Building a New Wall: The Fundamental Right to Healthcare

Today's economic crisis, and the federal government's response, is like putting a finger in the dike to avert a major catastrophe -- possibly even a depression.

But as quickly as we plug one leak, another springs forth.

Congress is seeking to avoid deflation by pumping up public confidence and economic demand to encourage consumers who have lost faith and are operating on a psychology of fear. Most immediately and importantly, the credit crunch and consumer withdrawal is affecting the automotive industry. Millions of jobs and thousand of related suppliers are at stake if the auto industry fails, or if Congress fails to act. If this iconic sector collapses it's likely the American people will feel even greater economic pain over a more protracted period of time than is currently anticipated.

The truth is $25 billion may not be enough to save the auto industry. Worse, other troubled economic institutions may soon surface needing help. At some point Congress is going to run out of enough fingers, toes and elbows to plug the holes in our economic dike.

President Barack Obama will soon have to make a judgment to reform the nation's "wall" if he is, as he so often says, to build a more perfect union. The wall I refer to is the U. S. Constitution.

Candidate Obama said he can't bring the change we need on his own. He needs the American people to stay actively involved. At noon on January 20, he will say the following, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." If Barack Obama is going to be a truly transformative President I suggest he also can't bring the change we need, and he wants, with the Constitution as it is.

The Constitution is the wall that surrounds everything within it. The current wall consists of material from two central sources: a supreme law and the free enterprise system. The Constitution gives direction and authority to Congress, the president, federal agencies and to the states (under the Tenth Amendment). It is this sacred document that also grants the free market, our laissez-faire capitalist system, the legal authority to operate.

The First Amendment illustrates the interaction between these two wall-building materials -- the public and the private sides. That familiar amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. That's it! The Constitution doesn't say USA Today, New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Defender, AM, FM, Satellite Radio, Newsweek, Time, Channels 2, 5, 7, or 9, PBS or CNN. Nor does it state cell phones, i-phones, the internet, and on-and-on. So, while it's impossible to truly determine the economic impact of the First Amendment, the Constitution clearly has a major impact to our nation's economic vitality.

Because our current economic crisis is forcing us to think outside the box, one topic worthy of renewed discussion is health care. What if the Constitution said: "All citizens shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality and the Congress shall have the power to implement this article by appropriate legislation?"

Beyond the obvious benefits of greater and better health care itself, imagine the economic consequences: thousands of doctors and nurses being trained; new medical colleges established and older ones expanded; increased medical research; a massive preventive health care industry springing up; new hospitals in needy urban and rural areas with the private sector, federal, state, county and local governments all working cooperatively under the authority granted by the Constitution and Congress.

The absence of this human right as a health care constitutional amendment has major economic consequences as well. Preventive medicine is almost entirely missing from our current health care system, which costs taxpayers billions.

Of course, even without an amendment, Congress can pass legislation granting universal and comprehensive health care to all Americans. That's possible and candidate Barack Obama promised to do so in his first term in office. However, while high quality health care for all Americans can be established without a constitutional amendment, it can't be sustained without such an amendment. Future presidents and Congresses are under no legal obligation to continue past legislative programs. For the new wall of health care to be built and sustained for as long as the nation exists it must have a constitutional foundation!

How can we afford such a system? Without a constitutional right to health care we already spend nearly twice as much as any other developed nation in the world -- about $2.5 trillion or 16% of our GDP -- yet nearly fifty million Americans are without health insurance and often receive their care in the most expensive manner possible, in the local hospital emergency room.

With a health care constitutional amendment, instead of plugging a hole in the dike, we would be building a wall with a strong and solid foundation. Instead of spending money on more band-aids, a revised Constitution would give direction to a unique American purpose and, over time, solve an historic problem. And with American innovation we could put millions of Americans to work expanding a more balanced economic system on the solid foundation of health care for all. Health care would be a human right protected by the American people in our Constitution.

Congressman Jackson is a seven term Member of Congress serving on the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations subcommittee. He is the co-author with Frank Watkins of A More Perfect Union, Advancing New American Rights.

