Corporate Lies Attempt To Prevent Health Care Becoming Available To Everyone In US
The corporate health care industry, whose gargantuan profits through fraud would be at risk of decreasing, are leading the fight against single payer, Medicare for All or any public plan for health care in the US, which would bring this country into the 21st century with government administered health care coverage available to all which most industrialized nations have offered their people, except for the United States.
These gazillionaire for profit "health care" corporations have held the American people and small to mid sized businesses hostage to stratospheric, unaffordable costs for increasingly limited coverage that result in millions of Americans without health care, employers dropping health care coverage for employees or providing less coverage at higher costs, while the US fails to measure up to the rest of the industrialized countries in health care ranking 24th in life expectancy and 34th in infant mortality
And some elected denizens on Capitol Hill who are bought and paid for by the corporate health care fraudsters are doing their damndest to ensure that all Americans are denied even a semblance of the government coverage that these hypocrite, mostly millionaire lawmakers receive courtesy of the taxpayers.
As Chris in Paris at America Blog writes: "Other than the language, there's really little else in common with the US and UK in terms of health care today or even in an Obama-sponsored system. The better comparison would be the French system where there is a mix of public/private but of course, the anti-change people don't want to make that comparison because the French system is consistently rated among the best in the world. Oops. Now that's not very convenient, is it? How much French-bashing can they do when the French system isnumber one compared to the US at number 37 and even the UK at 18? What does it say about the US system if it's so far behind such a failing system like the UK's NHS?
"What is always missing in these ridiculous attack adverts by the right wingers are the stories from America, by Americans. I have a few to offer myself, in case they're interested. I also remember the glorious moment when a doctor asked my father for almost $30,000 to be a guinea pig for a new pharmaceutical drug test. He almost wrote the check (which in itself was a miracle but probably would have killed him) but the pharmaceutical decided that he might not help show the results they wanted, so they canceled his involvement in the test. Now there's some good old fashioned free market capitalism that serves the public so well. Best system money can buy, if you have the money.
"What fool believes that the US health care system does not ration treatment? Instead of the government telling you what you can and can't do, in the US it's the insurance companies who tell you to use this doctor or how much treatment you are allowed to have. In the US you need to confirm with your insurance company if they will allow whatever treatment. Huh. Interesting for a free market system but that doesn't happen here in socialist France in most circumstances.
"As always, the anti-health care change people are cherry picking and hoping that you will overlook the miserable system that they love and support. The Republicans act like it's still the Clinton years and that people are running in fear of this change. The world has changed but never the GOP. Same as it ever was."
"While in the US, HR 676, Medicare for All is the answer, and would be unlike the UK's National Health Care service, but have privately delivered health care, a client weighs in with support for the NHS in Britain that anti-public plan zealots in the US who malign with lies."
Maria Margaronis at The Nation writes about the benefits of the National Health Service in the UK.
"Like most British people, I have a love-hate relationship with the NHS, which definitely has its problems. There can be long waiting times for diagnosis and surgery; there is the so-called "post-code lottery," which means that treatment (especially cancer treatment) varies a lot depending on where you live. The bureaucracy's complexity is legendary. Expensive and potentially life saving or life extending drugs are not available to everyone who needs them. Hospitals are understaffed; MRSA infections are an ongoing issue.
"But in the 14 years we've lived in London, members of my family have had, without a single bill: two hospital births, one attended by midwives in a birthing pool, the other requiring weekly scans by a top fetal medicine specialist; child development checks and vaccinations; lithotripsy for kidney stones; a tonsillectomy; physiotherapy for a broken arm; annual consultations for a chronic chest condition; and countless GP appointments for minor ailments in and out of hours, as well as free medicines and eye exams for the children. The practitioners and staff we have dealt with have been, almost without exception, professional, dedicated, overworked, and very kind. (I'll never forget the vigilant theatre nurse who watched our daughter wake up from a general anaesthetic.) The doctors we see often roll their eyes at the frustrations of the system, but they also know how to get the best from it for their patients. I have never once felt that cost was a factor in the treatments we were offered--though I know this might be different in some cases. Given the choice between an NHS teaching hospital and one that's run for profit, I know which I'd choose every time.
"British politicians and commentators endlessly debate the future of the health service, which celebrated its 60th birthday last year: how to finance and manage it, how to make it more responsive to patients, how to pay for new generation medicines and techniques and meet the needs of an aging population. But even the Tory leader (and probable next prime minister) David Cameron has pledged to keep it free at the point of use. (His severely disabled son, who died earlier this year, was cared for by the service.) The right to healthcare is as fundamental as the right to education; the question is not whether but how that right is respected. When I talk to American friends about what we have here--especially those who live without decent insurance--they stare in disbelief. Don't be put off by the horror stories. Yes, the NHS sometimes fails people. It needs reform, and money. But most of the time it does a fantastic job--and it does it for everyone."
"Research conducted by EPI health research team has repeatedly concluded that a public plan is essential.
Following are some of the highlights of that research:
—Although the majority of Americans under the age of 65, about 63%, have employer-sponsored health insurance, coverage has been steadily declining since 2000, even during periods when overall employment grew. Some 3 million fewer people had employment-based insurance in 2007 than in 2000. This loss of coverage was especially steep among children, where employer-sponsored health coverage dropped from 66% in 2000 to less than 60% in 2007. While still providing coverage to a majority of children, it is a slim majority that is getting smaller all the time.
—Average premiums for an employer-sponsored family plan have risen nearly 120% since 1999, three and a half times faster than workers’ earnings and more than four times faster than inflation. One of the reasons some workers do not have coverage is that they cannot afford the high premiums. This problem has hit low-income workers the hardest, although coverage levels have also fallen for college-educated workers.
—Fewer than half of all Hispanic Americans have health insurance through an employer. The rate of coverage among this group fell to 41.4% in 2002, from 45.8% last year. Among African Americans, only a slim majority have employer coverage: 51.6%, down from 56.1% in 2000.
—Workers in the service sector are highly unlikely to have health insurance through their employers. The coverage level among this group was just 29.5% in 2007. Fewer than half of all workers at small businesses with fewer than 24 employees had employer-sponsored health insurance from their own job.
"In his paper, Health Care for America, Jacob Hacker argues for a public health insurance option based on Medicare, which offers a strong model for controlling costs and improving care. The Medicare system spends just 2% of total spending on administrative costs, compared with an average of 14% in the private sector, underscoring the vast efficiencies that come with very large insurance pools."
[Note: Unless his plan is head and shoulders above HR 676, Medicare for All, why is Mr. Hacker re-inventing that wheel?]
"A final argument for the need for a public plan is the costly churn that occurs when workers switch jobs. Even in a best-case scenario, individuals who are employed and are able to afford employer-sponsored insurance coverage may spend a significant time without insurance when they are between jobs. During the current recession, for example, 5.7 million Americans have lost their jobs and often their health insurance, too. Research shows that about a third of people have no coverage for at least a month over a three-year period. Though it is not always highlighted in the health care debate, this problem of discontinuous coverage is also costly. Individuals, and especially children, who go without preventive care tend to suffer poorer health, which increases costs for everyone."
Comments