Why Not a "Bailout" That Restructures Health Care to Benefit All?

Failed U.S. health care must be regarded a major contributor to our systemic economic crisis. Indeed, the excesses of Wall St. and the subprime mortgage catastrophe mirror U.S. health care policy -- both are typified by privatized profit (for investors and insurers), and socialized risk (for taxpayers and consumers). Inflated U.S. health care costs -- 16% of GDP and rising -- are major contributors to an inflationary economy. Redress of this single aspect of an out-of-control U.S. economy would lift all boats. Comprehensive health care reform would improve the economic status of all, relieving health access concerns of families, individuals and businesses, large and small.

So-called "legacy costs" alone, comprised largely of retiree health and pension benefits, have contributed significantly to General Motor's negative cash flow, prompting yet another request for government bailout. In 2005, costs of health care coverage to GM amounted to $5.6 billion for 1.1 million employees, retirees and their dependents. In 2005 BusinessWeek reported that legacy costs added $1,600 to the cost of each GM vehicle.

It's time to confront the crippling economic effects of employment-linked health coverage that reduces competitiveness of businesses in the world marketplace, reduces effective employee take-home pay, and adds to the costs paid by all for goods and services (note above $1,600 added cost to each U.S.-made car).

Progressive leaders must do a better job of promoting civic discourse while clearly defining issues, like health care reform. Democrats must cease parroting right-wing framing and code words intended to distort the issue, e.g., "government health care" or "socialized medicine," as a couple of recent Colorado candidates have done. The opposition must refute Republican "free-market" advocacy that treats health care as a commodity to be exploited for maximum profit, with top-skimming of over 25% of health care dollars for private insurance shareholder profits, CEO salaries, excessive administrative costs, marketing, lobbying, etc. "Free-market" health care is as perverse an incentive as free-market police and fire protection would be, leaving everyone vulnerable, at the mercy of the marketplace.

Barack Obama showed promise at broaching issues during the campaign. He made a start at explaining the high cost of privatizing Medicare (13% higher than traditional Medicare), and the failure of Medicare prescription drug reform that prohibits negotiation of bulk drug rates, as the VA does to save money. The 2003 reform was a giveaway to insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and inflated costs to benefit their bottom lines. Now is the time to make the case for an improved Medicare for All -- a public insurance with true free choice of providers and hospitals. Whereas, for-profit insurance choices are narrowly limited to "in-plan" providers, necessitating change of providers with change of insurance.

Dialogue must be elevated to encompass comprehensive health care reform as part of a broad economic remedy. U.S. health costs are almost double those of all other industrialized nations, and growing; yet we still experience worse overall health outcomes. Increasing numbers of underinsured paying escalating costs for decreasing coverage. Taxpayers currently pay for over 60% of health care costs, including 70% of legislators' health coverage. By many accounts, that is enough to provide single-risk-pool coverage for all.

In fact, single-payer health care is the only model of reform that has demonstrated in over 20 federal and state studies the capacity to save money and provide comprehensive coverage for all.

Read more reaction from HuffPost bloggers to Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election

Comments

[Jacomina]

Americans desperately need a national healthcare system. And freelancers are among those who need it most. Now even the Freelancers Union -- the organization that's done the most for independent workers and received so much favorable media attention for its programs -- is discontinuing the healthcare plan that currently offers its members a real safety net and replacing that plan with one that exposes plan participants to the risk of bankruptcy. Yes, the "union" that's not a union is now marketing anxiety as "affordable peace of mind." This has indeed been the year of lipstick on a pig! To learn more about the problems of freelancers in the New York City area struggling to find affordable healthcare insurance, see upsetFU.blogspot.com and freelancersunion.org (click on Blog).

