I'm pretty invested in this health care bill battle. First, twenty-four years ago, when I was 24 years old, I was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. My medical treatments lasted over four years, cost close to half a million dollars, and were largely paid for by insurance coverage from my two acting unions, Actors Equity Association and Screen Actors Guild. Still, my family was forced to empty my bank account to meet official poverty levels (there wasn't very much to spend, at the time) in order to qualify for Social Security disability payments, and my years of illness nearly bankrupted my parents -- in spite of all the insurance coverage and assistance. I can tell you firsthand: even the most privileged among us are within a millimeter of losing everything to an unexpected illness. I was lucky enough to escape the clutches of what was then considered to be an incurable disease. I had my life. But I was left with nothing else. So, I'm puzzled, and amazed, and dismayed, by those who want health care reform legislation to be anything other than the most comprehensive and powerful it can possibly be.
Then there's my new family. My wife is from Italy. She, her parents, her grandparents, all her relatives, and all their friends have received prompt, capable, and comprehensive health care
their entire lives, and it hasn't cost them a thing. They've had their teeth cleaned regularly, their cavities filled, gum tissue transplants, fused spinal discs, abdominal surgeries, you name it. They didn't wait any longer than anyone would here. Nothing was rationed or withheld. They were, and are, every age, from zero to 94. Their government makes sure that its citizens can visit the doctor, have surgeries, and take care of their health, period. It's a right of existence, and -- to judge by my wife's circle -- it's working well (and Italy ain't exactly known for things working well). For that matter, my wife also attended the high school of her choice free of charge, and a world renowned Italian University for $200 per year. Why wouldn't Americans want the same? If they do want it, why are these things being kept from them? Maybe a more pertinent question today is, why are they being encouraged and instructed to fear this kind of progress on the part of their government, which every other advanced nation's government in the world has already long embraced?
Last night's eruption during President Obama's speech was a good example of that last tendency. It reminded me of the famous quotation from Joseph Welch, spoken to Senator Joseph McCarthy, who'd already spent years ruining careers and lives with less than sincere (and far less than accurate) accusations of anti-Americanism.
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?, is what Mr. Welch said in 1954. And it precipitated the downfall of a legendary bully (who is now largely regarded as a blowhard).
It would have been interesting if President Obama had responded to Republican Congressman Joseph Wilson's outburst of "You lie!" with those same iconic words. First, it would have been interesting to see whether the Congressman, or others, might have responded; whether the president would have responded once again; and whether this would have resulted in spirited and unscripted debate, thus giving us all a glimpse of what an American version of British Parliament might look like.
But our House of Representatives isn't British Parliament. There have been plenty of times I've wished it was. It would be great to have a forum where questions and criticisms could be shouted out at our elected leaders, thereby compelling them to respond. But we don't have that forum. And, since we don't, Joseph Wilson should have followed some simple rules. You do not shout "You lie!" at the president while he's addressing Congress, and the nation. More crucially, you don't shout "You lie!" at the president when he's stating the irrefutable fact that his health care proposals do not offer coverage to illegal residents of the United States.
Since facts, such as the one I just mentioned, don't seem to hold as much influence as facts used to, let me quote from the health care proposal being prepared for submission to congress:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
I do not know what makes the language of Sec. 246 so hard to understand, or accept. Since it's right there, visible for anyone to read, I have to suspect that Joseph Wilson either doesn't know it's there, or doesn't care. That he, and the many (many, many) others who are furious about aspects of the proposed health care legislation, simply want to use any emotion, misinformation, slander, or lie to prevent its passage. That's a shame, because a) there are plenty of areas in which to find legitimate fault in the bill, as with many bills, and b) because giving health care insurance to the most people possible is a very good thing to do. That's why every other advanced nation on planet Earth does it -- and most of them have far greater health than we enjoy, and spend much less on keeping it that way.