Comments

[smi2le]

We need a "trickle up" economic stimulous.

First, we need a single national health program so people don't die from losing their private for-profit health insurance. Unemployment should not be "life threatenin­g."

Second, we need to include increased Social Security payments in any new stimulus package by adopting an emergency cost of living adjustment (COLA) increase for Social Security recepients.

The Social Security COLA does not keep up with inflation. Since 1983 the Bureau of Labor Statistics has maintain an experimental consumer price index (CPI-E) that tracks actual expenses more closely than the official formula currently used to calculate the COLAs. Since 2000 seniors and the disabled have lost as much as 40% of their buying power as a result of not adopting the CPI-E as the COLA standard.

[Jenoah2008]

Correct, however, what we need is a rethinking of the entire system. The upper middle class and health-benefit -privileged working class resist a comprehensive national plan because they do not have to sit in more and more overcrowded offices and spend 24- 35 hours in emergency rooms to get attention and, sometimes, even longer to get a bed. Millions of American citizens are suffering under these conditions and millions with insurance avoid the stresses associated with seeking the care the need. Tweeking the current system wont get it. The delivery system has to be revamped and should be a part of Obama's addressing infrastructure issues. We need more accessible community-based sub-systems anchored around hospital facilities, insurance choices for both medical and dental care which are comprehensive and reasonably priced so all can pay for and have access to health care.

[monam]

Wow, you touched a nerve with this one(article),eh?

[ciceroette]

I am very curious about European countries with universal health care. Do those countries have as many lobbyists as we do? Do they have any? I truly believe that the "special interests" are driving up the costs. Is there anythng in the Constitution that defines "personhood" as belonging to corporations? To give this right to "artifical persons" seems to have opened a can of worms that alllowed these"persons" more rights than the rest of us. I realize that the Constitutional interpretation treats the Preamble, as a general statement, and not a law re: words such as "promote the general welfare," would certainly seem to suggest a protection of some kind, and "health" could certainly fit under this umbrella of words. Certainly Teddy Roosevelt's formation of the FDA and national parks promoted the "general welfare" too. When did "we the people" become less than "they the corporations?" The powers of corporations and lobbyists need to be reexamined and regulated, or "insuring domestic tranquility" will require more attending to than the bailing out of irresponsible CEOs and their financial terrorists. Regulating these groups will answer the"show me the money" question, and no doubt finance the health care system. Sadly these "artificial persons" are returning this nation to pre Magna Carta forms of living.

[CanuckDemocrat]

In Canada we have universal health care too... by law. There is some gray area recently for private clinics but they are highly regulated and some say illegal... we'll see how that shakes out but I suspect a few private clinics will be allowed for things like CT scans and MRIs...

BUT besides that, when you go into the hospital, you do NOT have to reach for your wallet besides to shows that you are a resident of Canada (health card, varies by province).­.. no credit card, no cheques, no refusal of services due to lack of insurance.

Our system is not perfect and has many problems, but one thing is true. Everyone is entitled to health care, rich, poor, old, young... your health care is not dictated by how rich you are. There is no perfect system of health care that is cheap, fast, and universal. But health care is a fundamental human right and should be treated as such. This should be a major source of shame for the US, the richest country in the world's history does not treat health care as a human right.

[Seattle34]

It's not just health care that people are entitled to. Houses must be included in that, and in places where buses are not available (with waits less than 15 minutes), we must also provide cars and gas for people. And also food.

And if a person has a job, the amount they pay for this must not be expensive. Because if it's too expensive, then cellphones and xbox games will be tough to get.

Actually, cellphone bills should be covered, but not xbox. At least in phase 1.

And a job that I find mentally challenging should be guaranteed too. But not a crappy job like fast food restaurants.

Actually, thinking on this more, why can't we just make everything free?

[CanuckDemocrat]

I have some American friends who are middle class workers and have decent insurance through their jobs. We got into a discussion about Canada's universal health care, and the main thing I heard out of their mouths was "isn't that socialized medicine." All the arguments FOR universal health care were agreed upon by all (healthier society as a whole, human rights, social equality and justice) in the discussion, but always qualified with a "yeah, but that's socialized medicine, we can't have that."

