Building a New Wall: The Fundamental Right to Healthcare
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
People whine about creating more government bureaucracy, the problem right now is private bureaucracy. The Health Insurance industry, HMOs, PPOs, all this is massive for profit waste. I'd rather have a for all (as opposed to for profit) gov't bureaucracy over the mess we have now. Thanks Jesse!
Eveyone in the USA should have healthcare without worrying that they will be 'punished' by the holier than thou perfect human specimens among us who never do anything wrong!
Universal health care is an unwelcome government intrusion into the private life of all Americans. If I, as a taxpayer, have the responsibility to underwrite the cost of health insurance for:
- obese people then I have the right to take the big mac out of their hand,
- smokers then I have the right to take the cigarette out of their hand,
- heavy drinkers then I have the right to take the drink out of their hand,
- individuals with genetic diseases then I have the right to ensure that they are sterilized.
I don't want these rights, nor do I want the responsibility to pay for another's health insurance. Make the free market system work: decrease government mandated coverages, allow insurers to compete across state boundaries, make health insurance a post tax expense for all (not only self-employed and employees at smaller firms), create a system where a health care professional's quality level is transparent, and make pricing transparent.
If citizens can not make informed decisions regarding their own health then fix the education system; don't increase the size and breadth of our failing government!
exactly
Not true... competition has proven (in all industries) to lower cost and raise value. Government in health care will be a disaster just like Government in banking, education and so on. Name one thing the government does well? Why do you people put so much faith in Government? It will only go up... Free Market Choice = better service, lower cost and more freedom.
Universal health care is based on the total population. The purpose is to equalize a cost that is fair to all.
Your cost to insure will not go up because of those you mention...
The ranks also include those who are fit, as you conveniently exclude, to advance your argument.
Yes, it is so HORRIBLE to want everyone, regardless of their status in life in the RICHEST country in the history of this planet to have healthcare.
Of course, the more moral answer is to let the free market run wild with healthcare
Further, your posts assumes that:
1. Obese people don't work, so you'd be footing their bill (how presumptuous)
2. Smokers don't pay taxes
3. Heavy drinkers are somehow paying for those drinks w/YOUR money and not their own
4. I won't even address that one, as your lame attempt to rationalize away all sense of moral responsibility baffles me.
And by allowing people the "freedom" to purchase across state lines, that helps INSURANCE compaines, not individuals. It's a farce. The truth is, if people are able to travel across state lines to get insurance, then more insurance companies will either sky-rocket the cost of insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, or deny them altogether (too risky). So still, you will have millions of people uninsured. WHICH, genius, still costs the taxpayers! Who do you think foots those ER bills, when mothers take their children there for colds and the such? You're so blinded by your own "I got mine, screw you" attitude that you overlook the fact that it is costing you EITHER WAY. Seems as if folks like yourself only want the UPSIDE of living in a civilized society.
harveyr2 makes a good point...
There are numerous countries with socialized health care systems around the world. We can objectively evaluate them - to see how effective they are for their citizens. By and large, socialized systems have notable structural problems..
I highly recommend this series from NPR - Intelligence Squared. There's a wonderful debate on national health care. Everyone should listen to this before entrenching themselves one way or another.
http://www
You , I , Americans already pay when they someone without health insurance walks thru an emergency room door.
harveyr2, I suppose you'll think the same way if some day in the not too distant future, you're diagnosed with Cancer or some other serious or threatening health crisis. People with your thinking can/should refuse to help pay for your care. What does one's weight, or a smoker/drinker etc have to do with universal health care where tax payers dollars cover everyone?
I live in Canada, and am thankful that we have universal health care here and believe me, my Government does not intrude into my life in any way. I was diagnosed with breast cancer(I suppose by your thinking, it was my fault that I got cancer) last year and am forever grateful that I live in Canada and my tax dollars as well as the tax dollars of my fellow Canadians were used to treat me in a timely fashion and that I got excellent, professional follow up care which I am still receiving.
very important we have universal health. we as a country "provide for the common defense" by maintaining a military force. our military is the baddest around, right? isnt health care an extention of the military? they both are to protect us from invading armies that want to kill us. the real lethal armies by far are germs. the constitution already sez we should have health care!! its a win win thing. you always hear about consumer sentiment and the way it affects our economy. If we had a great single payer system business would be helped, people would be free from the worry of bankrupcy due to health problems and the economy would boom.
I fail to see how a constitutional amendment would bring about "thousands of new doctors and nurses being trained." I highly doubt that most people who choose not to go into the medical field cite our lack of universal healthcare as their reasoning.