So why are so many still vehemently opposed? To me, all the arguments against fall apart when inspected with any sense of logic. There's the slander, intimated last night, that the bill covers illegal immigrants. It doesn't. I sometimes wonder whether this misguided argument stems from the fact that the bill would presumably cover the offspring of illegal immigrants, should they be born on United States soil. But those new human beings, if born in the United States, are United States citizens. That's the law. If the complaint is with that law, then the bill's opponents should confront that issue, not the health care bill. (Of course, that would require altering the Constitution of the United States, which grants citizenship rights to anyone born here. The same constitution that conservatives consider perfect, and worthy of protection from "revisionist" judges. I guess that's an inconsistency they still need to work out.)
For the life of me, and not for lack of effort, I can't wrap my mind around the logic of those against aggressive reform -- including a "public option." I posted some thoughts on Facebook late last night and got response after response from people wishing a bill would bring "liability/tort reform," "oversight," or "create incentives," and "level the playing field," all followed by the demand that this not include "big government involvement." I'm sorry, but that doesn't track. All those things require government involvement. At least some opponents seem to want government to provide, without being "involved."
To take it a step further, all those expressed cravings above would be best accomplished by the government offering an optional, only-if-you-want-it, government sponsored insurance option. That's the way to keep insurance companies honest! By offering a competent, comprehensive, affordable, and compassionate alternative they will be forced to match, or else lose customers. Honestly, I think many of those who are opposed have been sold an ideological bill of goods. "Government bad. Oppose it. Even if it's offering something you need."
One concern I can at least understand is that offering lower cost, government sponsored insurance might put insurance companies at an unfair competitive disadvantage, thereby forcing some out of business, and costing people jobs. I can understand the concerns, but the argument doesn't hold up. First, insurance company profits are enormous. There's room for diminishment. Second, we're talking about legislation that would insure forty-five million more people! Insurance companies could easily make up for lowered rates and maintain, or surpass, profits through increased revenue. And, even if the government program "stole" customers away and forced some, or (gasp) all, insurance companies out of business, that would mean the government's insurance entity would have to hire enough workers to accommodate the forty-five million new customers. Workers are going to be needed. Forty-five million new policy holders will create jobs, not eliminate them.
I've heard the impassioned cry that any "public option" will act as a "foot in the door," after which citizens will be forced to use government subsidized insurance, or government provided health care (the latter being an option that's never been proposed). Complaining about having subsidized insurance provided to you sounds to me a bit like complaining about having Social Security or unemployment benefits imposed upon you. But, putting that aside, I really can't see it happening, unless an overwhelming majority of people really like the way things are going. I mean, a military draft couldn't stand up to public opposition. Do you really think government health insurance, if attempted, that wasn't pleasing the people, could survive where a military draft could not?
That still leaves those who just think government screws everything up, and don't want it given any more responsibility or influence over their lives. I can sure understand the sentiment. But is the solution to forever prohibit government from attempting to get better? I'd like to know how many who oppose more "government involvement" home-school their children, take their own garbage to the dump, keep their own reservoirs functioning and safe, repair their own streets, build and operate their own public transportation (or refuse to use it, wherever they go), or VOLUNTARILY OPT OUT OF MEDICARE WHEN THEY REACH 65!!, and send their unemployment and social security checks back out of principled opposition? And I'm not talking about foregoing one or two, folks. You're either on the grid, or you're off. There's no in-between. The reactionary in me wants to say, "Fess up. You suck at the government's tit, then complain when chocolate milk ain't flowing." My emotional side is tired of it.
But, having cleared my spleen of my own frustration, I just encourage you all to look at it another way. Not how the government has failed you to this point, but at what the government might be offering now to improve upon the past. If you don't allow for that opportunity, if you only exist in defensive mode, you could very well be blocking the improvement you're aching for.
Evan Handler's new book is "It's Only Temporary: The Good News and the Bad News of Being Alive."
Robert L. Borosage: The President's Speech
The President gives a great speech. He challenged politicians and Americans to do "great things," because that is "who we are." Once more, he offers his hand; once more it is spit upon.
