American health care crisis

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Careless Industry: How Corporate America Perpetuates the Health Care Crisis
By David Sirota
In These Times

Monday 01 May 2006

This article was adapted from Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government - and How We Can Take It Back, with permission from Crown Publishers.

Let's be honest-very few political operatives, politicians or pundits actually want to explore the real-life, day-to-day economic challenges facing the American people, because to explore them would ultimately force us to admit that our entire venerated political system is totally corrupt.

Take this idiotically simple question that is almost never asked in the normal course of this country's political debate: Why do we hear so much about how well-off America is, yet our country has the highest number of uninsured citizens in the industrialized world?

Why isn't that question asked? Because you can't answer it honestly without exploring how Corporate America has bought off enough politicians to make sure our government helps corporations perpetuate this travesty.

I'm not naïve. I know that corporations exist for one reason and one reason only: the relentless, single-minded pursuit of profit, no matter who gets shafted. That is their stated purpose in a capitalist society, and that's fine. But in our country, corporations aren't supposed to pursue this purpose in a vacuum, unchecked, unregulated, unopposed. There is supposed to be a counterweight, a government separate from Big Business whose job is to prevent the corporate profit motive from destroying society. That government once passed laws protecting the environment, so the profit motive wouldn't end up eliminating breathable air. That government once protected workers, so the profit motive wouldn't result in Americans toiling in sweatshops. And that government once demanded better wages, so the profit motive wouldn't result in a race to the bottom for poverty-level paychecks. But that government, as we all know, is long gone. Our government has been the victim of a hostile takeover. Over the last thirty years,Corporate America has applied its most effective business tactics to the task of purchasing the one commodity that's not supposed to be for sale: American democracy.

To fight back, I decided to write a guidebook to help people see exactly how politicians' lies, myths and half-truths justify government policies that allow Corporate America to rip us off. That book, Hostile Takeover: How Big Money & Corruption Conquered our Government-and How We Can Take It Back, is meant to provide a window into the one fact that the corporate lobbyists and their tools in the government don't want you to know: that the problems undermining America on a daily basis can be fixed if our government starts representing the interests of ordinary people.

To give you a flavor of the book, consider this excerpt that analyzes the health care crisis-a particularly newsworthy issue considering the recent headlines about Massachusetts moving toward a universal health care system. The Bay State's moves are certainly controversial-especially the steep mandates on uninsured individuals and the desperate efforts to protect the health insurance industry. But they show that the issue is now simmering to a boil not only in Washington, but in state capitals all over America.



The Institute of Medicine was created by Congress in 1970 to be the chief, nonpartisan adviser to the federal government on all matters related to health care. That's why the announcement it made in 2004 was so stunning. "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States," the Institute said. Therefore, "By 2010, everyone in the United States should have health insurance ... [The Institute] urges the president and Congress to act immediately by establishing a firm and explicit plan to reach this goal."

The health care system, which is supposed to preserve and protect human life, is allowing thousands of Americans to die every year, and America's top experts were sounding the alarm.

So how is it that government and media have settled into complacency when the system is so bad for so many? The status quo pays big dividends.

In 2003, HMOs nearly doubled their profits from just a year before, adding $10 billion to their bottom line. That year, top executives at the 11 largest health insurers made a combined $85 million in one year. In the first three quarters of 2004, HMO profits increased by another 33 percent. The sheer numbers behind these profits are staggering: In 2004 alone, the four biggest health insurance companies reported $100 billion in revenues. That's $273 million a day, every day, 365 days of the year.

That's the kind of cash that allowed the health industry to spend more than $300 million on lobbying in 2003, and another $300 million on campaign contributions to politicians since 2000. Their agenda is pretty simple: stop any proposals to curb health care profiteering by private insurance companies.

To make its arguments, the industry buys off high-profile ex-politicians and makes them its spokespeople. Take Marc Racicot-one of Corporate America's favorite tools. This former governor of Montana left public service to become an Enron lobbyist, then became chairman of the Republican National Committee, and then headed President Bush's re-election campaign. Now, looking once again to cash in, Racicot has taken a job as the public shill for the insurance industry's chief lobbying group in Washington, D.C. His direct access to the president will undoubtedly serve him well in that role.



