Why Healthcare Can't Wait

Through the years, there have been many issues where labor and business don't see eye to eye. Here's one where we firmly agree: the need to fix healthcare, now, not in spite of the economic crisis, but because of it. For this reason, we are proud to stand together with President Obama as he reinforces the urgency of health care reform in the State of the Union speech before Congress.

America's economic recovery depends upon solving the healthcare emergency that is bankrupting families and eroding our competitiveness in the global economy. Bringing healthcare security to every American will help jump-start the nation's recovery and provide a foundation for new economic opportunity, innovation and job growth.

The evaporation of nearly 600,000 jobs in January alone makes the need for healthcare reform more urgent than ever. Each one percent rise in the national unemployment rate strands a million more people without health insurance. Even for many of the employed, healthcare costs are outpacing income and forcing hard choices, such as taking care of a family's health or keeping a roof over its head.

President Obama is firm in his resolve to create a fair and sustainable healthcare system and millions of Americans stand behind his vision. Congress must take swift action to enact comprehensive healthcare reform today.

Taking the right steps to reform and rebuild our healthcare system--now--will put us on the road to a healthier, economically robust America. There are rapid gains to be made. America loses an estimated $207 billion every year due to the poorer health and shorter lifespans of those lacking good coverage. Another $1.3 trillion is lost through easily preventable and treatable chronic conditions, such as hypertension, asthma and heart disease. Right now, we spend only four cents of every healthcare dollar on prevention and public health, opening the gates for the most expensive chronic diseases, and paying heavily for the inevitable results.

Solving our healthcare crisis will do more than help rebuild this economy. It will set the stage for the next. Our teaching hospitals and medical centers educate and train the world's most advanced healthcare workforce, accounting for one out of every ten jobs in the United States. A comprehensive approach to healthcare reform will remedy workforce shortages, spur innovation, and add new job opportunities in areas such as prevention, wellness and home-based care. Helping Americans stay healthy will pay off now and for generations to come. For example, reducing deaths from cancer or heart disease by just one percent--readily attainable through universal coverage--would be invaluable on a human level and worth nearly $500 billion to current and future Americans.

With so much at stake, we must begin the work today to create a new healthcare system that:

• Provides affordable, comprehensive coverage for every man, woman, and child in America
• Builds on the strong foundation of employer-based coverage
• Encourages continued innovation in prevention, wellness, and disease treatment, and
• Lowers overall costs, and increases the value of each healthcare dollar spent.

At this critical moment for our nation--with jobs eroding month by month--we can no longer afford a system that costs way too much, excludes too many people, and fails to meet the most essential need of American families--staying healthy.

A new healthcare system is within our reach. With the future of our economy and the future of the American dream at risk, there's no more time to lose. We can change healthcare from what it is now--a quagmire of expense and frustration--to what we know it can become--a source of greater health, innovation and opportunity.

Andy Stern is President of the Service Employees International Union, North America's largest and fastest-growing union.

Jeff Kindler is Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, the nation's largest research-based biopharmaceutical company.

Comments

[drricklippin]

If you believe that SEIU and Big PhRMA actually want a transformed "disease care" system you are woefully naive.

They have billions to lose and huge hospital job losses ahead if we REALLY get serious about prevention and public health

Who is kidding who here?

I don't believe this phony rhetoric for minute.

(Wolves in sheeps clothing personified)


Dr. Rick Lippin
Southjampton,Pa

[FaceReality2]

Consider also all the people employed as a consequence of the paperwork nightmare engendered by our private insurance system (hundreds of different claim forms). As a Duke doctor pointed out, there is a billing clerk for every bed in the Duke University Hospital. Is there a nurse for every bed? I doubt it.

These are all special interests with a vested interest in the status quo.

[Hamish Gowans]

Yep.
Every health care dollar is split between actually delivering health care and administration. In the US, we split off about 1/3 of every dollar to admin, whereas countries w/ single-payer have that number down to the single digits. It's the businesscrats who drive up the costs for us all.

[Bernique]

agree, Dr. Lippin.