What if, in the interest of keeping out the hands of corrupt government and corporate profiteers, we ordinary individuals form an insurance company of our own. It should be completely non-profit (in order to remove the self-interests of anyone who would wish to profit by it), with a guarnatee to cover everyone, no matter the state of their health and without exception. We would all have to pay in, of course, but we could also tap into the billions of dollars of charity donations that Americans make annually--anyone who wishes to donate and take a writeoff would do so knowing that they had made a difference to real people, because we can all agree that people who are sick are in need, and when those people are critical, the last thing they need to worry about is whether or not they can afford to survive. As the largest "customer" we would be able to dictate to the industry how much we were willing to pay for healthcare, and as part of the formation of these companies, rather than investing in the stock market in order to grow our mutual pool of funds, we could invest in something novel, like real, American businesses by giving reasonable interest rate loans to start small and mid-level businesses, thereby helping to kill two birds with one stone.
The socialized states that you adore free ride off of the technology developed by the United States free market. The entire world does. No doubt you would likely survive under the Italian system -- if diagnosed today. The issue is stagnating technology. Free teeth cleanings and a large savings account are nice but I'm sure your family would rather have you alive.
As someone who spent time as a nurse in Europe, I also suggest you visit an Italian hospital. It's like having your own personal time machine.
E.H.
Whatever is done to fix this problem must be done carefully with complete consideration for everyone involved. It must not be done swiftly. It must not be done for glory.
the "I AM ALLRIGHT JACK" syndrome. Making sure that everyone is protected is no concern to them;
"good christians no doubt".
As a canadian, some of the comments re our healthcare system provide a good laugh because
I move from being offended by the stupidity and ignorance of the american opponents who cite the canadian system as a reason not to have healthcare in the US.
We have a excellent health care system and are proud of it.
Perfect? No Free? No, but It provide us with excellent care, not to mention peace of mind.
Being 73 years old, I have yet to know a canadian who went bankrupt because of health care cost;
What say you?
1) What was the 2008 GDP of the USA, England, Italy, France and every other country where successful government-provided healthcare is reported.
For those same countries...
2) What were the total 2008 expenditures on health care (both private and public)?
3) What was the 2008 population?
4) What were total tax income revenues (from city to federal)?:
5) What % of the population suffers from chronic or incurable diseases?
6) What other data points should be considered to put together a true economic analysis?
Before anyone starts throwing tomatoes at me for focusing too much on $$ and not enough of people, let me state that I agree that health care needs to be overhauled in the US. Period. Most of the the proposals I have seen may very well have been well thought out (on both sides), but feels like more of a "ready, fire, aim" situation. Let's collectively (that means everyone) step back, quantify, assess and put together a plan that is both comprehensive and sustainable.
But I would add another couple data-points:
bankruptcies in the US due to medical expenses (or the expenses after including credit card interest rates), and
medical bankruptcies in European nations. Or any other civilized nation.
In 2008 13.2% of the US population was in poverty while 22% of the UK was in poverty.
their entire lives, and it hasn't cost them a thing.
Italy provides health care for "free"? Sign me up. Lets duplicate this free system to get free cars, free food, free housing and free everything. Why would we just stop at free health care if it is so great? Oh, I think I know...it isn't free.
"free" is "free" in the sense that our roads are "free" - with the exception of toll ways where you pay for driving on specific roads, you pay taxes and then the whole country has roads. It's pretty nice. This way, you can freely drive all over the country!
It's "free" like public transportation is "almost free" - If we had to pay the full cost and it wasn't subsidized through taxes, it'd be pretty pricey.
And just like everything else, if it were not done through the government, it'd be more expensive and it'd hit the poor harder than it hits the rich. That's kind of the idea behind taxes, a mild redistribution of wealth to help out the less fortunate and provide the basic necessities to everyone.
So anyone (like you I assume, with your naive satirical comments on how TERRIBLE all the countries with their AWFUL socialized medicine and their horrendously longer life expectancy and happier people are) I guess must either assume that:
A) There should be NO redistribution of wealth, let the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, hurrah for the status quo, why do we have public schools for these poor jerks anyway?
or
B) Health care does not fall into the category of basic human rights.
Which is it?
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/08/world/italy-s-public-health-care-system-is-doing-poorly.html
Italy doesn't just give away free cars, free food, free housing, and free everything to everybody, or for that matter, free health care. They pay taxes in Italy.
You need to stop being such a hypocrite and stop using ALL government services and move to Somalia. True freedom of government exists in Somalia. There you will be truly free as there is no government to speak of to screw things up.
I am fully supportive of a universal healthcare system in the US, but please STOP misrepresenting European systems to people here as 'costing nothing' when, in fact, these systems are funded by higher taxation levels. Higher taxes are a small price to pay for healthcare, but higher taxes are unattractive to Americans, especially since Obama has promised that he would not raise middle-class taxes. Saying European healthcare 'costs nothing' is misrepresentative.
http://emiliawahoo76.blogspot.com
http://myspace.com/virginiadem
I crunched the numbers using the tax rates for my family income income and including my yearly health insurance costs for a family of four in the U.S. vs. the tax table alone in France and found that I would have more money in my pocket living in France by about $4,500 USD.
And thats not considering coverage caps, pre-existing conditions, and the fact that if I was sick enough to loose my job, I would not be able to afford the cobra premium.
So yes, health insurance in universal systems is not free, but it is much better coverage at about half the cost. Unfortunately, a universal single payer plan is not on the table this time.
Regarding the longed-for single-payer system, I'd actually be amenable to seeing one implemented along the lines of the Canadian system, which would basically mean 'Medicare for All' and an extension of Medicare's benefits to cover 100%, instead of the current 80%; but not the system in place in the UK. In point of fact, Gordon Brown's about to take flak today in a speech to the Trades Union Conference, telling them that he's about to make the first significant cuts in public services since Thatcher's day. This will include services cut from the NHS to save money, and, mark you, they will be significant. The last time this was done, Thatcher removed completely from the NHS, both dental and optical services and added prescription charges, which have gone up every year since. One wonders what will be cut this time - GP visits or after-hours walk-in clinics/ER consultations/services? Payment for ambulance transport? Ah, but then ... it's ALL 'free.'
Wow.
Wow.
I am impressed. This post totally speaks my mind word for word. Really well done. Very well said. Now if only you could post this on FreeRepublic or RightWingNews or Fox or something.
You're a good writer. Glad to have discovered that. You got all the points in. It's very basic. I already knew everything that you wrote. But you got it all in there, you made it all make sense, it's all logical and it totally speaks my mind.
And for the health-insured congressman shouting 'you lie' during Obama's speech, it doesn't surprise me, because congressmen like this one only care about themselves, and not the hardworking citizen/taxpayer.
I just wish we could see more articles by uninsured reporters, both in print and on TV. But I don't see this happening anytime soon.
I wonder how many people we killed doing that.
Do you know how we felt doing it? We felt great, like we were doing our jobs well.
And we were.
For particularly expensive policy holders or very narrow groupings we would get a celebratory pizza from the chief.
A celebratory pizza. For killing people.
And there I was, pulling the trigger...on command.
First a couple of points. Medicare for all is not even really on the table, so leave off your ranting about Medicare. I haven't bothered to fact-check the wild (and obviously copy and pasted) rant about Medicare for that very reason.
As to the second issue (which I'm seeing copy and pasted across the internet more and more), the "why should the many spend money for the public good" argument.
First, if you're religious, this attitude pretty much goes against every major world religion -- which all teach charity towards those in need. So, consider that; Jesus never said "love thy neighbor -- unless you can get a better looking tax return by letting him die."
Second, even if you're not religious (I'm not), this whole "just cut them loose" philosophy is -- on top of being immensely immoral -- foolish. Right now, poor people go to the ER when sick, which is a very inefficient and costly system funded by taxpayers and the premiums of the insured.
So why on EARTH would you want to limit access to preventative, non-emergency, and much, much CHEAPER healthcare for these same people?
So the "I've got mine, screw you buddy" argument isn't just immoral, it's illogical; it would actually cost us LESS as a nation, to provide basic healthcare to the indigent, than our current insane hodge-podge system does.