
20 - Jordan Richardson
Honestly, this just gets tiring after a while.
Dave,
We've been through the wait time conversation a half dozen times. We're not going to have it again. I've discussed the problems with wait times countless times with you and why they exist, to what degree they exist, and so forth. You know this.
which is a matter of life and death in many cases
To this particular point you provide no evidence and never have. I asked specifically for evidence and you told me that it would take you too much time to research it. What exactly is the point in making claims like this and suggesting that the Canadian system costs lives or puts people in life or death decisions if you can't provide evidence for it? This is the same argument as your lame duck "the Review Board decides cases of life or death." That argument failed because it wasn't factual; this one also fails because you refuse to provide evidence. Incidentally, while you're researching the facts about deaths via wait time in Canada, research deaths via wait time in the United States. You might be surprised.
Also provided data on the hundreds of cases brought to the US from Canada because they cannot be teated effectively there.
Yes, Dave. I'm aware that this is what you think you did. I'm also aware that you ignored any refute and any evidence to the contrary. When asked about your "hundreds of emergency vehicles heading to the States a day" crap, you had no evidence to back it up. You referred me to an old article and then claimed that your points still stood, despite the fact that they were largely refuted. You then denied that anything was refuted at all. And on it goes...
But still you persist in claiming the systems are at all comparable?
My comparisons, based on studies from both Canadian and American doctors, were the following:
- that Canada has a higher life expectancy by over two years
- that America has a higher infant mortality rate
- Canada has less cases of cancer overall
- Canada and America have comparable cancer mortality rates
- statistically compared, the Canadian and American health care systems are less different in terms of results
You're welcome to refute any of those statements. I'll provide sources and contributing evidence if you like, too.
21 - Jordan Richardson
Roger, the interesting thing about opposition to any form of UHC in America is that any form adopted by America is automatically comparable to the Canadian system or the British system or whatever. It's as though any UHC system adopted in America just flat-out wouldn't work or would have to be exactly like another system in the world that, horror of horrors, has flaws.
America, with its great spirit of invention, apparently cannot provide a workable health care system that is cost-effective and efficient in providing care for all of its citizens. This is what Dave and Co. would have us believe. It is not possible to comprise a workable system that accomplishes the aforementioned goals.
The truth isn't that, however. The truth is as you say: too many rich fuckers have too fucking much to fucking lose. Honestly, that's the real piss-off here and that's what's holding people back from getting basic health care in America.
22 - roger nowosielski
"Anyone in their sixties in Britian is refused most major procedures or costly treatments because they are too old to be deemed worth the cost. Is that what we want?"
But that's the case even here, in the US. It's called "triage," which prioritizes patients according to the probability of success. Unless, of course, you're willing to pay through the nose.
You do know, Archie, don't you? that the last year or two of a person's life are more expensive (in an effort to keep them alive) than perhaps all the moneys they had paid to the insurance companies throughout their lifetime. Not the mention the costs incurred in keeping them vegetating in nursing homes. Within a couple of years, all their net worth is as good as gone - to include whatever real estate, home, or other assets they may have had.
I think it's ridiculous that the fruits of the person's life - all the moneys they made while working and being productive members of society - should be gone with a couple of years of incurring a major sickness or simply to keep them on vegetating.
I thinks there's something very wrong with this picture.
23 - Jordan Richardson
who choose not to have health insurance even though they could because they're in good health and don't feel it's worth it
Yep. They choose not to have health care because they have choices to make. Health care should not be a choice, one should not have to pick between health care or rent or fucking food on the table. Not in a civilized world.
Somewhat in line with this, go check out how many bankruptcy cases in the US are related closely with health care costs. Hint: it's well over 60%.
thrown into that 47 million is roughly 12 million who are here illegally
Wrong.
Any type of government management of the payment or delivery of healthcare will necessarily increase taxes while reducing the quality of healthcare
Wrong. You can't say "any" type of government management would suck because you don't know that for sure. Why is it such a foul idea to come up with a workable option that provides health care? Poach parts of the Swiss and French systems, for instance, and create a viable option for America's economic system. It would almost be cheaper by default, too, because the administrative costs to run the current bloated Medicare and Medicaid systems are immense and obscene. Add to that the costs to do the paperwork with all of the various insurance companies and it's no small wonder the large majority of health care costs in America wind up covering administration. Cut down on that and you've already solved half the fucking battle.
Anyone in their sixties in Britian is refused most major procedures or costly treatments because they are too old to be deemed worth the cost. Is that what we want?
Even if this were true, what's the difference between being refused by the government and having an insurance company wiggle out of paying every time out of the gate? Insurance companies operate on the function of NOT PAYING. That's how they make money, that's how they post ridiculous profits while the rest of you bloody fools have to pick between insuring yourself or paying the electric bill. Is that what you want? Apparently so.
My guess is that she, like all zealous advocates of big brother, is that she cannot make her own way in the world so she must, despite all the evidence, rely on false prophets like Barry Hussein Obama.
It must be extremely comforting, Archie, to be able to fundamentally reduce other people to bland, outdated ideologies. You do know that Archie Bunker was meant as parody, right?
After spending a few trillion dollars what have we to show for it?
You mean the economy doesn't just change overnight when you're deep in a hole? There's no magic solution? My fucking Christ, Arch, must be King Barry's fault!
It's nothing short of pathetic.
What's pathetic is your continued playing of the same fucking cards, dude. Everything is reduced to left/right bullshit and this sudden desire to plant your lips around Romney's Mormon whatnot. Fine. Whatever. Just don't accuse others of being pathetic when you're leading the parade, amigo.
Jeannie and her ilk will have some pretty clever (not really) responses about how it's all Bush's fault.
Explain how your "it's all King Barry's fault" shit is any different?
24 - Doug Hunter
Jordan,
I did not read the response before. On a state by state basis life expectancy varies a bit from in line or above Canada/Europe average to obviously even lower than the US average. It seems wealthier states do better and those with lower African American and immigrant populations who on average have lower life expectancy.
Alot of the lower amount can likely be linked to higher obesity and our ethnic diversity. Fat people die younger and fat women have premature births which also skew the infant mortality.
Anyway, I didn't chime in until people started referring to things like genocide and slavery. My point was if it's 'slavery' to be forced to pay for your own healthcare then it's 'slavery' to be forced to pay taxes to pay for your own healthcare.
As for genocide, the people who don't have care are not the only ones affected by the change in system (although they draw the most emotional appeal), people who have insurance now are treated to some of the best care in the world and our high costs, in addition to their waste, have funded lots of medical breakthroughs and improved technology which directly affects patient outlooks.
There are tons of reasons to think that some form of universal coverage could be done here and I'd like to see one of them brought to bear. First, we need to make sure we don't stop the march of progress and relinquish our leadership role in many areas of medicine. Second, we need to make sure we don't just shift the rationing from that based on income to some other quality (we need to make sure quality of service doesn't decrease for those already covered). We also need to make sure our timing is proper with very high unemployment already and a $1.8 trillion debt it's hard to imagine that sending a bunch of insurance workers to the pool and increasing the out of control debt even farther could be a good thing.
I don't hear people addressing that, all I hear is emotional appeals and an almost unrelenting focus on the uninsured as if that is the only aspect of any significance in the entire realm of healthcare.
25 - roger nowosielski
"First, we need to make sure we don't stop the march of progress and relinquish our leadership role in many areas of medicine."
I wouldn't worry about that, Doug. Why should the profit motive entirely disappear with UHC? And so is the case with American ingenuity. We're still in the lead when it comes to technological advances of any kind. You surely believe that.