It's August, almost Labor Day. For a week, we've read little except about the death and pageantry surrounding the mourning for and burial of Ted Kennedy. You'll note that not even the right wing is going along with this. Why? Because they are all on vacation, just like their brethren on the left. So, too, are the Senators and House members who spent the first part of the recess getting a dose of democracy that will enliven more than a few nightmares. Like everyone else, they are taking refuge in the warm embrace of family and other -- less official -- loved ones.
Here, at the end of August, it's almost easy to forget that health care reform remains an urgent, national necessity. Whether the current effort has life in it or not is irrelevant: change must come. Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats should not confuse their impressive ability to mobilize their shrunken base in ways both shrill and frightening. True, they whipped fear and doubt into the occluded heart of fearful and reactionary voters, but preserving the status quo is no victory. It simply means that people will live shorter, less healthy lives. This sort of political victory literally makes us all sicker.
The Democrats, of course, bear plenty of blame. Quite simply, they provided us with 1,200 page bills, not rallying cries. They reminded us that the business of governing is often chaotic but did so without the a clear leader or message to make sense of it all. Maybe had Kennedy been healthy or Obama not so distracted with trying to save the economy and our collective asses, things would have been different. But Kennedy is dead and the president spent too much time staying away or playing defense to sell a nonspecific concept. Throw in the unwillingness to upset pharma or the insurance industry too much, and what should have been a difficult victory has turned into a quiet dissipation of opportunity.
Health care reform is still necessary to save the economy. Moreover, it's morally virtuous and patriotic and completely justifiable on purely selfish grounds. Currently, in more than 30 other countries everyone has access to health care and everyone lives longer, on average, than Americans. (That includes people who have already reached the age of sixty.) So the only question is do we change now or when things are much worse.
Now would be better. To get things done, I suggest that we simplify this debate. First, let's be clear: the goal is universal health care -- no ifs, ands or buts. Second, let's avoid the dread form of socialism by following in the footsteps of Germany, France and Japan. They all have universal health but no one could call their system's socialist. Three, let's have the balls, brains and humility to learn how these countries went from the concept of universal health care to functioning systems that cost half of what the status quo does in America. And finally, let's remember that exceptions don't prove rules. No system can prevent every tragedy, but that's hardly a reason to retain a system that will, for certain, lead to a lower standard of living. (In other words, the Canadians and British are still healthier than we are.)
The need is real. The way forward is clear. The message should be obvious: universal care benefits us all. Let's get on with it.
Follow Michael B. Laskoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mlaskoff
In a way you have to be impressed by what Big Pharma and For-Profit Insurance has achieved.
They've managed to poison our politicians and the broader media. They've managed to entangle themselves everywhere.
They even gouge us with their side businesses...
For instance, you pay extra on your home owner's insurance in case somebody gets hurt on your property. Why? Because we don't have universal health care. Somebody has to go after you for their health care.
The same industry sells us both insurance policies! They have us coming and going.
What about Uninsured Motorist coverage. We wouldn't need it with universal health care.... Oh by-the-way, an insurance company sold you that coverage too!
They've dipped into our pockets three times all for the same FEAR! It's BRILLIANT!
I'm sure there are others examples of the insurance industry I haven't thought of.
How about STD and LTD insurance?
It boggles the mind.
HR676 (http://hr676.org) Single Payer system that is proven, pro-business and pro-people:
* Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
* Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. Better able to compete internationally.
* Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn't compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
* More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
* Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
* Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
* Reduced system complexity. Greater efficiency due to fewer regulations.
* Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
* HSA and MSA dollars redirected back into the economy for goods and services.
* Additional money to spend from not having to carry "uninsured motorist coverage" on your auto policy.
* Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
* People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
* Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists...) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.
Mind you, I don't think that Americans are stupid: I think that many people are afraid. Change is always difficult, but particularly when people are in a position of fear. That's why clear, dependable leadership is so important.
Much of this could have been avoided if Obama had sounded more precise when answering questions of "cost" when this was first raised. Had that been the case, the forces of the status quo would have moved on and found another point of attack. As it is, most people, I think, believe that covering everyone must cost more. And since, unfortunately, people would rather listen to pundits than read the facts, that's the enduring belief.
The right are fully intent on turning the USA into a cross between Bill Gibson and Ayn Rand: An impoverished majority who live and die completely at the whim of giant corporations, giant corporations who are beyond the law. Razing the civility of public discourse is just one step along that path and this centreist (if not centre-right) president, so in love with false equivelency, seems determined to meet them halfway.
In addition, Obama has proven to be a centrist: both out of necessity and political philosophy. I do not always agree with the results, but I think that his impulse is basically appropriate for a democratically elected president. He is trying to build mainstream consensus. That's not a bad impulse. It gets derailed only when minority interests receive too much weight, as may be the case now.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
The program is highly informative.
I really am trying to educate myself on the subject, do you know where I can find information on those foreign health care systems?
As to how one brings about change when so many entrenched and well-funded companies would prefer to see things change, I think that we have to look to Congress for that. What I do wonder is whether term limits would breed a little courage in people who seem more concerned with protecting their jobs.
1) None of the countries were a melting pot. That is to say that for the most part, all of the countries don't have a mixture of different kind of people.
2) The people in that country appear to be less SELFISH (READ LESS GREEDY) than most Americans.
3) Those countries seem to have better leadership than we have had in America. Their leaders were willing to take Health Care head on. Other than President Obama's campaign promise, most other persons in leadership seems to give a flip. America's other Presidents who fought for Health Care failed because of the other reasons that I have cited.
4) The leaders of the countries who have taken this head on care more about their citizens than our leaders do. Looks like Christianity is wasted on most Americans.
5) These other countries understand that the health of their people is the WEALTH of their countries.
6) Their systems work well because they are not like ours.
And yes, it would be interesting to see how fast this debate moved through Congress if all the lawmakers had their own coverage placed in jeopardy.