[Hamish Gowans]

Dr Rick,
Do you know something we don't? The reason I ask is that in Canada, they actually have _more_ health care workers per capita than we do. So please clarify whether you are saying that "huge hospital job losses" will follow from an SEIU/Pfizer-styled reform. Under single-payer, this would not be the case. For more info, take a look at Physicians for a National Health Program:

http://www.pnhp.org/

I agree on your main point that SEIU and Pfizer are being disingenuous to paint themselves as reform-minded. Pfizer is sitting pretty with the status quo and SEIU doesn't represent true reformers in the health care industry, like California Nurses Association.
Their first two points even seem to contradict each other; keeping anything employer-based is going to perpetuate the problem they raise where unemployment is linked to lack of coverage.

[VikingQuest]

Anyone here think that Government should first try and cleanup the mess of entitlements they have right in front of them with Social Security and Medicare? I mean not many people realize that SS & Medicare are unsustainable programs that are about $60 trillion (with a T) in the hole right now.

Here is our current debt per David Walker Former Comptroller General of the USA appointed by Bill Clinton (head of the books):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8ZmQMCtqA

Here is where we are going by keeping SS & Medicare as is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSoXKapKQs

[Arthur954]

"would agree with most of this with the exception of employer-based. I think an individual's health care account should belong to them and not their employer, if they have one."

Yes, absolutely. And the same thing should happen with retirement - you should not have to depend on your employer´s fortunes for this matter.

[dougbob]

two words: single payer.

[darter22]

I would agree with most of this with the exception of employer-based. I think an individual's health care account should belong to them and not their employer, if they have one. There should also be a single-payer option to having to buy 10 cents worth of health care for a dollar from a company who would rather see you dead than pay a medical bill.

[trotskylives]

What france does right which is great is that the pharmacist can give you drugs right away most common ailments. If you have strep throat, he will look at you right there and then and give you medicine. In the US you have to see the DR and all that BS with insurance.

Retail clinics are started to spread here, but DR here hate them because it lowers their profits.

Reforming tort laws would help dramatically as well. NO more 50M payouts, but standard reasonable payouts, like they do in france. Then Dr make more money here, and only see patients they really need to see, and not just routine incidents.

Why not take what really works in other countries, and incorporate those ideas here?

I would support govt health insurance via a higher gas tax for only folks who have over 100K in bills per year. Below that let the private insurance companies compete, get rid of state by state rules, and force them to take everybody. Get rid of employer based health care that destroys new business creation.

For those worried about health insurance profits, remember that the government gets 40% on those profits plus the states take.

[FaceReality2]

The wingnuts fear that under a single payer system the government will not control costs and that people will over utilize the system. As one poster below put it, “Offer things for free and people will consume more . . . look what happens when they give away a free taco or free pizza . . . lines out the door.”

Here’s how the private insurance industry holds down costs and utilization: (1) by seeking any way possible to deny coverage when a large claim arises (for example, a woman was denied coverage when she needed surgery because she failed to disclose a yeast infection when she applied for the policy years earlier); (2) by using amorphous and ambiguous terms like "medically necessary" and "experimental" in their policies in order to deny claims even though the patients’ doctors think otherwise; (3) by denying policies to people who have pre-existing conditions, even non life-threatening conditions like depression; and (4) in states where rates are unregulated like Texas, by raising rates often to drive out people as they get older and their risk of getting sick increases.

Therefore, the benefit we get from the private insurance bureaucracy is denial of coverage, often when that coverage is needed the most.

The alternative is a one payer system wherein all Americans have timely access to effective treatment for a broad but defined set of health conditions. The money currently going to pay for the private insurance bureaucracy can then be spent on actual health

[trotskylives]

These issues show up because these companies pay off politicians. Real government reform would begin with very tough regulations where insurance companies cannot get out of paying anything.

The govt need to create one basic health plan nationally that is legally tight, which companies can add benefits too but can never take them away. Let these companies compete based on this one plan, and make it so you can't turn anybody down.

Car insurance laws have minimum requirements, why not health insurance?

Have the govt split the costs 50% with the insurance company of all costs over 100K per person via a gas/carbon tax. Solve 2 issues in one common sense proposal, this will reduce costs dramatically because risk would drop for the ins companies.

[FaceReality2]

"The govt need to create one basic health plan nationally that is legally tight, which companies can add benefits too but can never take them away. Let these companies compete based on this one plan, and make it so you can't turn anybody down."

Trot, you are moving in the right direction. I'm glad you see some of the major pitfalls in a totally unregulated insurance market. What you are recommending is basically the system Switzerland has.

But your last proposal has me confused. Why should the government subsidize for-profit companies by sharing the costs of catastrophic care (over $100K)? That should be anathema to your libertarian economic philosophy. If the private insurance companies cannot assume the risk by themselves, what is the rationale for their existence--what are they bringing to the party?

[FaceReality2]

Aside from their profit-motivated immoral behavior in denying coverage and valid claims, the biggest problem with the private insurance company system is administrative costs:

"Single-payer systems are better at holding down administrative costs. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that the United States spends 345 percent more per capita on health administration than our neighbors up north. This is largely because the Canadian system doesn't have to employ insurance salespeople, or billing specialists in every doctor's office, or underwriters. Physicians don't have to negotiate different prices with dozens of insurance plans or fight with insurers for payment. Instead, they simply bill the government and are reimbursed."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_health_of_nations

[LindaWarnke]

You can fix healthcare TOMORROW if you eliminate the waste! I work in this field, I KNOW what I'm talking about. If I collected all the drugs and food and supplies that are THROWN OUT weekly where I work, I could probably supply a small third world nation. Unbelievable! And this is just ONE facility...multiply that by hundreds of thousands, and do the math.
Board of Health regulations that do NOTHING to improve quality of care, but drive the costs up, up, up are a big culprit. These are the kinds of things that need to be fixed. Just throwing more money at the problem isn't going to work.

[FaceReality2]

Absolutely. How about the costs of the private health insurance bureaucracy--31% of every health care dollar. There is a billing clerk for every bed at Duke University Hospital whereas Canadian hospitals get by with two.

[babina]

Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. How is a public education a right and not healthcare? How is the public library system a right and not healthcare? How is having roads and bridges that are maintained and safe a right and not healthcare? How is having a police and/or fire dispatch a right and not healthcare?

Healthcare is a moral issue, not an economic one. No one should die or go bankrupt because they become ill and have no healthcare coverage or the deductibles are so exorbitant over and above the cost of the coverage that it is beyond the means of most middle class Americans.

Wake up! The republicans have been brainwashing us for years to keep healthcare reform from becoming a reality. Stop listening to them! Just because they say something repeatedly doesn't make it true. They are lying, okay? They are completely motivated by profits of the healthcare and pharmaceutical companies and how it will benefit their personal and political ambition.

The healthcare insurance provider is the one that decides and dictates what treatment, test, etc. you should have or not have medically, not your doctor. Universal healthcare coverage would put those decisions back into the hands of your doctor.

[DuganS1]

The majority of people who don't have healthcare in this country are either not US citizens or are folks between the age of 18 and 25 who can afford insurance but chose not to buy it because they have other spending priorities (car, car insurance, beer, movies, cable TV, etc).

[FaceReality2]

There are millions of people like me who have a pre-existing condition, many of which are of little consequence, and we are refused coverage by the insurance companies. MIne? A Prozac prescription 15 years ago.

Get your facts from sources other than Limbaugh and Hannity.

[JA2008]

Healthcare can't wait. What about Science? What about the Science that creates healtchare? The National Institutes of Health director Raynard Kington, MD PhD, has just announced a stimulus package to help Science in the USA. How is he helping Science? By giving money to the people who already have funding. What about the thousands of Scientists who have no funding? There are many Professors who have no funding to do Science, even though they may have 20 years of experience and over 100 publications. Students look at these Professors and get the hint that it is too difficult to become a Scientist in the USA. Perhaps that is why so many PhDs in the USA come from China and India. Surely the NIH stimulus plan does not match President Obama's plans. Surely, the NIH stimulus plan is not what this country needs. Please join me in letting the NIH know that the stimulus plan is not right. Professor James Adams.

[degenerate1991]

Public education is not a right, it is an obligation (I assume you are referring to primary and secondary schools). As a student who will soon be attending college, I assure you there is no "right" to a higher education; you have to pay for it, quite a lot, I might add.

