Remember the film John Q, in which Denzel Washington plays a father whose son is diagnosed with an enlarged heart, and discovers his HMO won't cover the cost of a transplant? In desperation, John Q eventually storms the hospital and takes hostages. His only demand is that his son be put on the transplant list.
Insurance companies now tell us they've found a loophole in the new health care law that allows them to deny coverage to children with preexisting conditions. Do we really need to hear the case they're making to know it doesn't make sense?
Even wild dogs protect the weakest members of their packs.
The most basic reason for guaranteeing universal health care is that we encourage a primitive, survival-based world when we fail to meet people's most basic needs.
People don't get seriously ill on purpose. There are all kinds of reasons they can't afford insurance. Just ask the millions of Americans who've worked diligently all their lives, only to lose their jobs -- and their health care coverage -- during the past year.
How far are we then from a world like the one described in the New York Times on Sunday, in which wealthy Haitians drink champagne and party in casinos, their chauffeur-driven cars parked across the street from a makeshift tent city whose earthquake-displaced inhabitants have no choice but to defecate in the street?
When we meet people's most basic needs, we not only give them dignity and greater security, but also the capacity to move beyond mere survival, and ultimately to be productive contributors themselves. That's true at all levels of the food chain.
For the past decade, my colleagues and I at The Energy Project have been making the case to companies that rather than trying to get more out of their employees, they need to invest more in meeting their core needs. We argue that doing so is in their self-interest. The more people are preoccupied with their unmet needs, the less energy and attention they have to invest in the work they're being paid to do.
When employers don't encourage us to renew intermittently during the day at work, it's inevitable that we'll get less and less productive as the day wears on. The research is clear that we operate best when we take a break every 90 minutes. If we're not valued and appreciated by our managers, it shouldn't be a surprise that our satisfaction and engagement diminishes. If the work we're doing is unmoored to any purpose beyond profit, it's unlikely we're going to feel deeply committed to our employers.
When companies take better care of their employees, they not only make them feel more secure, but also fuel and inspire them to take better care of the company's clients and customers, and of each other.
The same is true when it comes to taking care of those among us who are sickest and most vulnerable. By making that commitment, we rise beyond our most primitive instincts to embrace others. And we create a world in which we give them a chance not just to reclaim their health, but also to return to work.
Follow Tony Schwartz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TonySchwartz
Excellent post.
INSURANCE COMPANIES AND HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS ARE THE ONLY ONES WITH A CHANCE TO WIN.
THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM. SADLY, IT WAS THE MOST PROBLEMATIC ISSUE AT ELECTION TIME AND AN INEXPERIENCED CANDIDATE WAS CLEVER ENOUGH TO RUN WITH IT.
SADLY, AMERICANS FELL FOR IT.
Bad analogy. In a wolf pack , the old and the weak eat last and if there is not enough to go around , they die. Also , if the leader of a pack is weak , it will be attacked by the other members and there will be a bloody and violent struggle . Usually the former leader sustains severe injuries, leaves the pack and dies . Same with other wild canine packs. A catchy but inaccurate title.
No wonder the middle and lower classes are in trouble when most politicians and a large number of Americans want to send the country back to the 19th century of robber barons and subsistence wages. The economic elite have decided they don't need the American working class anymore and are doing their best to destroy them.
Property rights? Not when 1% owns 70% of the country's assets. Health care and freedom of choice? The only choice is how badly big corporations are going to price gouge you.
http://ampedstatus.com/full-report-the-economic-elite-vs-the-people-of-the-united-states-of-america
In reality, 95% of the people don't matter and unless people want to waste all of their money in a stacked legal and political system to challenge it only to end up with the same result.
http://www.giantleap.org/envision/bill.htm
As far as health care goes, this system is the worst in the developed world. The biggest purveyors of property rights in the health care system are the drug companies and their exclusive patents that allow them to price gouge. The insurance companies who have decided on a whim whether or not they will not pay bills to increase profitability. Regional medical monopolists are busy increasing the amounts that they charge now that they have acquired most of the hospitals and doctor offices in the region.
The current healthcare agenda is completely Democrat. Obama gives a lot of money to the big corporations. It's tax-payer money.
This is not your Grandparents America anymore. There is NO division of liberals and conservatives, it's every candidate for themselves.
It's just a big buy-out to the most generous supporters.
Yes you are getting screwed in it involves big corporations. But your president is the one who is giving them your Social Security funds.
Obama has given away nearly everyone's retirement money. Of course, now he is trying to raise the retirement age.
We are in trouble.
PEOPLE!! PLEASE DON'T MAKE A BLIND VOTE FOR A PARTY. LISTEN TO WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO TO OUR COUNTRY BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR NEXT DECISION.
Now when it comes time to pay it back, they supposedly can't find any money. Social security has enough money to last another 30 years. Once that period is over, they can pay 85% of the benefits due.
While Obama has not been part of the solution, he was not the start of the problem. The same corporatists who reaped big benefits from the original tax cuts, now want to take money from the working people again.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10015
You have spoken the truth. Congress wrote the bill from an end user point of view and not from the view of a company that operates for a profit. If Congress doesn't attack controling the cost of medical services very few, including the government, will be able to afford to be sick.