No doubt demand will increase, but supply would not, at least not as much as demand. Which means higher prices...
a lot of young people want to become nurses but there are waiting lists in nursing schools because there are not enough trained teachers BECAUSE the pay is lower than actually practicing nursing. PE Obama has addressed this. Going to medical school assures you tens of thousands of dollars in debt, when you get out, unless you are rich. Money has a lot to do with how many people are going into medicine as doctors or nurses.
This is a brilliant idea. As a dual citizen of Canada and the U.S., it hurts me to see my American friends burn so anxiety about their health care. America should be the "shining city on the hill" that all countries want to emulate. It should attract the best in the world. Instead, it is a health-care third-world nation -- totally unworthy of the greatness of its people. A year ago, the auto companies said: if you can give us universal health care, we can take care of the rest!" America should have listened.
How difficult is it to become a Canadian citizen?
LOL! I'm sure you would be very welcome here. America, of course, is such a fantastic country, that I am sure when you get the heatlh care issue under control, you will not want to move anywhere!
Equal health care for all? Or equal access to good health care?
What about the right of a person who has worked hard, saved their money, and not indulged every whim and fancy, to spend money on health care that we may decide as a nation we simply cannot afford to provide to every citizen regardless of their ability to pay?
How about an elderly patient with a grim prognosis, pain free due to affordable medication supplied by the universal health care system, waiting on death. Why can't they use thier own assets to pay for a long shot attempt at a cure, or even just a procedure that might give them a few more months, perhaps to see a great grandchild born, or some other reason that means the world to them, but something we cannot afford to provide to everyone?
What if a person wants slightly better health care over a new car or a vacation? Shouldn't we set a level of care that we all can agree is good enough, and then let people who want the absolute best they can afford choose to go beyond if they have the means?
You could have Single Payer health care and the wealthy few could pay for this extra stuff.
I grew up poor,saw my invalid mother suffer(no she wasn't fat or on drugs, she was sick by something there was no cure for), somehow went to a wealthy university, listened to the same type of whining from those students. I am so sick of wealthy people using their means to frighten the powers that be to line their own pockets with blood money.
There should be shame.
Fundamental question: How do you propose to pay for this and who decides how care is rationed?
"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."
It is true that the majority of countries have national health care systems - Which work to greater or lesser effect than the U.S., as measured by mortality tables, disease management studies and the like. It is also true that tax rates, on the whole, are higher per capita and it's not just those over $250,000 paying into the system. To me it seems a bit disingenuous to simply throw out a statistic like "fifty million Americans are without health insurance" unless we understand the reasons behind the uninsured. If many of those who are uninsured have health insurance available but choose to go without insurance because they feel they can't afford it, will they be able to afford a tax hike that almost certainly will need to accompany a universal health plan?
You have already answered your supposed argument. "It is true ... which work to greater .. effect--- as measured by statistics such as the CIA World book and others.
The reason they are uninsured is because a few wealthy pharm reps, benefit plan managers, health insurance companies are afraid of loosing their money and are posting here and will use their lobby blood money to continue to contribute to the destruction of this country. It is an issue of national security.
Nice editing but totally off the mark. Based purely on your reactionary comments, I'd say you have little understanding of how complex this situation is, nor the precarious position that countries are in that many would hold up as models.
National health care has to happen- but we don't need to change the constitution to do it.
Exactly. And if we remember the fate of the Equal Rights Amendment, we should be skeptical about getting a health care amendment through the necessary number of state legislatures.
Healthcare as a human right that should be amendment to the Constitution? While we are at it, why not include the right to be fat, lazy, smoke, not exercise, do drugs, have unprotected sex, drink to excess, etc. Or, maybe I am getting confused between “rights” and “choice”.
Our founding fathers certainly messed up when they didn't think to write "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness and free healthcare". Just think how much better would have been the lives of all the pioneers that established this country would have been if they had been entitled to free healthcare? Or, maybe the reduced incentive to live a healthy life would have resulted in a more rotund ancestry.
I have cancer. I have never been over weight. I have always been a runner. I don't smoke. I eat fruits and vegetables every day. I got cancer. It can happen to you. I paid $800 a month for health insurance -- when I was unemployed (because I was sick). Those who are against a nationalized health care system are people who have never been sick -- and don't think illness can ever happen to them -- because they aren't fat and lazy.
Zeje; Excellent point. Be well.
Zeje - I am sorry to hear that you have cancer, and I hope that you have a full recovery. Your comment should remind all of us that opposing universal health care, just because there are some who will probably abuse it, is a poor excuse for refusing to help the countless numbers of people who need it, such as yourself.