So it appears that these friends, who vote Democrat, have bought the GOP talking points and scare tactics when it comes to universal health care. I think this will be a major obstacle to overcome. Otherwise liberal, center-left and centrist Democrats tricked by Republican (and their drug and HMO backers) propaganda and fear mongering into thinking "socialized medicine" is a bad thing. What about socialized roads, drinking water plants, police and fire departments? Paid for by all, for the benefit of all. For the benefit of a just and right society.

But at the same time, I think this may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Obama to seize the day and legislate universal health care for ALL AMERICANS. It is an utter tragedy that the richest nation in the history of the world does not treat health care as a human right. What is a more fundamental human right than health care? Nothing.

[Jenoah2008]

We the people do not like to think about consequences so we "move on,'' forgetting how we got into our various present fixes. Forty years ago the American Medical Association and the drug companies developed, subsidized the propaganda that socialized medicine meant people waiting for hours in dreary hospitals and for surgery, by less than competent profession­als.They misrepresented other systems so that they could continue to extort outrageous fees. Medicare fueled the greed. Like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac , it was seen as a public pipeline for milking the federal government (taxpayers) The same greed that drove mortgage scams worked in the health care. Doctors are only now agreeing that there is a health crisis because professional insurance costs became exorbitant , many are forced into group practice and take cover under hospitals and HMO's. This generation of doctors are witnessing the unmanageable hospital emergency rooms, deteriorating nursing care and budget cuts . Dentists have remained quiet, under the radar, in these discussions about health care, therefore, little is publicized about their outrageous fees borne by patients. There are fancy dental "insurance plans" which pay out pitiable amounts, therefore, cornered patient ultimately payoff the thousands of dollars' difference. There are health credit card schemes which payoff the dentists,but charge unending interest rates, over-the- limit-fees and late fees to the patients carrying almost insurmountable bills. Our various sins are finding us out. We do need an all-encompassing change.

[flossophy]

Why does it seem that whenever people don't buy into leftist ideas, it's always because they've been duped by those trickster republicans and their deceptive talking points...

Yeah, keep believing that, CanuckDemo­crat...

[VirgoGrrrlie]

As an aging woman with NO health coverage, who worked my whole life caring for and helping others, all I can say is that health care SHOULD be a right - and this country is a sick joke until it IS.

[CanuckDemocrat]

American private for-profit health care is one of the biggest crimes against humanity. Health Care should be a guaranteed right under the Constitution. A great idea. I hope Obama has enough clout to make this happen, and the people who agree with this support it. I think the time is right. This may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get universal health care protected by the Constitution.

[JenniferInMO]

I don't need to comment other than to second everything you just said. Thank you!

[floib]

I totally agree as well. I have been lucky in not having had a serious illness so far (knock on wood), but after watching Michael Moore's "SICKO", my eyes were open to the treatment of people by these heartless insurance companies who are like vampires sucking money out of all of us. Insurance companies need to make money for their stockholders, or they get in trouble. The only way to do this is to deny care. If you have a pre-existing condition, you will not be covered.

What happens, too, is that when someone retires, you will be earning less money, but your insurance premiums go up which doesn't make sense. My husband's co-worker retired. If he was paying just for himself, he'd pay about $150 a month. Once he put his wife on with his policy, the premium jumped to $650 a month. This year their premiums jumped to $850 a month. They couldn't afford that so they got the least premium with the most deductibles ($5,000 each). So, they are hoping they don't get sick. It's ridiculous. We need to pass HR 676.