[john456]

You are correct. A single payer Health Care system is the first step toward making US Manufacturing competitive. We do need to get the pricing in line with the level of expertise required. We could also provide some level of reward for the better medical professionals. Medicare rates are not in accord with the complexity of the service or operation. We need to have respected Medical Professionals determine the level of complexity of the service. Then appropriate compensation rates can be determined. Note the Medical professional is queuing in order of complexity, not establishing the compensation.

[Mnemanth]

Pssst....little secret....
Mandatory health care for all isn't in the best interest of Pharmacy Corp, a division of Bush LLC.

Pssst...pssst....another one....
The gubment isn't looking after your best interests. I know, it IS shocking! Get this...they're looking after the interests of the big businesses who pay them off!

Until we, as a SOCIETY, put the brakes on the Greedy Train, this isn't going to change. We, the People, need to demand better. No only of our leaders, but of ourselves.
Until we're willing to sacrifice a bit for these obviously necessary and legitimate social programs- in time, in energy, in all out insistence as a People- then we can write all day long while our servants in the gubment continue to use us.

[likeicare]

There you go, Ms. S. -- making sense!

The whole Neocon(victs) mantra about keeping healthcare private is a bunch of total bullshit that the MSM refuses to discuss (owww! it makes their "brains" hurt!).

Private enterprise (ha! what an oxymoron that's turning into!!) has always insisted on keeping health insurance privatized b/c they claim it's an incentive for hiring people -- and yet, GM and other entities whine and wail about the burden of healthcare costs for their employees and retirees!!!

Geeeezzz Louizzze!!! You can't have it both ways, spoiled brats!!!

What they really want is a government guarantee that they will always get their obscene salaries, regardless of the company's bottom line -- just like the defense contracting mafia does.

[Veri]

To answer your question, and I did not bother reading the story.

Because, it is not as profitable for the corporations.

I did read the headline and am basing my answer of of the headline. This is a weak question to ask when the answer is so obvious.

[pogoz]

Perhaps programs to school more doctors, nurses & medical professionals, i.e. more medical schools, incentives; create small rural & urban clinics for less serious processes.

How does France & Cuba produce an excess of doctors? Answer: they don't have a system controlled by the AMA. And curb perscription drug costs.

[lletaa]

universal health care would go along way to help our economy. believe me, small business would love it as consumers would have a huge worry evaporate. Its a win win for all especially business.

[DuganS1]

Diet and exercise is often a much more important factor in determining outcomes than health care in many cases. Second, one reason more money is spent on health care in the US than in other countries is that American demand more treatments, particularly expensive treatments, and take many more medications per capita. I think insurance companies and government should stop subsidizing many health care items, particularly anti-depressants and erectile dysfunction drugs and psychological -psychiatric counseling, forcing patients to pay for it themselves. I think we could use the money saved by the drop in these subsidies to provide more general care for a much larger number of people.

[schatsie]

Read 'The STATUS SYNDROME' before you say that... The White Hall study clearly demonstrates that diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol COMBINED have less effect on your health than your socio economic class... (dealing with the frustration of having no options is horrible to health)....

[intopolitics]

For a start, how about the govt paying the health care costs of GM workers and retires.

[Henry]

It is Ralph Nader who boils this down to its most simple form and that is Medi-Care for the entire country. Imagine the boom in share prices. Imagine the humanity and respect for fellow citizens. Imagine also the efficiency. The relief from stress for individuals and families with tenuous predicaments would be alleviated. It sounds... almost christian.

[Paul]

That is the best thing that we could do quickly.

[schatsie]

It would not be that quick.. The systems changes could probably be made fairly quickly and we would have unified claims histories to prevent double dipping and fraud more effectively. BUT there are thousands of people who would no longer be needed to handle the claims and the insurance questions which will be eliminated..

but then we will need more healthcare providers... we have them here and maybe with a universal healthcare system we can convert the money for the executives to the new healthcare providers who would come out of the woodwork for a reasonable income and job style...(I worked as a nurse in the union in Seattle and loved it, the hours were reasonable and the pay was fair with great differentials for off hours and weekends)