Old pros in Washington know one of the easiest ways to kill a good idea is to invoke Americans' fear of a slow, bloated government burea

www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050106m.shmtl [url]
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
I'm too confused about the issue for anyone to
speak for me.

All I know is that every system has problems
and every health system seems to contain a big
balloon payment, like some day the party is gonna
be over.

I don't know of one Western 1st World nation not
discussing their health system's financing.

Do you ?

To brag that one is better or worse than the other
for this or that reason doesn't matter to me.

America might brag it gets the best doctor brains,
but at the same time malpractice insurance is stopping
a lot of young people from enterring the field.

Canada might brag it covers more people but ignores
how long they can sustain the system because
of the demographics balloon on their horizon.

Who cares who is better ?

Really ?

I'd just like to know what the answers ought to be.
 

Toro

Senate Member
#juan said:
Toro

Do you now speak for everyone?

Obviously, I'm generalizing.

The Canadian model is not seen as a solution. Very rarely is universal healthcare brought up as an alternative, either in the public discourse or in private discussion. When Canadian healthcare comes up, people always comment on the waiting times and rationing. Even the Canadians I've met living in America don't want Canadian style medicare.

The United States has the best medical system in the world for those who can afford it. There are, what, 40 million people without health insurance? That means there are 260 million people with health insurance who have access to the best medical technology in the world, or 87% of the population. That 87% does not want the system dramatically changed. Changes on the margin? Sure. But "socialized medicine" doesn't get much play in America.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I'm sure Americans would have a problem being told they could not purchase health care insurance for themselves. We have to remember their free down there....
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
The American Health Care System...

.... would perhaps be less stressed and less expensive if individuals were paying for themselves only and a small percentage of a minimal number of people who contribute little or nothing to the system - there will always be those to account for.

Many of the people we now see boycotting and marching and protesting - represent over ten million of their country men and women and children who pay nothing into the health care system, and utilize clinics and emergency rooms as their provider when illness strikes. People get sick - the wealthy and the poor.

In terms of supporting the system, the individual who contributes to payroll taxation and individual medical plans, also supports a number of people who do not, in order to continue the system itself.

There is no record-keeping of those who work for cash and live in poverty so they can send home money to their families also living in poverty.

Nobody recognizes it for what it is - I see it as slavery of a modern kind - and it exists in the midst of a wealthy nation which turns away from examining the rotten roots of allowing it to happen.

I do not advocate government care of any kind however I advocate at least 90% responsibility of the people in the country to contribute to any medical care necessary to keep it operating properly so that all may be served as one.
 

thecdn

Electoral Member
Apr 12, 2006
310
0
16
North Lauderdale, FL
Toro said:
The United States has the best medical system in the world for those who can afford it. There are, what, 40 million people without health insurance? That means there are 260 million people with health insurance who have access to the best medical technology in the world, or 87% of the population. That 87% does not want the system dramatically changed.

Generalizing big time there Toro. Having 'health insurance' here can mean vastly different things. From a great company plan that takes care of everything to an individual without a company plan paying an astronomical amount for a plan with large co-payments and many restrictions on what is covered.

I've had to go back to a doctor to get a prescription rewritten because my plan only covered the generic version of the drug he prescribed. We had to find a service in Louisville to find a doctor who took our plan who was taking new clients. We have a booklet that lists the doctors in the company's plan. And if your company changes health care companies, your list of doctors changes. Of course you can opt for the plan where you can use any doctor, that just costs more.

The American system is all about the money. The first question isn't "What's wrong?" but "What insurance do you have?" If your company plan is that great congratulations. Mine isn't bad, by American standards, but I still hate the whole system. Canada's system may need fixing, but don't let it become like the American system. Find a way to fix it.
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.


So, the ideologues are wrong as usual, No surprise.

However, the article does go on to say:
That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

So what do we conclude? First, youu can dismiss out out of hand all the babbling about "freedom" and how universal helth care is linked to creeping Socialism in the American mind.

As Stephen Colbert put it: "Reality has a liberal bias" :wink: .

However, the second quote forces us to ask are waiting times and limited choice of doctors an intrinsic quality of a universal, single-payer system?

For the ideologues, they'll get some wiggle room to argue that in a market-driven system, MDs will be able to charge what they can get for their services and therefore will prefer countries where they get to feed off the top of the two teirs. Fair enough.