[zitlight73]

For at least eight years now those in the executive branch claimed that they are above the law, whether it was toruturing or illegally spying on American people, they even went as far as saying that habeas corpus had been reprealed by the Military Commissions Act. Congress has granted Paulson powers that are unconstitutional they have also granted him impunity from prosecution as he hands over hundreds of billions of taxpayers money to whoever. Health care should be a right especially for children, many bankruptcies and foreclosures are directly due to medical problems. People always bemoan the front end costs of universal health-care while ignoring the back end costs of what uninsure illnesses and injuries cost in terms of lost livelihoods. The Constitution is what made this country what it was and we have seen what happens when we let men of questionable honesty rule by fiat and signing statements, a nation of men not laws is anarchy, or soon will be.

[floib]

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!!! Those that have it can get all they health care they need, and those that don't, well, I guessthey better pick out their casket.

Health care should not depend on how full or how empty your bank account is. Health care is a right not a privilege.

I have a friend who claims to be such a Christian and church goer who says she buys toys for the Toys For Tots, donates money at church, and gives food to the food bank. But she does not agree with universal health care which will benefit everyone. On one hand she professes to be such a good Christian and wants to help people in need just like her Pastor says, but will not help people in their hour of need.

Pastors preach on Sundays that the Bible says we should help the least of us, but sick people shouldn't benefit from universal health care because they don't have money in the bank. I don't understand this mentality. Why shouldn't everyone benefit when we pool all our money? We will need more doctors and nurses. Pay them well, and they will come. Pass HR 676. Write your representatives.

[scottaa]

floib,
I'm in agreement with your friend, and here's how i think he or she would explain it:

I think people should voluntarily help those less fortunate, but they should not be forced. If your friend thinks premarital sex is wrong, does that mean she'd want to have a law that uses the threat of force to keep people from having premarital sex?

There's also a lot of negative, unintended consequences from having "universal" healthcare versus a private system that I don't have the time to get into now. It's worth checking out arguments against it, then you might see why your friend is against it.

[JenniferInMO]

If you are insured or self insured you are getting royally screwed because you are resisting a plan which would result in health care for all. Please see my comment directly above.

[Bibbo]

floib
Its so easy to preach about what others should be doing with their money. Just who gets to decide what and what's not a "right". I imagine you feel pretty good about yourself when you condemn all those Christians you find lacking in charity. Before you decide who is worthy of being called a Christian perhaps you should think things though a second time. There is a difference between helping those in need and giving handouts to those who could but choose not to do for themselves what they can. Many of those without health insurance have decided they want to spend their money on other things and ignore the risk they are taking untill something happens. Should they demand health care as a "right". Then there are those who dont really look for work or turn down a job because its not to their liking. The Christians I know are a little different from your "friends" They do give to the needy but resent being called to endlessly provide for the needs of those too irresponsible to take any responsibility for their own lives. We expect children to behave like this but not fully grown adults. You didn't discuss the other side of all these "rights" and thats the need for someone ELSE to pay the bills. Universal health care will be a disaster. Whats going to happen is a very expensive system thats full of waste and abuse.

[quiviran]

This a bunch of self-righteous BS. You clearly have no clue about the health care system in this country when it is acting at its worst. One in four bankruptcies are a result of health care costs. Not from irresponsible behavior on the part of the sick person. Your generalization are not based in any fact, you are just judging that others have not behaved in a worthy manner. Don't forget, the prodigal son was welcomed with a feast.

[JenniferInMO]

What you people are missing is that YOU are getting fleeced. We can improve health care, insure ALL Americans and do it for less money than we all pay now.

The line that universal health care would be a hand out to anyone is fear-based tactic that the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists have programmed into all of us.

France, for example has a hybrid system of a single-payer program for all citizens and private companies offer very inexpensive buy-ups. The World Health Organization has rated France's health system the best in the world. Ours is way down the list and we pay TWICE as much per person as France does. AND we have a over 50 million people without any insurance and even more who are underinsured.

Talk about hand outs, when someone has to go bankrupt because they can't pay their bills who absorbs that? The very profitable health insurance companies? Guess again.

And if that doesn't motivate you we have twice as many people (as a percentage) than France who die for lack of adequate health care. A large number of that percentage is our high infant mortality rate. But then who wants to give babies a hand out.

[rockne]

If you think that providing universal heath care as a fundamental right at taxpayers' expense is Christian, you know precious litlle about Christianity and the teachings of Christ.

