What's Really Important Health Care Should Be A Service, Not A Business!
A nation with a universal health care program provides complete medical care for every citizen in that nation, regardless of their financial status, present or past health history or pre-existing conditions. Such coverage denies no one, and it limits no health treatments or procedures for any reason, providing all that is necessary to help a patient. Drugs are supplied at no cost, or extremely low cost. All the major industrialized nations have universal health care, except one, in fact the richest nation in the world, namely the United States of America.
The reason the USA does not provide universal health care is simple. During the Nixon administration it was decided to treat health care as a business, not as a service. Why? As we all know, businesses exist for the bottom line, namely profit. The formula was simple – More health care provides less profit; less health care creates more profit. Thus, begun the practice of denying health care rather than supplying it; and the HMOs, and treatment denial by non-medically trained bureaucrats was born – very good for business, very bad for the citizens. I guess they figured no one would ever notice.
Imagine a health care provider forced to make medical decisions based on how much a particular treatment will cost them to provide, rather than what is necessary for the well being of the patient. If you can imagine that, you understand why health care should not be a business, and profit should not be any part of the picture.
How might this affect you? If you are one of the lucky Americans with some form of health coverage, and not one of the unlucky 40-50 million without it, the scenario might play out like this. Your doctor sees you in his office and reaches some conclusions about your present health condition, and how it might be best treated. He leaves you in the examination room, and comes back a bit later. Perhaps he lays out a course of treatment which includes some sophisticated testing, or drug therapy, or maybe a certain procedure or even surgery is suggested. All seems well, and just might be.
On the other hand, he might come back, and suggest some alternatives which are less extensive, or involve more routine testing or just some low level pharmaceutical treatment along with a “let’s wait and see what happens” attitude. And, doctors just love to give pills for pain rather than make realistic attempts at solving the problem causing it; masking symptoms is so much easier and cheaper.
It’s quite likely that when the doctor left you alone in that treatment room he/she or someone in that office went to call your health insurance provider to find out if they would authorize such and such a treatment. Chances are also good they spoke with a person with no real feel for you personally, your history or medical condition. But, chances are GREAT, that whatever decision is reached just might be based on what that insurance company feels they may or not want to spend on treating you, rather than what you need. You might never know if the doctor wanted to do one thing, but was forced to do much less because you were not approved for a more expensive procedure.
"But," you say, “my policy expressly covers this or that treatment.” Perhaps you thought it does, but have you read all the fine print in your policy? Are there any exclusions for some pre-existing condition, or did you perhaps forget to complete your medical history perfectly, or is there a caveat allowing the insurance company to declare something an experimental treatment, and deny care because of that, even if it has been successfully tried on many others?
These are just a few examples of many ways in which a health provider, a company to which you have been faithfully paying your dues for however long, might legally weasel out of their agreement with you. I’m not going to go into the huge number of similar examples. Look into that yourself. But know this. Your health provider is a business, and as such they are more interested in their own bottom line than your welfare.
When you suggest universal health care to all too many, their faces contort with horror, they might turn red, and they choke out something about the terrors of “socialized medicine,” as if there could be nothing worse on the planet than anything with a label of socialism attached to it. Even the horrors of death, war, pestilence and famine pale along side the idea of the government providing a service, paid for by taxes, and given freely to the populace. God forbid, this would also mean those previously mentioned 40-50 million would also be taken care of. Why do they deserve to be healthy? They can’t afford it?
Of course, while so many decry the evils of socialism, they might be forgetting about some very successful government run programs that do already exist in the USA, such as universal police and fire protection, universal access to lending libraries, postal service (if you never purchase a stamp you will still have mail delivered to you) medicare (with some problems, but basically helping millions quite successfully), and oh yes, lest I forget, public education for all.
Some insist the government can’t run anything properly, yet they do quite well in the areas mentioned above, considering the size and complexity of a nation of over 300 million people. And, considering the present for-profit and broken state of the health care industry in the USA, for those WITH insurance, I can’t imagine how it could be run much worse, by any entity.
Others want everything run by private enterprise. Imagine the Fire and Police departments checking your financial status and coverage before answering your 911 call.