I was a volunteer EMT for ten years and yes, I have seen people who abuse the 911 system. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever suggest that we abandon this system, just because of this abuse. Whenever we were dispatched to an emergency, we would provide as much care as we possibly could in order to help that patient. It never mattered to us, who they were, what they did that might have contributed to their situation, if they were a US citizen or not, or if they had insurance or not. This is exactly how it should be. I am thankful that this is the way the emergency system works.
What is a human life worth? Why should people who lack insurance have to struggle, worry and suffer? Why do people who are fortunate to either be in good heath or have insurance have to be so judgmental and deny something to someone that could save their lives? I think it is shameful that our society is still struggling over this issue.
Yes, excellent point Zeje. And I would add are wealthy. I am ashamed I live in a country where a few wealthy people did this to you. My apologies, as I know they have no shame.
The Founding Fathers didn't have access to Novocaine when having a tooth pulled, so I guess we shouldn't enjoy the benefit of that anesthetic today.
Why should we pay twice as much of our GDP for health care as so many developed countries that have far better health outcomes as measured by disease incidence, longevity, etc? The answer is, and no rational person can disagree, we should not.
Let's start setting our policies based on outcomes and not based on ideology. Let's take Canada as a model. I have yet to meet a Canadian or a Canadian transplant to the U.S. who has anything but praise for Canada's health care system. I have friends and relatives in the northern states who have gone to Canada for elective surgeries that their insurers would not pay for here because of much lower cost.
We can not have some form of government sponsored health care system because we will give up some "freedom"? I believe most Canadians don't think they have given up anything do not envy our medical system in any way.
Perhaps we should just keep our health care system as it is and adopt a modification of New Hampshire's motto: "Live Free OR Die". My modification is : "Live Free AND Die."
LOL.
We pay more because of gov't subsidies and mandates which artificially inflate demand without increasing supply. That means higher prices.
The equation of health care in this country is simple:
health care costs + administration of various schemes of different companies' costs + profits = health insurance costs.
If we eliminate the unnecessary costs of administering different schemes in different companies and the profits then the costs must be lower and it will benefit everyone. Why do we care whether it is called "socialized" or "government" if it lowers the costs for us? We have tried the other way running by private companies for so long and it didn't work. If one part of the population have been enjoying low costs while other part have been subsidizing the other even themselves are uninsured, what keeps us from finding a way to cover all? We are procrastinated to find faults with a new way as if the old way is perfect while it's been proved it is not. Now, just find a way to cover all and do it!
Study up on the first worlds Health care and world wide conservative war on health care:
http://en.
Note Sweden pays less, lives longer, has more doctors than the USA.
This even after a decade of privatization:
This conservative Stink tank want's to dismantle that system:
http://www
Note the crux of the argument is waiting times, partly created by the privitization: The USA has the same or worse waiting times IF YOU WILL GET CARE AT ALL.
http://www
If I remember correctly, medical and nursing students in Sweden pay little or no tuition while they are earning their degrees. By contrast, many of our young doctors are carrying heavy debt loads because financial aid is scant in many med schools. The negotiated rates of medicare and insurance companies with doctors are often pitifully low, making it even harder for them to repay loans.
Yes. And the research in Sweden in medical is ground breaking and state of the art.
Great info, thanks.
It's funny that a lot of people when talking about universal healthcare bring up the issue of morality without understanding the implications of such a system. Right now cost analysis is done by an insurer who sometimes decides whether somebody lives or dies. So what do we do? Do we transfer this decision down to us or up to the government? Seems like a pretty easy decision to me.
Yes, it's easy... down to us. That is, name one thing that the government does well? Look at BO's staff... it's essentially (so far) the same old thing, so once again business as usual... same 'service' just different names on the door... less government = more freedom and prosperity.
No it's not the "same old" thing at all. BO is bringing in people who have proved themselves before. The "same old" thing would be the Bush "same old bad" thing. Wake-up needs to wake up and open your eyes and see after all those years of blinders.
If healthcare is a right then does government have the right to tell doctors what specialization to study? Can government tell doctors how many patients they must see or how many hours they must work? Does it have the fight to tell doctors where they can work or how much they can charge for their services? If healthcare is a right then what rights do doctors have? It seems to me that the "right" to healthcare comes at the expense of the rights of the doctor as an individual. There are many questions that need to be asked before we rush head on into socialized medicine. You are on the right track by asking a few questions!
How would adding an amendment to the constitution that gives all Americans the right to health care increase the number of doctors and nurses being trained by thousands? Obviously it would increase demand for doctors but would it really increase the amount of people entering the profession?
An amendment to the Constitution is not the way to go.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