[JenniferInMO]

You are right. Christ would walk right past the poor and sick. Oh, wait ...

[floib]

Yes, I guess I don't anything about Christianity because my Priest teaches us about helping others who are less fortunate (that must not be in the Bible) and how it is a sin in God's eyes when we choose to turn a blind eye when we see a person in need especially when it comes to health care. When people are sick, the whole nation suffers because sickness affects entire families. When a Dad is sick, the income of that family dwindles and kids suffer not knowing if they will lose their homes. Staying healthy is a right and not reserved only for the rich.

There are some people that abuse their bodies by making the wrong choices, but should we let their children suffer because their parents are idiots? I've been taught that I am my brother's keeper, and I am my sister's keeper. We help those that are less fortunate than ourselves.

[floib]

Continuation of Single-Payer:

Unless a person who gets sick is anything less than a millionare, they are in big trouble because of how expensive heath care is in this country. We are the only country where you can lose your home due to health bills. That is totally unacceptable. The majority of families are one paycheck away from being homeless. When you add medical bills on top of that, we can see why the majority of foreclosures are happening. When we pool all our premiums dollars together, we can cut costs and cover everyone from cradle to the grave. Let's look at others countries that have single-payer and do what works and avoid what doesn't. Single-payer will not cost the government anything because the premiums will come from the people. It is more cost efficient.

Single-payer will cover not only doctor's visits, but also cover hospital stays, dental care, vision care, chiropractic care, rehab, medicines, nursing home care, and much more.

Everyone needs to see Michael Moore's SICKO and open your eyes to how insurance companies only want to insure you when you are healthy and can't get rid of you fast enough when you are sick.

[Force9]

Some form of governmental healthcare may be a good idea but is it correct to call it a right? If you want to see your doctor but he or she is on vacation and no other doctor is available that day does that mean your right has been violated? Representative Jackson assumes thousands of new doctors and nurses will be trained but consider this thought experiment. Suppose those thousands of young people chose not to go to medical or nursing school. Does that mean your rights are violated? Does each young college student who decides not to go to medical school violate the rights of everyone else?
For sure the current healthcare system is in bad shape but I don’t agree healthcare is a “right”. Your right of free speech does not require someone else’s labor to provide. Anything that requires labor of another person to provide can’t be a right unless you think doctors should be your personal slave. You don’t have a right to someone else’s labor. If you have to pay for it, how can it be a right? If someone else (the government) pays for it then you are receiving charity.

[Pearlswan]

But you do have the right to let soldiers die to protect your freedom. So why not have doctors and nurses who also serve our country only to protect your health and mine. We all deserve the same care and opportunity to live our lives to the fullest, wouldn't you say?

[LuckyBlessed]

So the CEOs like Anegelo M. of Countrywide are receiving "charity" with multimillion dollar bonuses while their companies tanked.

And are the members of congress receiving charity?

[flossophy]

LuckyBlessed, go look up Chris Dodd and Countrywid­e... let me know what you think about that relationship.

[flossophy]

Very well put, Force9

What Rep Jackson is suggesting is a flawed idea... tinkering with the Constitution to add rights that no government can guarantee.

[Bibbo]

I agree. I work in health care and am afraid of whats going to happen. We will all pay more and get less. Forget about being examined and cared for by an MD. You will get a PA who has little more education than a 4yr college graduate. He will talk to you but you will get little else. Talk is fine,in fact its very important but it wont make up for the lack of tests and specialists that actually make the correct diagnosis early enough to make a difference. PA's are all about "cost control" and improving the quality of life for the doctor. Realize that the PA doesn't really work for you but for "the man" who pays his salary. And "the man" is looking to save money because expanding coverage to all those who have new found health care "rights" is going to be very very expensive. A good analogy is the educational system. Our current system is like a private school while universal care is the puplic school system. Universal care will make us long for the "good old days" when all we had to fight for pre-approval was the HMO clerk on the other end of the phone. Do you really think its possible to guarantee coverage to EVERYBODY without taking away much of what those of us who pay for ourselves currently get?