The Canadian system is more efficient than than US system, and if it weren't for Martin cutting the hell out of transfer payments and slashing the federal portion of the Healthcare budget over ten years, many of the problems that plague our system wouldn't exist.

The fact is that polls show that many of the canadian doctors who move away do so, no mainly for financial reason, but because of the damage that has been done to our hospital system here, they're way overworked and overstressed. If we put the 1% GST cut back into the areas described in general terms in the Romanow report, we could keep most of the MDs who would otherwise leave and reduce waiting times to pre-1990 levels, which most Canadians were happy with.

I'm sick of posting healthcare facts for the ideologues to ignore, but you can verify any of the things I've said by a few google searches.

Besides, ideologues are not "reality-based'; they're "freedom-based" or "USA, f**k-yeah!"-based or something....-based.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
LOL Pasta

You pretty much shot yourself in the foot with a source:
ABC/Wash Post. Of course the whole topic rests on what "TruthOut" has to say.

None of these poll takers or Truth Out have a bias or no agenda?
Everyone has bias and agenda. Nobody has come up with a solution however.

Eight years of social program liberalism and Clinton didn't get it accomplished....but now everyone is playing the blame game.
Clinton didn't even have a war to pay for did he?

The American Health Care system is in shambles because of the numbers of people needing the system to which they contribute nothing.

That doesn't compute in socialized medicine, capitalist run and grab medicine, or articles/polls pushing to scare Americans into
what works for 30 million in Canada but would never work in the U.S. because of the huge numbers - consisting of millions of people unaccounted for. Ten times plus!

Employer paid/ private / whatever a family can afford in ratio to their income or retirement plans or assets. There are tons of forumlae which will work especially for large families with young children and perhaps elderly at the other end to care for.

One thing I know for a fact - regardless of the polls and naysayers and "ideologues".... the people in the U.S. contribute unspeakable amounts of money to strangers who spit in their faces - there would be no hesitation in securing good health care for every eligible person residing in the U.S. if it were put to the people - even if it meant cutting back on sending money to countries whose leaders absorb it for their own needs. Whatever they are Americans are not stingy - and I would like to think they can take care of their own (and the "visitors") adequately before having to see to the disarray many other places are in.

Nothing wrong with any kind of medicine as long as everyone has access and the majority of people contribute according to their ability.

PS: What's an ideologue in your world?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
pastafarian said:
As Stephen Colbert put it: "Reality has a liberal bias" :wink: .

A sad fact we are reminded of ever payday and around this time of the year. :p
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
TheCdn

I don't get it?

If you hate it - why do you stay and put up with it?

You need a warmer climate? Bermuda, Australia, NZ, Cuba, plenty of warm climes. You should be happy, not living in a place you hate.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
RE: American health care

We can't fix our health care system in Canada untill the pressure from the states to privatize stops, the money budgeted to health care in Canada is like a huge magnet for capitalist pigs, long have they lusted after it. The problem in the states is intrenched corruption and out of control capitalism, every endeavour must feed the rich first.
The Mayday march was beautiful to see, now that's what grassroots democracy looks like, it won't be long before the people power (socialism) takes hold in America, the people have been fooled for to long.
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
Nothing wrong with any kind of medicine as long as everyone has access and the majority of people contribute according to their ability.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"?, WC. :wink:

I see you're a fan of the "I can't refute the facts, so I'll criticise the source " school of debate. Cool. You have no counter-evidence? You're wrong.

Next. :p

Ideologue: people who don't let facts influence their beliefs.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Pasta and Beav

Gee if we pay for all that socialized medicine in the U.S.A. who is gonna take care of all the U.N. necessaries? That would be a fact.

Can't be everywhere - can't be ideologues every day of the week.

It was good so see the people supporting each other in the boycott - but I think they would rather be legal with an opportunity to become citizens.

If you think the people of Mexico and S.A. wish to become socialists, you are way wrong. You should see some of their beautiful casas and exported autos and gorgeously dressed women with their jewels. They make the U.S.A. seem like the land of honey. They are like any red blooded humans who want the American dream. It's called capitalism.
But the little brothers and sisters marching?
They could have spent the day filling out the right forms for application to become legal.

Oh dear my ideologies are getting in the way again. :roll: