No Hope For Universal Health Care

And a thoughtful kindness it will be to provide those redwoods with compatriots of similar years.

Finally, in my neck of the woods, respect is earned, not given based on job title.

Sounds like a fun place...

Now CI, that's not nice.

Why such a mean spirit? I thought you knew better...

And if this is the bottom line, CI, why not stop taking trips around the world and spend the thousands of dollars saved and provide health insurance to several homeless families?

Walter, please be careful of all that propaganda...

Miller: And if this is the bottom line, CI, why not stop taking trips around the world and spend the thousands of dollars saved and provide health insurance to several homeless families?

I said I'm an "advocate" for children's universal health care. Do you understand the English language?

Do you?

Thanks for all the valuable responses and answers to the questions, Miller.

It helped me a lot to understand why the US health system is superior to any other ans why our universal system is so bad.

Walter, I haven't seen Michael Moores' documentary... but did receive an article that may be useful...

More Humane and More Efficient

National Health Insurance

By ROBERT WEISSMAN

Michael Moore's extraordinary SiCKO makes the case for a single-payer
national health insurance system -- a Medicare for All -- without
bogging down in detailed policy debates.

Sure, there's quite a bit of data that Moore sneaks in, but SiCKO's
basic approach is to rely on regular people telling stories about
their healthcare experiences. In the United States, those stories are
pretty rotten, and frequently heartbreaking. The experience of people
living in countries with national health plans is much better.

This makes for powerful film-making, which is not to say there's no
need for the nitty-gritty policy debates.

The health insurance industry and its allies have worked hard to
respond to SiCKO by promulgating a series of deceptions. It's awfully
hard to defend the current U.S. system, so their emphasis is on
criticizing other countries' healthcare systems.

They have a lot of practice at this stuff. Get on a call with people
like Sarah Berk of Health Care America and Sally Pipes and John
Graham of the Pacific Research Institute, and they will compellingly
recite three key misleading arguments:

* People in other countries have to suffer through long waiting
periods before seeing a doctor or getting treatment.

* National health plans ration care.

* "Government-controlled healthcare" or "government monopoly
healthcare" is inherently of inferior quality.

When you don't feel well, or need treatment, you want to see a doctor
right away. So, the image of waiting lists to get treatment has some
resonance.

But exactly how easy is it to see a doctor in the United States?

It turns out that the answer is the same as in other countries: It
depends.

It depends in large part on what you need to see a doctor for.

Live in the United States and have a bad rash and need to see a
dermatologist? Well, try not to scratch too much.

My colleague Sam Bollier called 20 dermatologists in the Washington,
D.C. area, included under Care First/Blue Cross-Blue Shield or Cigna
insurance plans. The average wait to get in the door is 36 days.

He called OB/GYNs and asked how long the wait would be for a woman
who found a lump on her breast. The answer on average: 16
excruciating days.

In fact, wait times to see a doctor in the United States are worse
than other industrialized countries -- all of which have national
health insurance -- except for Canada, where the system has been
starved of funding (but overall performance is still better than the
United States on most key measures).

In 2005, the Commonwealth Fund commissioned phone surveys of sicker
adults in New Zealand, Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada and the
United States.

In the United States, 47 percent of those surveyed said that, the
last time they were sick, they were able to get a doctor's
appointment the same day or the next day. This was worse than every
other country except Canada. In New Zealand, 81 percent reported
being able to see a doctor by the next day.

Asked what happened the last time they needed care in the evening or
on a weekend or holiday, and whether they could get care without
going to the emergency room, a full third in the United States said
it was "very difficult" and half said it was at least "somewhat"
difficult. This was worse than every other surveyed country. In
Germany, only 14 percent said it was very or somewhat difficult.

What about rationing?

It's awfully hard to take this argument seriously, though there's no
question it resonates.

All insurance plans, if they have some budgetary constraint, must
ration to some extent. The relevant questions are: who's doing the
rationing, on what grounds, and how is the rationing allocated.

In the private insurance system in the United States, rationing is
done by the health insurance industry, which rations with an eye both
to health needs and the insurers' profitability.

And, of course, the worst rationing is imposed on the 45 million
people in the United States without insurance.

Rationing is far worse in the United States than in other countries.
In the Commonwealth Fund survey of sicker adults, 40 percent of
people in the United States said there has been a time when they did
not fill a prescription because of cost -- twice the level of the
next worst performing country. Far higher numbers in the United
States said that, because of cost, they did not visit a doctor when
they had a specific medical problem, or that, again because of cost,
they skipped a medical test, treatment or follow-up recommended by a
doctor.

And then there is the matter of quality of care. There's no doubt
that the United States often offers top-line care to those able to
pay -- including "boutique" service for the super-rich at leading
hospitals.

But in the aggregate, U.S. healthcare indicators are terrible, for
worse than other industrialized countries -- all of which have
national health plans.

With SiCKO heating up the debate, Business Week profiled the French
health system, which is treated favorably in SiCKO. "To grasp how the
French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the
U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population." But,
notes Business Week: "the French system is more generous to its
entire population than the U.S. is to its seniors."

Business Week lined up a comparison between the United States and
France: No one is uninsured in France. Out-of-pocket spending in
France is barely a quarter of what people in the United States pay.
There are almost a third more doctors per capita in France. French
life expectancy is two years longer for men, four for women. Infant
mortality is 43 percent lower in France.

On top of which, French health expenditures amount to 10.7 percent of
the national economy. In the United States, it is 16.5 percent.

It turns out that national health insurance is not just more humane,
it is far, far more efficient, about which more in my next (and
final) piece on SiCKO.

There is one other argument that is regularly made against national
health insurance, but this one comes from different quarters -- those
sympathetic to national health plans. And that is that while national
health insurance may be desirable, it is politically unattainable.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational
Monitor, and director of Essential Action.

----------------------------------------------------------

That's not an unfair response. I apologize.

On the other hand, you ought not to work so hard at denying evidences in service of an ideological preference.

big fat hug to stradee

stradee, Excellent post, and thank you. Some people love to emphasize the negatives as much as many of us like to emphasize the positives of universal health care.

I'd like to see Miller challenge any of the claims made in your post - with evidence, not her personal smart-alecky personal opinions.

Stradee, good post!

I know when I'm sick, my doc takes me right away and it wasn't like this when I was living in the US. If I was sick, I usually ended up having to go to the emergency room before I could make it to my doc appointment.
I would sit in the emergency room for hours before being seen and I haven't been through that since I've been in Canada.
I know our system needs improving in some areas, but they're working on it. I see changes for the better in health care here every year.

It's also nice, for a change, to have a doc that gives me the time to ask questions and takes the time to shoot the breeze for a few minutes.
When my doc asks how work is and how my son is doing, I smile because I just never had a doc that did that in the states.

Very cool, my doc :-D

This is why Americans don't want socialized healthcare.

Illinois Tax Implosion
The political limits of "universal" health care.

Monday, May 14, 2007 12:01 a.m.

"Universal" government health care has once again returned as a political cause, with many Democrats believing it's the key to White House victory in 2008. They might want to study last week's news from Illinois, where Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich's tax increase to finance health care became the political rout of the year.

The Democratic House in Springfield killed the proposal, 107-0, after Mr. Blagojevich came out against his own idea when it became clear he was going to be humiliated. Only a month earlier he had said he was prepared to wage "the fight of the century" in defense of his plan to impose a $7.6 billion "gross receipts tax" on Illinois businesses.

Easily re-elected in November, the Governor used every trick in the "progressive" political playbook to sell his proposal. Instead of a general tax increase, he claimed it would be "targeted" for universal health care and education. Instead of raising individual taxes, he aimed at business and even built in an exemption for smaller firms. "These corporate guys, they can't avoid this tax," declared the Governor, sounding one of the "populist" themes that liberal columnists are now recommending for national Democrats.

Mr. Blagojevich also pitched his plan as a moral imperative, unveiling it while standing in the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago and saying it was necessary to force businesses to pay their "fair" share of the tax burden. He wanted to force most employers to offer health insurance or pay a 3% payroll tax. Liberal special interest groups--including the state AFL-CIO and the Illinois Education Association--initially supported him.

But a funny thing happened on this road to Canadian health care. The state's more rational Democrats revolted, arguing it would drive businesses out of Illinois. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was an early opponent, and Democratic Lieutenant Governor Patrick Quinn was cool to it. House Speaker Michael Madigan very publicly withheld his support and last week came out against the tax hike.

As tax increases go, this was one of the worst. A "gross receipts tax" is popular with politicians because it applies to every dollar of company revenue, not merely on profits, or on final sales the way a retail sales tax does. But this means the tax tends to hit hardest those small and medium-sized businesses that have healthy sales volumes but narrow profit margins. The tax is a huge revenue-raiser but can also be a job killer.

Mr. Blagojevich tried to soften this impact by creating an exemption for business with annual revenues of less than $5 million. But even with that exemption, retailers would feel the squeeze from the higher cost of goods. And because the tax applies to all business transactions, it creates what economists call a "pyramiding" effect that has a damaging overall economic impact.

The Tax Foundation estimated that Mr. Blagojevich's proposal would have been the largest state tax hike in the last decade, as a share of state general fund revenue--at 27% nearly double the next closest, which was Nevada's 14% increase in 2004. In per capita terms, the tax hike would average about $550 per Illinois resident.

All of this piled on top of the $1.5 billion in new taxes and fees that the Governor imposed in his first term. State revenue has been rising at a respectable 5% annual pace, but spending is rising faster. Jonathan Williams of the Tax Foundation says the Governor's proposed budget this year calls for a 13.2% spending increase, which comes on top of a near double digit increase a year ago. The cumulative impact of this rising tax and spending burden has been to drive businesses out of the state.

"To describe every major CEO in Illinois as fat cats is a mistake," said Chicago Mayor Daley. "They don't have to be here. They can go to Wisconsin. They can go to Indiana. They can go to India. They can go to China. So if you want to beat up businesses, go beat 'em up, and when they leave, just wave to 'em and they're going to wave back to you." Even Jesse Jackson disowned the Governor's plan, noting that "We all want health care. But business closer is not good health."

One lesson here is that it is far easier to talk about "progressive" political causes than to pay for them without doing larger economic harm. In today's global economy, the margin for policy mistakes is smaller, even for individual states. Mr. Daley may appreciate this better than Mr. Blagojevich because he knows the consequences of bad policy will harm Chicago long after the Governor retires to private equity, or some other "fat cat" job.

As for national Democrats, Presidential candidate John Edwards has already proposed a huge tax increase to pay for national health care. At least he's honest about what such promises require, but we doubt it will help his Presidential prospects. Illinois Senator Barack Obama has been silent on his Governor's tax implosion, but someone should get him on the record. And Hillary Clinton, well, we can't wait to see how "universal" her promises will be.

Right back attcha, Bernie.

Hi Montana! Glad to hear your doing well!

c.i. i must admit i'm not up to speed regarding national health medical insurance, but anythings better than what we're seeing in the U.S. - the arguments for the program are compelling.

Unfortunately, the Insurance conglomerates won't give up their dividends and HMO policies - what illnesses fit into their expenditures, etc. Holistically speaking people can take more responsibiltiy for their health - but a population of 45 million with no health insurance pushes the envelope.

That's 45 million and growing. I wonder at what point most Americans will begin to agree that a universal heath care system is in our own best interests.

It takes a republican gov like Ahnold to even suggest a universal health care system for the state. Lots of ironies in this world.

Another reason why a universal health care system is needed. Early intervention saves greater amounts as people get older.

c.i, we can blame Madison Ave for pushing the "look young' agenda.

In the real world, most woman arn't concerned with how slim they are, or how they appear to others - instead do the best with what they've been given. Keeping fit, eating good foods, and attitude are most important for good health.

However, there are some people who have health issues they have little or no control over...serious illnesses needing medical treatment - UHC the answer for long-term medical treatment - without an insurance company deciding the cost or facility is the answer, especially for seniors and children.

Granted, there are charitable orgs that provide medical services for people who couldn't afford expensive procedures with the current medical system - but how many people suffer needlessly because they don't qualify for no cost medical care?

The NIH funnels billions of dollars each year of taxpayers money to questionable experimantal labs, yet the gov can't seem to find the 'tax' money to provide UHC.

Definitely a policial issue.