[CanuckDemocrat]

Yeah so I guess the guaranteed right to bear arms is somehow more important than the right to receive the health care needed when an injury is caused by.... wait for it... firearms..­.

Such backward thinking. No logic whatsoever.

Your arguments and analogies are completely false and void of logic.

How would health care NOT be included in the intent of the Declaration of Independence that declared "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " as INALIENABLE RIGHTS. How is this even up for discussion? Health care is an inalienable right, you can interpret the intent of the phrase all you want, but health care is a RIGHT.

[Pearlswan]

Health care is a national defense issue. Rep. Jackson is right, we need to amend the Constitution. First, we need to make the case that health care is a collective right and responsibility just like our military protection for national defense is a collective right and responsibility. HealthTrust.org has done some excellent research that shows that our cultural beliefs and collective institutions make a large contribution in causing disease in societies. Plus, we have communicable diseases that are not completely under individual control to prevent or avoid. People die of communicable diseases like flu every day. Why do only working people get health care coverage when all people can carry a communicable disease and infect others at higher rates when untreated? Stress is a major cause of chronic diseases and also largely beyond individual control. Why do we allow business to profit on human illness and disease? Their market consists of sick people, not a healthy population. In contrast, the military boasts a healthy population. The government can and does provide state of the art health care for all Americans as long as you are serving in the military or the federal government. If every American citizen had access to that system, our population would be much healthier. And, our economy would be stronger and healthier too.

[Pearlswan]

I would also add that employment is not completely under individual control either. When an industry dies, the employees of that industry lose their jobs. When their jobs are lost, so is their medical coverage. Their health often declines due to the stress of the unemployment and loss of income. Not fair. Also, a doctor at Kaiser Permanente reported to me that he had lost 37 patients in one month due to job losses with lost insurance coverage. He was losing patients and the hospital was losing revenue and those losses affect everyone in the network. So, it is a collective problem.

[Jimmylongbeach]

Jesse Jackson does not go far enough, the american people deserve a right to Health.

It is not that you need to behave as your grandmother advised-
Not to smoke
Not to be overwieght, but to each your vegetables­,especiall­y your greens.
Avoid fried foods and carbohydrates

No, you need not exercise and avoid the onset of diabetes, now thegovernment must provide for your test strips, and your medication, and renal dialayisis , now that morbid obesity is the hip hop fashion statement.

Yes the government wil treat your COPD even if you smoke. and tha avoidable lung cancer, that too.

With most chronic disease preventalbe by our own actions, it is time we tax the productive to pay for the people who disabuse their own health,

[JenniferInMO]

That is an absurd comment. Are you really saying that people would be less responsible for their own health if they didn't have to pay a fortune for health insurance?

[NeilLovesAmerica]

I haven't read a comment by anyone that understand the real problem.

The only way to drastically reduce cost is to rid the health care delivery process of people that are not delivering health care. This means getting rid of the insurance companies. Other countries can delivery health care for 8-10% of GDP. That's the basic cost of providing health care. This mean we need to reduce the labor cost by 8% of GDP or 3 to 5 million people working in the health insurance business. Where do these people go to work?

Obama just wants to put everyone on standard insurance. That means more health insurance workers. The cost is bound to increase and if Obama can get a decrease, it will only be the smallest fraction of a GDP percent, nothing substantial like 6 to 8% reduction in cost that is possible by leaning out the process.

Solve this problem and you'll solve the health care problem.

[LuckyBlessed]

Excellent point, "Public and Private Insurance: Stacking Up the Costs," Health Affairs: -- by Leighton Ku, a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, and Matthew Broaddus, a research analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- finds that providing health coverage to low-income people through public programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP, rather than through private health plans, results in lower per-person medical spending and out-of-pocket expenses. For example, the study finds that total spending to provide full-year Medicaid coverage for an average low-income uninsured adult would have been $3,084 in 2005, compared with $3,899 for private coverage. Annual out-of-pocket expenses for a Medicaid beneficiary would have totaled $109, compared with $771 for those enrolled in private plans, according to the study (Ku/Broaddus, Health Affairs release, 6/24). .