[AnnfromCA]

On this issue, we agree.

On the proposition proposed to take away private votes?

I disagree.

[Testiculus]

O.K. Mr. Kindley,

Kindly put your money where your mouth is:

#1) Immediately start selling all presciption for $5 each, ANYONE can afford that.

#2) Immediately lower the saleries of all employees to $50,000 to compensate for the loss revenue.

#3) Immediately GIVE medicines to all people out of work until they get back on their feet.


You must also lobby to close all fast food restaurants (can't have people eating unhealthy if we are going to pay for their health care).

Put all unhealthy people on a carefully structured diet, might as well give these people dieticians while we are at it.

Why not throw in a personal trainer?

[MotherKnowsBest]

We have health insurance as a result of my husband's employer. My husband would like to retire at age 62, and his employer would like to replace him with a younger, less expensive employee. However, since my husband has developed heart disease - now a pre-existing condition - he would not be able to receive private health insurance at an affordable cost. Therefore, he must work and keep his current coverage until he qualifies for Medicare. We are fortunate he is in a union so that his employer legally cannot just replace him.

[Tommee]

I am a Canadian and consider myself very fortunate to live in a country that has Universal Health Care. I personally know of no one who would prefer the U.S. Health Care System over ours... and I do know a lot of people. The stories of waiting forever for routine tests are a lie. The only time we wait longer than I would like is for elective procedures, and even those waits are getting shorter. It frustrates me beyond belief when I listen to the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh lie to the American people about the 'failure' of the Canadian Health Care System. Our health care may not be perfect, but it is getting better, and it covers everybody. Besides, we spend far less per capita than you do; our life span is a few years longer than yours; our infant mortality rate is lower; and our cancer survival rates are about the same as yours. We are doing something right. Hopefully the American people will take off the blinders and stop listening to the ideological, self-interest rubbish of the far right. Believe me, when you do get some form of Universal Coverage, you will ask yourself: How could we have waited so long?

[trotskylives]

We have government healthcare. How is it doing? I would say not so good:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/nyregion/18medicaid.html?_r=1

"So we're talking about 40 percent of all claims are questionable," Mr. Mehmet said - an amount that would approach $18 billion a year."

Is it really an efficient system if it pays everything out without checking? It's not their money, so why would they care? I am sure people on the inside are paid off to pay off fraud. Greed is everywhere if people can get away with it. Imagine the whole country was like NY?

Americans deserve better.

[Tommee]

Mr. Trotsky: I am not surprised to see your clueless post as a reply to mine. It's the typical red herring, straw man type of argument that people like you use to take attention away from the real issue. What does the NY Times article you posted have to do with health care in Canada? That's not how it works here. You are against Universal Health Care, pure and simple, for whatever reason - probably some right wing, Regan-like conservative dogma. Fact is: Universal Health Care works in Canada. My self, my family and my friends could not imagine living without it. Brace yourself Mr. Trotsky, it's only a matter of time that the majority of Americans will see what the rest of the developed world already sees. Health care should be a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it.

[Testiculus]

So you are telling me that if I work out at the gym 4 days a week (which I do) and someone else is laying on their sofa drinking and smoking that they have the same right to be healthy as I do?

You must also lobby to close all fast food restaurants (can't have people eating unhealthy if we are going to pay for their health care).

Put all unhealthy people on a carefully structured diet, might as well give these people dieticians while we are at it.

Why not throw in a personal trainer?

[FishOfTheProletariat]

Someone has to make less money. The only way to address this issue is to limit profits in some form or another. Until ALL of these clucks quit worshiping at the altar of "free enterprise," which is really restraint of trade and legislatively enforced monopolism; until the intellectuals and talking heads here GET IT, that American Medical Care is CLASS GENOCIDE... they're just switching seats on the Titanic.

[avocats]

Wow, talk about an unholy alliance! SEIU wants to turn healthcare into a Detroit-styled, labor driven model, and Pfizer wants to see EVERYone but their expensive prescription drugs. Who will pay for all this? Are they urging a single-payer, reduced overhead model?