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

[0emissions]

This is so RIGHT ON.
I can't believe America doesnot have a universal health care plan.
Tommy Douglas in Canada brought it in in the late 50's.
The auto companies are responsible for a tremendous amount of health problems, accidents and injuries.
They spend in 2 to 3 years 25$ BILLION just on advertising.
Add on roads and maintenance, police surveillance, court costs, coroners, street cleaning and clearing.... we are spending Zillions on the use of their products.

[blooddoc]

As a physician, I strongly support some form of universal health care, with government regulations on the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to rectify the egregious, bottom-line mentality that has driven the cost of health care to obscene levels. But I do not want - and neither do you - a government-designed and controlled health care system. Such a system would stifle incentives for excellence and innovation, while the cost savings would not be nearly as great as you think. It will still cost millions of dollars and many years to develop a new drug and hundreds of thousands and many years to train a physician. If the rewards for such outlays are cut too much, you will see a reduction in quality of quantity, probably both. The old axiom "you get what you pay for" applies here. Again, a change must come; the current system is broken and far too expensive. Just be careful who you ask to fix it and how they propose to do it.

[gobeavs]

It is my understanding that is an issue in England. They are having to import Doctors, from India. I will double check my facts. Also when my step-daughter was a student in England and became ill, she went to a clinic. when they found out she had insurance they sent her to a private Doctor.
She was told she would get better care.

[papapj]

The British system, which I was born into, has for the past 20 years or so been subjected to a steady assault by the private healthcare industry which runs in tandem with it.

What was once the model of excellence for the world has sprung a leak of it's brightest individuals who, after being trained on the taxpayers buck, choose to jump ship into the private healtchare system for better pay.

The inference is clear - you can have one or the other but not both. The private healthcare industry, funded by huge corporate interests is steadily bleeding the lifeblood out of public healthcare.

Either or - which is more important, profit or health?

[Zeje]

The USA should have the BEST health care system -- not the worst. The British nationalized health care system is being improved constantly -- which it should be. Take a look at Germany and France and the Netherlands. Those are the health care systems that we should emulate. Also, here in the US we are importing doctors as well -- from India -- and nurses from the Phillipines.

[Blain]

Right now we have a healthcare system that is ran by the insurance companies. Doesn't that stifle incentives for excellence and innovation? Quite often physicians have to determine the patient's treatment plan on the type of insurance that they have. I'm not so sure that some form of government control is such a bad idea.

[gobeavs]

Oregon does have a health care plan "The Oregon Health Care Plan" you must enter a lottery if your number comes up you can join, If not tough beans. They also have the ability to decide what type of medical care is appropriate for them to pay. There has been some controversy about turning down children for kidney transplants.

[steamboat]

Jesse, Jr.-----You are my congressman, I live in your district. My neighbor is laid-off. She's without Healthcare right now. So she gets her healthcare through the county (Cook). Oak Forest and Stroger County Hospitals. She needs a colonoscopy because she has stomach problems. Well, guess what, she's on the list. Guess what else, she will be taken care of she's been told in Sept. of 2009 at the earliest. Even thats not guaranteed as the earliest..­.....Thats the mess just at the county level, what kind of a mess will it be nationally (where 50 times more people are concerned)­?......and how will good talkers like yourself remedy that?

[Zeje]

Your neighbor is having a problem precisely because we DO NOT HAVE a nationalized health care system. If you do not have health insurance, you will have trouble finding health care. If your neighbor were in Canada -- or France -- or Germany -- or the Netherlands -- or Mexico -- she wouldn't have to wait so long. BTW, I have been diagnosed with cancer of the liver -- and was TURNED DOWN TWICE for a Cat scan of my liver.

[steamboat]

Zeje, I will make sure you are in my prayer tonight. Get well......I normally would agree with you. However, lets NOT forget one thing. This is the United States beauracracy we're talking about. Our civil service workers, etc., etc. My point with my neighbor's dilemma was this: If there that incompetent and backed-up at a county level, just think how they'll screw things up nationally. Thats what my concern is. I hope you know where I'm coming from.

[ProudNeoCon]

The only real choice we have is:

1) Good medical care for most, no medical care for some - i.e. current situation
2) Average health care for everyone - proposed solution
3) Good medical care for some, bad medical care for some - (Russia like solution, where everyone has a right to medical care but the healthcare provided for free is so bad that anyone who can afford gets a private one)

I do not know about you, but I doubt people who currently have insurance are willing to give up their level of service to provide insurance for others...

[Cogitoe]

Do you beleive it is possible to have a public / private system as in public / private education? Those choosing publicly funded health care will have "average" care while those willing to foot the bills themselves may achieve "good" care.

[Zeje]

Only if we decide to run a mediocre education system and a mediocre health care system. Why don't we try being the BEST -- instead of the worst?