As for higher taxes to pay for universal health care. So what? Considering that one uncovered or denied health crisis can set you and your family back for the rest of your lives, it’s not much of a sacrifice. And, it’s not like those paying for health insurance already, aren’t putting out a large sum of money each and every month. Americans need to stop whining about taxes for a change and be more concerned about just what that money is buying for them. I personally would prefer to have total health care benefits than a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, or a neverending war that is ravishing the national coffers.
Please really think about it. All-inclusive health care should be an entitlement for "every" citizen of the United States, and not run as a business more concerned with making money for shareholders, administrators and "public officials" than providing adequate care for those in need of it - Amen!
Comments
Long time no meow, my friend. I would certainly care to comment on this issue being as I am one of the uninsured.
Personally, I think that a universal health care system would not and could not happen overnight, however, I think there is a plan that could work without bringing the alien spaceships crashing to earth. I can afford some medical expenses. I can afford doctor's visits, drugs, and minor emergencies. What I can't afford is something that is catastrophic. Being as I am over 50 and have some not so perfect physical conditions (being a cat, for one), I can't get insured without paying over $1,000 per month for guaranteed insurance with a $9,000 deductable.
I would be willing to trade off all other medical coverage for affordable catastrophic coverage.
I also think that insurance based on income levels would be more appropriate. Since I can afford "minor" medical care, I should pay for it (under the current system). If someone can't afford minor medical care, then the "socialized" system would work for them. We sort of have this system, but the stigma attached to getting government assistance keeps people who need to get the help from getting it, not to mention the hoops one has to go through, and the level of poverty one has to endure to even be eligible. Poor families have no incentive to work since insuring their children would cost such a huge amount of their income (for those jobs that don't provide insurance).
So back to universal healthcare, I am for it, I just don't think it will happen in our country universally. I think our society is too capitalistic and our doctors are too money hungry to ever let that happen, but I do think that some kind of partial system can be implemented. But who knows, with the price of kibble these days, the public may cry out for just this kind of reform. We shall see.
Your pal, Al
Posted by: Al the Cat | August 8, 2007 09:11 AM
Health care seems to be one of those issues where people either don't seem to "get it" or else are of the mind that "I've got yours and to hell with you!" In fact, I've discovered that people with health coverage really do NOT "get it" when it comes to what happens to those with no coverage. Do people realize that in many doctors' offices, people with no health coverage pay more for equal services... sometimes as much as three times more? So here we have someone who can't afford coverage subsidizing those who have the luxury of having their services negotiated by the health insurance companies.
It's ludicrous that anyone's health is held hostage to the lowest bidder. Access to affordable health care should be considered a fundamental, non-negotiable right of all citizens. Certainly what happens in a doctor's office should not be dictated by some yahoo sitting behind a desk with columns of numbers in front of their face.
There are several sitting politicians and candidates running for office who want to address health care by requiring everyone to buy private health insurance. This is not a solution for people who don't have insurance because they can't afford it. It's a lovely solution for private health insurance companies, though. They get more business and higher profits while the average person gets screwed even more.
It's time to give people the option to buy into and be covered by a government plan such as Medicare. Anything less is just slapping a dirty bandaid on an oozing, festering sore.
Posted by: Renee | August 8, 2007 09:53 AM
People may say they object to the idea of universal health care on the basis of socialism, the government’s incompetence to run it efficiently or the free enterprise argument. But it seems to me the underlying problem with getting a universal health care program is the skewed attitude about the purpose of our government.
Somewhere along the line the idea that our government was supposed to be “for the people” was pushed aside. Terms like “entitlement” and “social program” became dirty words as though, regardless of the fact that our tax dollars support the operation of our government, we do not have the right to expect anything back.
This spin on what our government should or should not do was bought and paid for by the very wealthy and the conglomerates from whence their wealth comes. It works so much better for them, when government spends our tax money in ways that make their cups runneth over while the rest of us run around with empty or almost empty cups. And hey, they can afford to spend a few million on the PR to keep their spin in place. The return on those dollars more than proves they are well spent.
If we, through our voices and our votes, force our legislators to return government to its intended function – of the people, by the people, and most particularly, for the people - then health care will be recognized and treated as a basic need and not as a luxury or just another for-profit industry.
Posted by: Trish | August 11, 2007 12:53 PM
Very well said Trish! You’ve hit the nail right on the head.
What really amazes me is the vast majority of “not” so wealthy people in this nation who have bought into that paradigm dictated by those who, as you have said, set the “myth” of what our government should or shouldn’t give back. Time and time again these same people, right down the family line, keep voting against their own best interests, based on that “skewed attitude” you allude to.
I come from a relatively liberal family, and there is no doubt I pretty much share the values of my parents. Of course, there are both liberal and conservative pieces of that equation. The labels so often in use today, are inaccurate as most labeling is, but as we talked about in your blog, they are just another convenient way to polarize and divide people. The point I was in the process of making is that I have always believed if there was anything that any government should provide for it’s citizens its health care, education, and housing and food when necessary.
I can’t think of any greater responsibility for a tax supported government. Defending a nation does not involve only threats from without, but also those from within. Sure, it is good when people can provide for themselves, but being realistic, there are always huge segments of any society that find themselves on the down side of the curve, and need help. I personally am not into punishing people in need of that help, but feel they should be aided. Housing and food are obvious (the homeless situation being disgraceful), and education and health care should be common sense. A population that is both stronger and smarter is one that becomes more productive and self -efficient. Of course, once again we have to strongly suspect that there is an element in our society that does not want that to be the case. After all, such people are harder to control.
It’s depressing that our leaders have a neverending source of funds when it comes to waging war and feeding the military-industrial complex, but not for social programs. I don’t know if you saw the documentary “Why We Fight?” What I found most striking was one point that was made, i.e. the military-industrial complex and all of its ancillary industries have become so large that they cannot afford for their not to be war. When you think about it, that makes a lot of sense.
I wonder if the same applies to the medical industry. Is it so large that it could not afford for their not to be so many sick people? I know that sounds cynical, but considering the big business aspect of every segment of our society, it’s not all that farfetched.
What bothers me most Trish, is the “how” of fixing things. You mention “our voices and our votes” and forcing our legislators to return the function of our government to serving the people. I sit on the political left, and am appalled by what I’m seeing on the right, especially since the advent of the present administration, and the Congress that appears to have relinquished it’s rule of oversight. But, I’m also dismayed (albeit to a “slightly” lesser degree) by the behavior of the left. Both sides cater to that big money that that allows the special interests to basically set policies that take from the poor to give to the rich.
Until there is major campaign finance reform (campaign funds supplied by the government and equally to all candidates, and with no strings attached), there will be no change that I can determine. Ironically, and of course, the one’s that have to create this reform are the ones benefiting by keeping the system unchanged. It doesn’t seem to matter how the people vote; it always ends up the same. Those in office obsess on seeking funding for the next election instead of focusing totally on their work, and inevitably they become compromised.
Add to this, the ambivalence of a people infatuated with TV and superficiality. After all, it’s more important what Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie might be up to, or how the local sport’s team is doing, than keeping politically informed and making sure our “representatives” actually represent our interests.
What I fear is that it will take an event of catastrophic proportions to finally rouse the general public enough to take back their government. For all the political polarity and outrage, the main focus seems to be fighting each other instead of going after the politicians and leaders effectively. Perhaps this is just what some desire?
Posted by: Stephen Rose | August 11, 2007 05:17 PM
I actually feel hopeful about the “fixing” of the special interest’s interference with our government.
I do not think we can do much with Washington right now. It is so corrupted that the odds of making inroads there are zero to none. But the local level is another story. There are all kinds of things happening at the municipal and state level all over the country. Public financing will happen but it will happen from the bottom up. The more states that establish clean elections, the more pressure it will put on Washington..
Right now, fifteen states provide public financing directly to candidates, but the laws differ as to how funding is provided and to which candidates. In addition, California has an approved Assembly Bill (AB 583) that will be in the 2008 Senate calendar. It provides full Clean Money public financing for the office of governor and one open Assembly and State Senate seat in 2010.
I wrote a series of 4 blogs last February about public campaign financing based on a book by Jeff Golden, "As If We Were Grownups: A Collection of “Suicidal” Political Speeches That Aren’t." One of the speeches is about public financing. The others deal with equally controversial issues. It is worth the read.
I keep a Margaret Mead quote taped to my laptop for the times I get discouraged: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Posted by: Trish | August 12, 2007 03:51 PM
I sincerely hope you are correct Trish, and this can begin to be resolved on the local level. I have to admit I have my doubts. Those in the positions of highest authority in the nation at present seem quite attached to that power, and always seem to find ways to retain it. And behind them is the corporate world. They are not about to go quietly into the night. There is too much money to lose.
I'm concerned over the possibility of some trumped up "terrorist" attack on American soil, and cries of a national emergency, and a usurpation of even greater authority under the national security umbrella.
I see things looking mighty gloomy for those in power come the 08 elections. There is a huge possibility of a Democrat in the White House and an even greater Democrat majority in both houses of Congress if something in the current equation doesn't change.
Desperate times often call for desperate measures, and there are those that might be highly motivated to assure that certain policies and actions over the last five or so years do not reach the light of day.
Paranoia or reality? I'm not certain. But I have to admit I've begun to fall into the guilty until proven innocent mindset as far as the national government is concerned. Any desperate attempt to retain power using that Ace in the hole, fear, might just trump any attempts to change things on the local level, so far from the seat of power in Washington DC. A huge portion of the public, open to persuasion on any point of view, and very quickly via access through TV and radio, seem in large part to be less concerned about politics at home, and easily persuaded to side with those at the national level.
I have to admit that I myself have not been real involved with local politics so I don't have a feel for it, or how effective it is in affecting the larger picture. I suspect that many Americans are in the same boat.
I wonder that if the Executive Branch can so easily usurp powers from Congress, how would this translate to doing the same at the local level? How does the local level work, how is it protected, and how it can actually influence the national scene successfully?
I hope these questions aren't too naive.
Posted by: Stephen | August 13, 2007 02:32 AM
I don’t think your questions are naïve but I am not sure I have the answers. I have not been very active in local politics other than to write letters/emails to Legislators and the Editor of our local paper. When issues grab my interest, I start digging for information and it turns out often that there is a local as well as a national component to the issue. That is what happened with public campaign financing and with the e-voting machines.
Just to add to your paranoia, if you aren’t worried about our elections being hijacked through the e-voting machines, you should be. I was delighted to hear that the California Secretary of State withdrew approval of the Diebold machines we have in Butte County. There are computer scientists all over the country warning about the security risks of using the e-voting machines - not just Diebold but all of them. These warnings were out there and the machines were only conditionally certified by the state when Candice Grubbs made the decision to spend $4.5 million taxpayer dollars on them. Instead of listening to the computer scientists, she listened to the Diebold representatives who assured her their machines were secure. And this lady is in charge of our elections. Yikes!
This is a national issue but it is primarily being dealt with at the local level. It should be front and center for anyone who cares about the integrity of our voting system but the “liberal” media barely mentions it.
Sorry, I am easily sidetracked on that issue.
To get back to local effect on national actions: I believe there not only is an effect, but that it is the only path in many instances to changing the national scene. It will not be fast and it will not be easy, but it has and does work. Local politicians are much closer to their constituents because they live and work right there with them. People are more likely to be directly effected by local decisions and therefore more likely to speak and act out in response forcing their will on the officials. It is proof of the “power of the people” but unfortunately it is not exercised often enough even at the local level.
With the local implementation of public campaign financing, the candidates have a choice to go with it or continue to seek corporate money. The kicker is that people are so angry about special interests that, so far the candidates who went with public financing were more often elected. In Maine for instance Clean Elections were implemented in the mid 90’s and now 83% of their State Senate and 84% of their State House were Clean Elections candidates. Overall, in the states where it has taken root, public financing has been endorsed by 60% - 80% of the people and an equal percentage of the candidates.
I am an eternal optimist. Not that I do not get overwhelmed or discouraged at times, but I believe we can accomplish much as long as we are vigilant, persistent, and patient.
Posted by: Trish | August 13, 2007 10:27 AM
Amen re: e-voting machines. Yes on everything you have said, and more of it.
Considering the political and corporate climate of the world, as well as the ease with which electronic devices are hacked and corrupted, I've never thought the time was right for electronic voting. The hanging chads were used as an excuse to institute a system that undeniably contains much greater liabilities. Perhaps when electronic systems are actually secure, and people and governments more honest, but not before then.
I'm encouraged by your optimism, and underneath my thick hide of present political cynicism lays a very strong faith in life, and a belief that it ultimately works for us, not against us.
Posted by: Stephen | August 13, 2007 12:43 PM
There are days when I am overcome by political cynicism as well. I don't think it is possible for anyone who loves this country to see what is happening under this Administration and not become cynical and wonder if we will ever be able to undo the damage. But then I go looking for signs that somebody is doing something. And I find groups all over the country that are working on different issues, watchdogging the bad stuff and shinning a light on it. That renews my hope and my belief that as long as we keep at it, we will make changes no matter how slowly. You encourage me, I encourage you, other blogs and activists encourage us and others like us and that is how the changes will happen.
I used to think I would grow less optimistic as I got older - didn't happen. I am not so idealistic that I expect to ever achieve the ideal. But I am ideaistic enough to keep reaching for it.
Posted by: Trish | August 14, 2007 06:52 PM
I hope people read this, hear this message a thousand ways. We need universal health care that is designed for people not profits. Anything less and the problems will never truly resolve because greed will find a way to trump service.
Healthcare is not a luxury. Early treatment would save us all money in the long run. If health care were a shared social responsibility, we would all be safer in the case of a pandemic.
Michael Moore did us a great service by reminding us that full health care is not extreme but the standard approach of all Western nations. Your blog reminds us once more.
Posted by: Louise Casey | August 17, 2007 05:19 PM
Meow Al, and howdy. Good to have you back.
I’d agree universal health care isn’t about to happen overnight in this country, and for various reasons. The logistics alone would be more than challenging, and the HMOs, insurance and pharmaceutical companies are going to fight it tooth and nail like a pack of fat overstuffed hogs that have suddenly realized the trough is just full, and not overflowing. Imagine their horror? Your point is well taken about many doctors who will also find it difficult as they have become enamored of being “very” wealthy, and not simply very well to do. I always chuckle at some of them who feel they are entitled to great wealth. They must know it comes ultimately at the expense of the people they care for. I’ll have to make an effort to read the Hippocratic oath; it must be loaded with caveats to the welfare of the patient being the primary concern.
Of course, there are many more doctors in this nation that do not really make a great wage in the system as it is. They might just make more when medicine became nationalized.
Keeping it in mind that the implementing of a UHC plan would be slowed and stalled by most of those above, including all the politicians in the back pockets of same, your idea for temporary and “affordable” catastrophic coverage would be practical. Allowing people to pay for the minor medical care they can afford, on a sliding scale perhaps, but keeping them totally covered by the state for a catastrophic medical emergency might be a workable interim strategy.
As for our society being too capitalistic and doctors too greedy for the USA to ever actually have real universal health care, I say :PPPPP!!! I think capitalism is great, but there is a line which it can cross over where it becomes less great, and that is when money becomes more important than people, such as when corporations get too powerful. In my opinion, that is unacceptable. People are always more important than the bottom line, my major reason for knowing that medical care should not be a business, but a service. This world, to the great surprise of many, is actually about PEOPLE, not money! Many will find that out when they attempt to bribe St. Peter to get through those Pearly Gates with money they suddenly find they no longer have with them, and which would not have been accepted anyway. (I don’t even want to get started here on the total hypocrisy of so many of the wealthy and powerful, that claim to be religious. I never read anywhere in the bible where it states that “blessed are those who screw others to have more”)
It is presently estimated that the cost of the Iraq War debacle will cost over $1 trillion at a rate of up to $2-3 billion a week. There are various figures, but these are in the ballpark. Add to these costs, all the port barrel infatuation of our “leaders” in Congress, and things such as the $320 million dollar “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska , as just one example. There is one helluva a lot of money being poured down the drain in this nation that could be used for a lot of other things. And most people might spend less in a tax hike to facilitate universal health care than they might already paying to have inadequate paid health care.
I see no reason why we can’t and shouldn’t stop wasting money on such “crap” and begin spending it on the “actual” welfare of the nation and citizens. When our nation decides to elect sane and responsible leaders, we will have more than enough money to not only have universal health care, but to have the best such system in the world, in which everyone is totally covered, drugs are free, and no one has to wait for any procedure longer than is safe. And, doctors will do just fine. Some might have to settle for a million dollar home instead of a three million dollar estate, and two BMWs instead of a BMW, Ferrari and Lincoln SUV, but they will do quite well. They might even be able to sleep at night since that guilty conscience will be more at rest.
Posted by: Stephen | August 19, 2007 12:10 PM
Meow!
Posted by: Al the Cat | August 19, 2007 05:36 PM