Once again, the truth of incredibly bad healthcare options is being felt in this good old U.S. of A., the land we still purport is the best in the world. It seems that even our good old “hope and change” president isn’t willing to give consideration to the matter of single-payer health care. Or at least, he wasn’t willing to speak out when the current Senate committee holding hearings booted out physicians who protested single-payer advocates being ignored at the hearings. An interesting editorial piece from one of the protesters ran in our local newspaper today explaining single-payer health care and the issues involved. Go take a look. And while you’re at it, look at another newspaper discussion of the idea at this link.
Two things seem pretty obvious to me:
1. The insurance companies/HMOs/etc., are not about to let go of the strangle hold they have on our pocketbooks.
2. We will never see real reform and a quality health care system in America — see point 1.
I find it particularly idiotic that the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights is working so hard with blatant scare tactics in their campaign to spoil any successful efforts by the government to change current health care and health insurance. Interesting quote from a May 11 article about this group in “The Washington Post”:
Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights … Scott, a multimillionaire investor and controversial former hospital chief executive, has become an unlikely and prominent leader of the opposition to health-care reform plans that Congress is expected to take up later this year. While disorganized Republicans and major health-care companies wait for President Obama and Democratic leaders to reveal the details of their plan before criticizing it, Scott is using $5 million of his own money and up to $15 million more from supporters to try to build resistance to any government-run program.
What, if you’ve seen these dire television ads, is so bad about letting the people and the Congress know about serious problems with health care in countries where government run/government mandated programs are in operation? Shouldn’t people hear about these horror stories, in contrast to the “all will be wonderful and well for everyone if we only have single-payer, universal health care” line?
Of course there is a problem with these conservative ads. They say NOTHING about the millions of Americans who are suffering similarly and even worse because they have no health insurance. The ads say NOTHING about the millions of Americans who are refused coverage for serious diseases and illness that they THOUGHT they were paying for under health plans they can barely afford.
What about all those folks, Mr. Scott? Any comments or solutions for THEM???
I’ve said it in the past and I’ll say it again: Why can’t we establish a quality health care system in the richest, greatest country in the world — a system that helps anyone and everyone with health care needs? A great step in that direction would be to expand Medicare (single-payer health care) in some fashion to include more than elderly or catastrophically ill younger people.
NOTE: I do NOT say simply expanding the age limits for Medicare is the answer. But certainly something along those lines is a good starting point.
I certainly respect the personal, family experiences you shared with us. Thank you.
As for some of the questions you raise about government v. private — there are some functions which only the government DOES or CAN do better than private industry. Aside from Constitutional issues that demand it, can you imagine military defense and national security being done better privately than by the government? Perhaps that example borders on the absurd, but it does tell us that some issues are so big that only the federal government can do them well.
How about the Interstate Highway System? Certainly that’s an example of well done government monopoly. I return to my original reply above — Medicare and Social Security have their problems but certainly are done better than private industry could or would do them.
I would also suggest that private health care as it is today has many issues or “horror stories” of people failing to get help because they 1) cannot afford it, 2) have been denied coverage by some insurance company lackey despite medical advice that a product/procedure is needed, or, 3) both of the above. I’m talking about a private health care system which is run NOT by the competent doctors, nurses, etc., who should be in charge. I’m talking about the system we have, which is run by HMOs, insurance companies, and executives paid gargantuan salaries. I worked briefly for an insurance company (not medical insurance) and I guarantee you insurance companies are not in existence to help their clients in time of need. They hire and train all those adjusters and claims reps, and pay them bonuses, to low-ball and/or deny your claims.
Again, I have not said — or at least have not intended to say — that a single-payer system is absolutely the best way or the answer to health care in America. But I DO think it deserves to be on the table, not ignored by Sen. WhatsHisName (my apologies for not knowing that) who was heading up the committee established to come to grips with health care reform.
Anyway, I’ve rambled and ranted enough. Thanks again, really, for coming here to share your thoughts on all these issues. As I said, I truly appreciate your willingness to open up some insight into your family’s experiences with the Canadian system.
If it is not run efficiently and objectively, how on earth could it be a better solution for health care in America? So, your argument is, one source health care is our solution regardless of whether it is efficient or inefficient? And so I put it to you, are monopolies in general ever run efficiently? Really? Even better, are government sponsored monopolies ever run efficiently?
After watching my canadian Grandmother wait for years to get into the proper nursing home ( I believe they said it was a 6 year waiting list), after seeing the doctors work on her toenail sans painkillers ( pulling it off, eventually), and after watching an inordinate amount of time pass with open wounds on her leg, I can tell you first hand that I am not at all impressed with the Canadian health care system.
When my U.S. based mom took ill, I was able to find a nursing home within 10 minutes of my home that could provide her with a ‘single’ occupancy room. She received superb care from nurses and doctors ( yes, plural ) and she received physical therapy to try and get her well enough to become self reliant again.
When she passed away, again, I had multiple doctors trying to save her, the entire emergency process ran efficiently and quickly. They did everything they could to save her and frankly, I know in my heart that if she could have been saved, the team of experts in place here would have done it.
I for one am very much against trying to screw with the current system: it is superb, it is professional, and I’d rather deal with a little red tape than see the entire health care profession coerced into one overall plan.
If Obama does not have the gonads to keep “pig odor research” out of a bill when we are trillions of dollars in debt, how on earth do you expect him to create a new government entity like this without it becoming riddled with waste, fraud, pork and paybacks?
You know, you really should read both the original post and the comments that follow before this rant: “Oh, but I digress, we were talking about how objective and efficiently run our non-corrupt government bureaucracy is going to be.”
No one was talking about how objective and efficiently run a single-payer plan would be — we were discussing how and why it could be a better solution to health care in America. I still insist, despite your rant above, that it ought to be considered.
You can talk all you want about the problems with both Social Security and Medicare — or you can talk to some people who’ve found needed income and needed health services through Social Security and Medicare.
What’s tipping me in favor of a “Medicare type” health care solution is a letter I read recently by one of the most conservative people I’ve ever personally known — a letter favoring single-payer health care. The man is both a former state representative in Missouri AND a practicing M.D. of about 30 years standing.
Seems if that gentleman — DOCTOR, by the way — with whom I have disagreed strongly on most of his public stands and voting record, the system should be on the table for consideration.
That’s exactly what we need, the government running just one more pork fest as inefficiently as they run everything else. Personally, I just can’t wait to take out a 10 year, $90,000 loan to buy my first eco friendly 35mph still made in China death trap on wheels. I suppose if the eco friendly semi can only move at 35 mph as well, I might just bounce off him rather than be crushed, so maybe once it maims me, instead of killing me outright, a 35mph ambulance will carry me to an emergency room, where I will wait for a 9-5 government official to determine whether or not it is worth the expense of saving me.
Oh, but I digress, we were talking about how objective and efficiently run our non-corrupt government bureaucracy is going to be.
Well, if the government runs it as well as the social security program, not only will they have a special health plan set up for themselves only, they will spend every dime coming into the program on unrelated projects such as interest payments on pig odor research grants.
Let’s see, everyone knows that if you have competition, that drives prices down, forcing efficiency and a moderate level of customer service. Monopolies, on the other hand, end up being able to control not just their own price levels but their own billing practices as well. Typically, monopolies bring higher prices, lower service, less innovation, and less customer satisfaction.
The more influence the government has on health care, the worse off we are, as a nation, going to be.
Our nation is becoming moronified, people looking for Government to solve all their problems.
A new study shows that SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE REFORM WOULD BE A MAJOR STIMULUS FOR THE US ECONOMY and would provide:
** 2.6 Million New Jobs,
** $317 Billion in Business Revenue,
** $100 Billion in Wages, and
** $44 Billion New Tax Revenues
The press release is here: http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/january/nurses-to-congress-expanding-medicare-could-reverse-job-losses-and-repair-our-broken-healthcare-system-and-safety-net.html
Here’s the study: http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf
It’s clear that single-payer is the solution, not only in terms of providing quality care for all, but also economically!
WHY ISN’T SINGLE-PAYER ON THE TABLE?