[Zeje]

Take a look at France, Germany, and the Netherlands. THose are the systems we should aspire to -- the BEST!! Not the worst! Why does everyone automatically assume that USA would only institute a BAD nationalized health care system! Are we really so out of it? Or is it that we don't know how to do for the public good anymore?

[mychris52]

All the talk about health care reform revovles around extending it so that everyone has coverage.
The one thing that is not talked about is revising the paradgm of health care. We have available the rescources to reduce health care costs in this country by billions of dollars, which woudl free up the resources to cover everyone. We need to direct our efforts to prevention rather than treatment. The first step would be to break up the FDA and its relationship to the drug companies. The second step would be to have medicare cover vitamins and dietary supplements instead of drug coverage. There are over 100, 000 deaths , and hundreds of thousands of serious illnesses from prescription drugs, and this is a gross underestimation.

[bosse]

There is no proof vitamins and dietary supplements will cure anything, Take normal good food with less fat and carbo, Vitamins come with them
We all should have good health care. A lot ofwaste can be eliminated easily, by stopping unnecessar ytest( that the Drs know, when they order them, ) avoid paper work, avoid law suits, AVOID middlemen, businessmen who are paid very high to run for profit hospitals. Let hospitals be NON PROFIT once again.Shut loop holes taht allow Drs make extra on the side in Imaging centers, eyes glasses, and pharmacies. Restrict the profit making of drug companies. They can sell them at reasonable prices and we do not need import from Canada.Let people not use ERs for non emergencies

[Cogitoe]

PROS: The only comparable movement in our history was the decision to fund public education as a basic "right" and general societal benefit. Surely a healthier citizenry should benefit our nation as does a more educated population. Of course this is a Federal mandate financed locally with varying results.
CONS: It is always dangerous to mess with the Constitution unless the gains are truly obvious. There is no public record, Canada or otherwise, where the intitution of universal healthcare has produced "obvious benefits of greater and better health care" in fact just the opposite has been the case; long waits and inferior care. If healthcare is now 16% of GDP and over $2.5 trillion, those numbers will only go up if 50 million more are covered and there is no monetary incentives for people to ration their health care demands. We need a system with checks and balances to guarantee the benefits outweigh the costs.
REALITY: Having just received a notice that my family's insurance premiums will increase 15% for 2009, I assure you I GET the problem. There has been tremendous focus on the cost impacts of expensive technologies, malpractice suits and, of course, the "greedy and mean" insurance industry. The one major aspect of the cost problem that is never addressed is the AMA monopoly that restricts the supply of doctors and has raised doctor compensation to the point where it is generally triple that of most other developed nations.

[bosse]

Some truth here. AMA do not have all Drs as members.May be 28%.
We can have more Medical schools and more Drs and less competition. Drs are not the cause of increase in Medical expences.Very few people living in Canada and their Drs complain of thier system. It is only The American congressmen and health care companies and Hospital assn. giving a bad name to Canadian and UK systems. Yes they will have to wait some time, for unnecessary and non urgent care. No body dies of waiting. In spiteof the" excellent" care many poor people die in ERs in county hopitsls here.
If you want to control Drs incomes, we need to control the salaries of Basket ball players, movie stars, and CEOs, of large corporations.And lawyers.. bankers etc
Not all Drs make huge sums. They pay 45 to 55 % over head, and support 5 or 6 employees!, and live in fear of lawyers.

[Cogitoe]

No one is asking the government to provide universal basketball or free legal services as a "right". If the government is paying for health care as a "right" then why shouldn't the government control doctors' compensation. The government controls the pay of public school teachers through negotiations with unions.

[sandpiper1]

cogitoe....
This Canadian says you're full of it....you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Check WHO on Health re. which countries are considered best in the world as per health care. I guarantee you, the USA is not anywhere near the top.
Your comment is based on ignorance, we have excellent doctors and an excellent health care system, it's not perfect and I can assure you, there's no perfect system anywhere. We have major medical reseach centres within hospitals as well as universities here and have developed drugs(Vincristine, Vinblastin to name two), identifed Chromosomes that caused congenital conditions etc. Our health care system is not substandard in anyway, in fact it's far superior to yours because it's not based on profit. We have had patients coming here from the US seeking medical care esp. at our children's hospital.

[FreedomAgain]

That is an excellent plan. It would also benefit businesses greatly and streamline our healthcare processes. It would be cheaper for everyone involved, and with the administrative overhead it would eliminate, it would allow for future growth of the industry as a whole.

[bpcmusic]

Heard him talk about this years ago on a radio interview. The amendment is a great idea. I would extend it a bit to say:

"All citizens shall enjoy the right to health care and an education of equal high quality and the Congress shall have the power to implement this article by appropriate legislation."

As a nation, we need to strive for the highest possible standards in how we educate our young and tend to the health care of our ill. Both are beyond profit; they are at the core of our national humanity. To memorialize the commitment in the constitution is the best way to ensure that whatever systems are put in place to achieve the goal and however they mutate over the years in their application, our highest court will protect these rights and ensure that they are dispensed equally.

[dagdavid]

Jesse, take your passion and devotion to this cause and make it your life goal - get it done and your place in history will be secured.

[Gdebs]

JESSE FOR SENATOR!

[billbee]

got my fingers crossed for you J. Jr. Hope you make the Senate, too.

[gramgram2]

Nursing homes staff according state guidelines and rarely have more nurses and aids than the bare minimum called for in those guidelines. This bare minimum is decided by people who have no idea what is really needed to give good, responsible care to our elderly. Family members rightly expect their loved ones be cared for but do not understand how difficult it is when there's one nurse responsible not only for their loved one but 30-40 other loved ones. Just last week a patient was transferred from the hospital to our nursing home because he decided to go on hospice care (no more medical intervention, just die naturally). He was indigent and when he signed the hospice paper he couldn't stay in the hospital anymore. He was transferred to us in the process of ACTIVELY DYING! He was dead before we could complete the admission process. Pathetic. Not only was this an expensive move that taxpayers will absorb, most importantly, it was inhumane. The man was dying. Old school nurses like myself who care about the human element more then the financial, legal, paperwork aspect have no where to go that doesn't require some kind of compromise in the integrity of the care we deliver. I'm not a socialist but I know something has to be done. Our elderly deserve far better than what we can reasonably give them right now. Thanks Mr. Jackson, please don't give up on this.

[breezyholler]

THE HEALTH CARE MAFIA:::protection for a price...and more often than not when dealing with the mafia......the ones offering the protection, are the very ones presenting the threat !

[hmldjr]

The time for universal healthcare is now. Cradle to grave coverage for every American citizen. This debate was won in this past election where the man who won said it is a right. As for a shortage of health care providers you have umpteen thousand chiropractors who refuse to expand their scope of practice because they're afraid of the liability insurance. Eliminate the liability insurance; then get these glorified physical therapists on board by upgrading their training to match the MD's and DO's or legally drive them out of business.

[zizyphus]

Jesse, you are good. Please help us to restore habeas corpus, while you are at it. People have forgotten what rights they used to enjoy.

[zizyphus]

We don't need middlemen HMOs sucking up our money. They are why we spend so much for so little. Let us just expand Medicare to cover everyone.

The idea in this nation seems to be, "We will provide you with the barest of necessities, see if you can make it, poor suckers. See if you can crawl up to the next class with a poor education and minimal health care, and a mountain of debt, good luck."

[breezyholler]

Too many middle men is the problem throughout our system....too many who do nothing, produce nothing of value...and are more often than not ...dishonest to the bone...They are nothing more than parasites, feeding on the labor of others...Only when we rid ourselves of these robber barons, will we recover as a nation...THE GREATEST THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY ARE GREED AND DISHONESTY !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Overd0g]

Especially those who would loot the taxpayer to pay their medical bills. Very greedy.

[zizyphus]

Yes, but sadly, those qualities seem to be inherent in humans. Even chimps will try to cheat their kin, by hiding a new food source when they find one. But then the other chimps fin out, and beat him up.

[DonCosenza]

Often (relatively) new politicians like to propose changing the Constitution. None of our other entitlement programs required a Constitutional amendment, Rep. Jackson knows there is no impetus for adding one specific for health care, and nor is one required. Let's save the updates to our founding document to those that are necessary.

Sounds like just rhetoric to me... perhaps angling for that Illinois Senate seat?

[bosse]

I am amazed at the people that exhort the constitution, every time a progressive idea is spelled. It was written 200 years ago, and the founding fathers had no idea of the 21st century or the years yet to come.
Do we consider the colored people are savages, ( as many of them thought?) and give vote only to the very rich MEN who got land grants from the KING? or slaughtered the natives, in wars with England?
We have a congress and the Courts to pass new laws lest we dwell in the past.
Jackson I belive is well qualified to the next Senator.
Let him not be dissuaded by people clamouring against socialsed Medicine. What do you think HMOs aare? ( many do not realise tha, HMO was started by our great Prez. NIXON, as a favour to his corporate buddy Kaiser of California)Do we get to see a doctor when we want and where we want? I waited 3 weeks last time to see a physician assistant. They still charge the regular Doctor rate, Does any one know?

[bannorhill]

Company sponsored health care did not start under Nixon. It started under FDR.

FDR froze wages for workers in WW II. The only way you could get a raise was to change jobs. Companies started loosing needed employees because the government said wages were frozen. To retain the needed employees companies had to find ways to increase benefits without violating the law. Employers added health care as a benefit to retain employees. (See http://faculty.smu.edu/tmayo/health%20care%20timeline.htm)

As for government run health care Canadian wait times are worse. "Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist" and "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI — a whopping 22 months". Even worse "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years". (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada)

Having to wait 22 months for a MRI is not real health care. Is that the health care you want for everyone?