But the health insurance , pharm industry Lobby Blood Money recently bought off Move On, who had been for Single Payer. The insurance companies want to make sure this fails so they can bleed America dry. The question is where will they go after they destroy what is left of this country. Dubai?

[drgrph]

Please, let's not go tinkering around with the Constitution. As you so clearly stated this can be achieved through legislation. Since you are a legislator, I suggest you do so.

We, the citizens, need to retain the ability to end universal healthcare should it fail as it has in most other nations. I may be completely wrong but I have great doubt that Americans will tolerate the long waits for medical services. This is a major, and likely fatal, flaw to insisting that health care be removed from a capitalist system.

As a pharmacist, I know we already have a shortage of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. So much so that we have significantly outsourced these positions to professionals from many other nations. I'd expect we'd be getting the best of these individuals which would drain these resources from other countries who need these experts themselves.

Let's not use a sledgehammer to accomplish what a hammer will do.

[LuckyBlessed]

An example of Corporate Welfare Blood Money in pharm http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/loophole_1254829___article.html/medicare_cbs.html?orderby=ml?orderby=TimeStampDescending&oncommentsPage=1&showRecommendedOnly=0

--multi-million dollar pharmacy benefit managers to rake-in record profits.

"We've had seniors walk away from our counters," said Craig Burridge, President of the Pharmacists Society of the State of New York. "They're in sticker shock."

The loophole in the regulation allows certain Medicare Part D plans to base the cumulated cost on what the plan pays to the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) for processing the claim, instead of what the PBM pays to the pharmacist for filling the prescription. Since the PBM often gets more money, that pushes the senior into the coverage gap much more quickly.

CBS 6 discovered one example in which a Part D plan - Healthfirst - paid $45.89 to the PBM for the cholesterol drug Simvastatin, but the PBM - ExpressScripts - paid only $16.86 to the pharmacist.

Healthfirst called that "an unrepresentative snapshot," but it certainly adds-up. Last year, ExpressScripts boasted record income of $567 million. Other pharmacy benefit managers fared even better. MedCo earned $912 million, while CVS Caremark netted $2.6 billion.

[JenniferInMO]

"We, the citizens, need to retain the ability to end universal health care should it fail as in most other nations." WTF? While there are good and bad examples of universal programs they are not failing. In fact, most industrialized nations have universal health care of some sort. The World Health Organizations have found that the countries with the best health care in the world ALL have some sort of universal coverage. We, by the way have poor health care compared to other top industrialized nations and ours costs more than twice as much.

[LuckyBlessed]

The same Corporate Welfare babies who are bleeding America dry through Halliburton, Blackwater, energy industry, the mortgage bankers(who I personally knew in various corp. boardrooms loved DEREGULATION), these same corporate welfare babies are against lower costs and better care.

Not only do we pay twice the costs, 16% of our GDP and rising, but we rank much lower than other countries in life expectancy, etc. per CIA's world fact book.

Why don't the health insurance companies, pharm reps, pharm benefit plan managers(Bush part D), etc. want us to spend less? BECAUSE THEY WILL GET LESS MONEY!

I would love to bet how many of the negative posts here are those "legally" stealing money from all of us Americans.

[flossophy]

LuckyBless­ed... Halliburton & Blackwater and the others you listed are not bleeding America dry...

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are. They already did.

FM&FM were Democrat-run for decades. Democrats blocked repeated attempts at REGULATION and oversight by the GOP-led congress & Bush. Why not turn some of your anger on the appropriate group.

I agree with you, corporate welfare is bad... but so is politician welfare. Good for the goose... good for the gander.

[LuckyBlessed]

Flossophy- I spent over 10 years working for Republicans in the mortgage industry who wanted no regulation and I advised them of not doing business with Bear, Lehman, etc. I did mostly FHA loans, and I haven't heard anyone calling for a bailout of FHA- a FEDERAL PROGRAM.

