Behind the escalating debate on the health care between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on individual mandate -- she's for it, he's against it -- is a critical policy battle that not only cuts across health care reform but also the neo-liberal privatization dreams, the home mortgage crisis, and the recession that is no longer looming, it's here.
Sound far-fetched? Take a closer look, starting with the millions of Americans staring at the loss of their homes due to the sub-prime loan debacle. It's not a loan or a mortgage crisis for those families; it's a debt crisis being forced upon them by the banks, hedge funds, and insurers who are desperate to shift their own mammoth debt onto someone else.
Banking, other financial institutions, insurance and real estate which make up the finance sector, now account for about half of U.S. corporate profits. And, they are in trouble with more than $2.5 trillion in outstanding consumer credit, $800 billion of that in credit card debt, and another $10.1 trillion in domestic mortgage debt.
Being thrifty won't solve that problem. The financial planners have identified two lucrative pots of money. Trading carbon credits for industries and employers that want to brand themselves as green while continuing to pollute. And, making a killing in health care, currently 16 percent of our national economic pie and rapidly growing.
The banks are already into health care in a big way, serving as a repository for health savings accounts and other tax credit schemes so beloved by the Bush administration and the Republican presidential candidates. But the financiers would like more.
Enter the neo-liberal think tanks and policy wonks and plans they hawk to expand the reach of the market, especially the financial market, in health care. Central to that approach is shotgun insurance, forcing everyone not currently covered to buy health insurance policies.
Compelling people to buy insurance, however, is not the easiest sell. Big insurers and HMOs have a well deserved bad reputation for heartless denials of care - that's how they make money. And, it's pricey. Premiums the past decade have gone up 87 percent, not to mention the ever climbing bills for deductibles, co-pays, and a host of other transaction fees.
The finance industry is over the moon with this scheme.
For insurers, it means millions of new customers marched into their offices with the force of law. With no controls on costs, many consumers will just add on more debt. That's a boon for the credit card companies and other financial institutions, but a heavy new burden on many of the same people now losing their homes or struggling with other financial hardship.
Moreover, it doesn't work. The carrot is public subsidies for those least able to pay, but that approach has noticeable flaws, best evidenced in Massachusetts, the individual mandate pioneer and model.
As a result of the state's failure to control premium hikes, costs of the subsidized program are projected to double over the next three years to $1.35 billion, the Boston Globe reported February 6, and Massachusetts is debating whether to slash the health services offered through the subsidized plans or cut payments to doctors and hospitals.
To shroud the colossal problems and the real story of who actually makes out like bandits under this scheme, the proponents, including some liberal policy experts, have dressed it up with poll-tested rhetoric that mandatory insurance is "universal health care."
But "having" insurance is not the same as being able to use it. You're only being mandated to purchase the premiums; they're not mandating the insurance companies to make sure you get the care you need. Nor does "having" insurance protect you from financial ruin.
It accelerates the dismantling of group insurance plans with individuals forced to go it alone in the individual market, and institutionalizes risk and cost shifting on to the backs of individuals and families.
It distorts the role of government, which should be to protect people, not act as an insurance agent.
Finally, by expanding and entrenching the iron grip of the private insurance industry, it promotes the further privatization of health care, yet another crucial linchpin of the neo-liberal agenda.
Our health should not be a commodity, traded on the market like pork bellies or sold off to some hedge fund overseas to collect on medical bills we can not pay.
There's only one way to achieve genuine universal health care, the approach taken by every other industrialized country with a national health care or single payer system.
In the U.S. that would look a lot like an expanded and improved Medicare for all. With guaranteed health care, not mandated insurance profits, and insurance companies out of the way. Surely, Americans deserve no less.
Tell you what: if you can get a $3 trillion budget for "a war," give $3 trillion more divided each and every American. What will you do with your $9,375.00? And the $9,375.00 that your spouse got, and the $9,375.00 also received by each and every one of your children?
Since that's an annual appropriation, let's just do that every single year from now on. If you get $3 trillion for bombers, we get $3 trillion for our bake-sales, or our schools, or what the heck, just to blow. Just like Washington does. The money that supports their "let them eat cake" lifestyle is coming from ... well, we do know where ... so, let's all get in on the gravy-train.
And if you recoil and think, "that's fiscally irresponsible!" ... well, isn't it fiscally-irresponsible already?
"The fight for the right to buy insurance".
No thanks, I've already got it, that's my biggest health care problem.
What, indeed...60 Minutes! Post!
Because health costs KEEP SKYROCKETING that's why.
My insurance went up to $450.00!
I'm mad as hell but I can't do anything!
Privatize and Profit
Scold the indentured slave for their reckless behavior and still them with your gambling debts- been working for nearly a Century.
time to pull the curtain back on these Wizards.
End the use and arrangements with the Private bankers hiding behind the facade of the agency euphamistically refered to as the "Federal Reserve". Demand an end to the illegal Personal income tax -labor is traded for wages - no profit their, end the IRS fraud.
Deamd health care is provided by the gov't or by NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION
Demand the Rights and Freedom outlined in our constitution are returned to US (WE THE PEOPLE) and never given to any brick and motar again
Time to kick the corp crap off our nations boots.....Start levying charges of Racketteerig , profiteering, spying, War Crimes ,Treason, Crimes against man and nature- You want to see a new list of priorities and business practices and philosophies coming from these Corp Fucks!
Hope you enjoyed your 'golden parachutes' they are going to cost you your freedom or your life.
"
Really? I thought the only reason people can loose their home is because THEY DO NOT PAY THEIR BILLS. I yet to see a single banker, trader or loan officer take a gun and force anyone to take a loan. Where banks and some of the investor stupid in giving loans to the people who did not deserve them - yes. And banks so far have lost 90bln on that. But that does not mean that the homeowners got hurt because of that. On the contrary - it is homeowners who took banks for the ride by getting the loans they knew they can not repay. Good for them - if banks are that stupid why not take their money. But to cry that they were duped by the bank - please....
1. Those who have it, and can afford it's premiums without those costs causing sacrifices elsewhere in their budgets, and are happy with the level of health care (medical attention and services) coverage they receive (because if they were not happy, then they would make a change of some kind, right?)
2. Those who have it, but find it's cost to be excessive, and causes them to make sacrifices elsewhere in their budgets (or elect less comprehensive coverage than is satisfactory to their needs), and perhaps they find those high costs more urgently needed to make a mortgage payment (or in many cases, the high costs of health insurance premiums being one reason why they can't afford to even try and buy a home).
3. Those who don't have it.
And those who don't have health insurance, don't have it because they can't afford it; which places them in a position that the #2 type I listed above is trying to keep away from: #2 struggling with the exhorbitant costs of health insurance premiums, and maybe joining the ranks of #3 soon (or maybe failing to make a mortgage payment instead).
Types #2 and #3 obviously have a problem: The exhorbitant cost of health insurance premiums is causing them sacrifices in their life (maybe preventing home ownership), and in the extreme case of #3, causing them to go without health insurance.
QUESTION: How does legally mandating that #2 and #3 buy health insurance (which is a mandate to #2 that they not drop the coverage they have, and not join the ranks of #3)...
How does that help them in any way?
Truly, I'm at a loss to see how mandating buying coverage helps #2 or #3 in any way whatsoever.
Doesn't this "mandate" scheme simply CRIMINALIZE those who can't afford health insurance...
And threaten those who find it's cost so exhoritant that they may choose to go without it, threaten them with CRIMINALIZATION?
I think the solution could be similar system to Russian (yes it is scary to think we borrow the idea on medical care from them, but if it works, why not)
Everyone in the country has a goverment profided medical care. It provides all coverage. However, the level of quality is very low. It is common for hospitals to use 30 years old equipment and the cheapest possible procedures ( even when they are not the best). No "quality of life" procedures are done. If you want a crown or a filling - you will get a metal one. If you need hip replacement - forget it. If you need antibiotic - take one of 6 available and good luck. No maplpractice complains allowed.
The service is bad enought that most of the private companies provide/offer a private insurances which provide services similar to US level.
By having this dual service level approach we will be able to extend health care (at the basic)level) to everyone, yet keep excelence in our healthcare for people who can afford it.
A system where People can avail themselves of a Government-provided and sponsored service (a service essential to People's lives), and in making that choice, they then deal with whatever attending inconveniences there are, that inevitably come with a Government program...
Or if they like (and can afford), they can elect to purchase this service from the private sector, and spare themselves whatever inconveniences are attending the Government-provided service...
Sort of like education in America, where People can elect to make use of a Government service, and send their child to Public schools (and accept all that goes with that choice)...
Or if they like (and can afford), they can elect to purchase this service from the private sector, and send their children to private (and perhaps better) schools...
If that's what's meant by "dual service", then sure, it sounds like a great thing.
I'd think it was a good idea that we require the Government to provide People with health insurance, like we require it to provide our children with an education...
I'd think health care was even more essential to People's lives, than education is.
Or are the Scandinavians better people they we Americans?
When you include the US cost of health insurance, the Scandinavian taxes are about the SAME! But their system works for the people. Not the pigs with their quintuple bypass extravaganzas.
Why do we need healthcare insurance people providing our healthcare? They are in the insurance money making business, not the healthcare business.
Until these leeches are removed from our healthcare system, it will remain broken.
Why do we have to fill out the same forms everytime we go to a new doctor or change insurance (meaning someone has to enter the same information into a different database)?
Why do we have to support the ad campaigns for Kaiser, UHC, Aetna, Met Life, etc, etc? It does not make the insurance any better.
Why are we the ONLY country in the world that pays retail for drugs? Everyone else pays wholesale?
BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICANS, AND THAT IS WHAT AMERICANS DO. (we are suckers for the med industry)
This maybe the scariest aspect that prevents people from getting on board. The great unknowns. For instance, what happens to all the employees of these insurance companies if they are no longer needed to: market the programs, process the claims, deny the coverage, answer the phone calls, authorize the treatments, etc. I'm not try to be facetious here, I'm sure these employees and their family's have great concerns for their futures if a change of this magnitude should happen.
I think that your organization is capable of creating a paradigm 9a game plan really) for such change. A step-by step process of how such a transition could occur that could put the minds of most Health Care consumers to rest so that they would no longer fear the idea of Single Payer Care but would embrace it.
Can you do something like this. This is really the missing link in this debate.
As for the employees who used to work for insurance companies, HR 676, the universal health CARE bill from Representatives Conyers and Kucinich (as opposed to Hillary’s sketch of a universal health INSURANCE plan) gives first priority in retraining and job placement to out-of-work health insurance employees. The bill also provides 2 years of unemployment benefits.