Contrasting our positive experiences with the Canadian health care system with what she is experiencing in the U.S., my mother writes:
This is such a basic, serious issue that each and every American should be agreeing on. Who and what is it that stands in the way of universal, caring health care for all Americans? [...]
Is it the health insurance companies who now virtually do NOT insure anyone who has ever had a health problem in their background? (My husband and I have both had cancer and have been cancer-free for 5 years, but are both uninsurable at any price in the US--one of our [relatives], age 26, had a "iffy" Pap smear (not cancer but might turn into it sometime in the future) and was denied insurance.
And what is the benefit to Americans that health insurance companies have the luxury of not insuring anyone who is in any way a "risk"? Is not life itself a risk, and are we not all going to die, sooner or later, of something?? If health insurance is not a "viable business" given that we are all going to die, isn't that the best reason in the world to make health care the responsibility of the government, and not a profit-making corporation?
And then there is the prescription problem. The restrictions and regulations in the new "Medicare D" are so ridiculous that it's almost impossible to describe it without thinking the world has gone crazy. But it's all understandable if you understand that it's all about helping the pharmaceutical companies keep on making money. [...]
But to get back to my original point, who in the vast American population benefits when health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are virtually dictating who gets cared for and how much they pay for their drugs??
I realize that there are quite a few Republican congressmen and lobbyists and others who rake in a lot of dough as all this goes on. But what are their ranks compared to the enormous number of people who just need decent, affordable health care---namely, almost all Americans. Surely the millions who deserve fair, affordable health care far outnumber the handful of crooks who are cashing in on denying these millions the care they need.
Can it possibly be true that a few corporations and congresspeople are denying an entire nation of people this basic human right? And why is it that each and every American who is at risk (and that is most of us) isn't screaming bloody murder about this one issue alone?? I really don't get it.
This excerpt from David Sirota's new book (Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered our Government -- and How We Take it Back) provides some answers to my mother's good question of why the interests of such a small segment of the U.S. population have been allowed to "deny an entire nation of people of this basic human right" (perhaps a right contingent on sufficient resources---but clearly this condition is met).
Sirota makes the question more pointed, by noting that those who endorse (and in any case stand to benefit from) national health care include not just those needing care but increasingly, doctors and members of the business community:
According to a nationwide ABC/Washington Post poll in 2003, "Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current [private] employer-based system."
Doctors, too, are chiming in with support for universal health insurance. In 2003, the prestigious--and conservative--Journal of the American Medical Association published a proposal for government-sponsored universal health care that was endorsed by more than 8,000 physicians (including two former surgeon generals).
Even parts of the business community support government intervention. For instance, Ford, GM and Chrysler all endorsed Canada's system, where the government funds health care for all citizens. Similarly, a poll of Michigan small businesses found that 63 percent supported creating a universal health care system, even if it required tax increases. The health insurance industry, you see, is not only gouging patients--it is gouging employers who provide health care benefits to workers.
Horrifically, lack of universal health care is killing 18,000 U.S.-ers a year:
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.
Sirota goes on to address my mother's question:
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.
Really, who needs lobbyists when corrupt politicians who will do the job? People like Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) can be counted on to bring up the specter of health care "rationing" whenever the topic of universal health care comes up, as when Ron Pollock of Families USA testified before a house committee on the issue:
Like a drooling pit bull snarling at a passerby, Rogers barked, "You support rationing health care for American citizens and limiting the ability for them to have access to pharmaceutical treatment in order to keep costs down."
Rogers might well have screamed "Communist!" had his time not run out. Why was he so aggressively hurling out deceptive accusations? He was just doing the job he'd been paid to do: Over the previous four years, Rogers found himself in possession of more than a quarter million dollars of campaign contributions from the health care industry. Rogers is just a cog in the industry's spin machine--a $275,000 cog, but a cog nonetheless. That machine has been effective over the years in one of its most important goals: tarring any government health care initiative as the precursor to "rationing." So when advocates of government involvement make an appearance anywhere in Washington, the industry's hired goons can be counted on to shout them down before any ugly truth gets out there.
We are led to believe that because we have a private, for-profit health care system, we don't have health care rationing in America. But the whole point of most health insurance companies is to ration care, limiting the amount of coverage their patients get in order to save cash. Even the Supreme Court admits that. [...] The ultraconservative Washington Times admitted that the court made very clear that "it is the point of any HMO to ration care and within its prerogative to delay tests, avert expensive consultations or refuse experimental care."
Sirota goes on to make some obvious suggestions about how the health care crisis could be resolved: either go for a single-payer system ("Medicare for everyone") or else regulate the industry. Easier said than done, though. The deeper answer to my mother's question remains unanswered: how on earth can U.S.-ers get corporations back into the bottle?
Recent Comments