You evidently like paying your tax dollars to companies that build showers that electrocute are brave men and women.

Additionally-
Washington spends some $42 billion annually on private intelligence contractors, up from $17.5 billion in 2000. That means 70 percent of the US intelligence budget is going to private companies. - Jeremy Scahill

How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
Special flights brought in tonnes of banknotes which disappeared into the war zone
David Pallister
Thursday February 8, 2007 Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329709143-103550,00.html

[Damaxmax]

View from the Great White North (Canada)

To coin Matt Miller's book title, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, Canadians for the most part believe the for-profit health care ideology in America is a dead idea.

My observation of the American milieu: 1) health care is a privilege not a right, 2) universal health care is socialism 3) a for-profit health care system provides better, more cost effective health care, and 4) lifelong indebtedness due to a serious health incident is somehow acceptable.

Wrong on all counts: a dead idea but go ahead and enjoy the tyranny.

If for-profit health care is the pinnacle, then why not for-profit public education?

[flossophy]

Interestin­g... perhaps our ideal health care system should mimic our public education system?

We spend the most money per student, yet have the worst schools in the industrialized world. Let's apply that wonderful result to socialized health care.

[Pearlswan]

Yes, just like the military does. Why not make your comparison to an actual health care system instead of an education system? Also, the military educates its doctors, nurses, and technicians in a fraction of the time it takes a civilian institution to do it. In medical care, our government is one of the best in the business right now.

[LuckyBlessed]

LOL, if I didn't have to live with these Corporate Welfare babies.

[charleydan]

Nada, there shall be no constitutional change. Health Care is not a right, it is a choice that government should stay out of so everybody can afford it.

Do not, say free enterprise would not offer affordable health care. In the fifties and sixties, most afforded health care without health insurance. Even then, the industry was started to get regulated, driving the cost up.

It is amazing how cheap it can be, when it is Dr. and patient answering to each other. Instead of present Insurance, and Hospital answering to each other. The regulation goes and costs will drop like in the fifties and before.


Secondly, if the Federal government would resume its role as our forefathers saw. Health Care would not be subsidized with printed money. Printed money has caused this economic disaster that has only begun.

A drunk has a party on Friday night and wonders all week where his next meal is. Forget insurance that he will not pay for, because he would rather party.

Yet, you want government to take care of him? I guess you can lock him up so he can not drink. So much for freedoms of choice, heh? Let charities handle the work and tell the government to take a hike on health care. Some just need longer to grow up.

[sandpiper1]

Health Care would/should not be subsidized by printed money as you state but by tax payers dollars as is done in Canada and other civilized, industrialized countries. Health Care should be given the same priority and importance as education, two of the main stays of any developed country. A healthy and educated citizenry is essential to nation building and a progressive society.

[flossophy]

Why are Canadians traveling south of the border for health care?

Long waiting lists and rationing are no fun, I suppose.

[LuckyBlessed]

Greed always wins, whether it is paper or gold.

[Jonni Rae]

In the fifties, doctors made house calls!! My daughter has been diagnosed with MS, a disease she did not cause through obesity or smoking. Her co-payment for a visit to her MS doctor is nine hundred dollars. The cost of diagnostic tests is not covered by her insurer, and with MS there are a lot of tests. She has outstanding medical bills of over $4,000 right now, and she is under her husband's insurance plan, which is Blue Cross. Needless to say, she does not go to the MS doctor anymore. She applied for disability in 2004, finally was approved last June but is still awaiting payment. She is looking forward to this mainly because she will have Medicaid, and can get the treatment she needs. She lives in NC. I want to move there, to help her, but will lose my coverage if I do (I live in MA and am retired, living on a pension) I still need to work to make $23,000 more dollars to be eligible for Medicare when I am 65, three years from now. We are all educated, we have all worked, paid taxes , never took welfare or food stamps, and this is the situation for us. It is wrong. If her husband loses his job, their minimal coverage (which is all his company offers) will be gone. This story is repeated in various forms for millions of Americans. Rep. Jackson is right. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege.