Progressive Ponderings: Will Citizens Be Allowed a Voice in Healthcare Debate?
by Joe Mayer
It’s amazing that the majority of Americans favor single-payer healthcare. Why? This is not news the tightly integrated corporate system wants to declare or promote. As the White House Summit on Healthcare approached, corporate media ignored the majority opinion.
Rep. John Conyers has a bill before Congress (H.R. 676) that proposes single-payer healthcare. Sixty-four representatives have signed on, yet this information seems to be censored. Our major news media providers are not “stand-alone” news businesses, but part of corporate conglomerates. In this situation the news division promotes other conglomerate interests, not the interests of the general public. Researching this Pondering could only be done pursuing alternate media.
The healthcare insurance industry, a parasite feeding on our healthcare system, adds additional costs – administration, advertising, high executive salaries, profits – without advancing care. This private system has failed, and attempts to reform it will only delay real reform. In fact, the industry advocates requiring every American to buy private insurance, expanding an industry despised by consumers. Motivated only by profit, this industry sells policies and then exploits the system to avoid paying claims. Sick people need advocates, not adversaries.
Government is supposed to have a role in overseeing this private insurance business, but sometimes the head overseer is ideologically against government oversight or worse yet, as we’ve witnessed, has grown up within the industry to be regulated. Remember, the banking industry supposedly had oversight; likewise the S & L industry, the mortgage industry, the commodities industry, etc. “Let the buyer beware” replaces the medical pledge, “First, cause no harm.”
Single-payer medical coverage offers several advantages. It is equitable. It is “just” for those who consider healthcare a basic human right. It guarantees access to the healthcare system without discrimination. It eliminates exceptions to payment for care since all are covered. It is appreciated by seniors with single-payer Medicare, Part D excepted. It is satisfying for citizens of other nations who have a single-payer system—whose governments would not dare cut their programs. It is favored by 59% of U.S. physicians, according to Physicians for National Health Program. It would be welcomed by industries with employer-provided healthcare plans that add to the cost of competing in the global market. (American auto manufacturers must ask approximately $1,400 more per car than Canada’s automakers.)
An interesting note: Those advocates for continuing and expanding private healthcare insurance are nearly all covered by employer-paid plans. This group includes all Congress members and government employees.
(NOTE: This is the second in a series of articles about healthcare reform written by our colleague Joe Mayer.)
It’s amazing that the majority of Americans favor single-payer healthcare. Why? This is not news the tightly integrated corporate system wants to declare or promote. As the White House Summit on Healthcare approached, corporate media ignored the majority opinion.
Rep. John Conyers has a bill before Congress (H.R. 676) that proposes single-payer healthcare. Sixty-four representatives have signed on, yet this information seems to be censored. Our major news media providers are not “stand-alone” news businesses, but part of corporate conglomerates. In this situation the news division promotes other conglomerate interests, not the interests of the general public. Researching this Pondering could only be done pursuing alternate media.
The healthcare insurance industry, a parasite feeding on our healthcare system, adds additional costs – administration, advertising, high executive salaries, profits – without advancing care. This private system has failed, and attempts to reform it will only delay real reform. In fact, the industry advocates requiring every American to buy private insurance, expanding an industry despised by consumers. Motivated only by profit, this industry sells policies and then exploits the system to avoid paying claims. Sick people need advocates, not adversaries.
Government is supposed to have a role in overseeing this private insurance business, but sometimes the head overseer is ideologically against government oversight or worse yet, as we’ve witnessed, has grown up within the industry to be regulated. Remember, the banking industry supposedly had oversight; likewise the S & L industry, the mortgage industry, the commodities industry, etc. “Let the buyer beware” replaces the medical pledge, “First, cause no harm.”
Single-payer medical coverage offers several advantages. It is equitable. It is “just” for those who consider healthcare a basic human right. It guarantees access to the healthcare system without discrimination. It eliminates exceptions to payment for care since all are covered. It is appreciated by seniors with single-payer Medicare, Part D excepted. It is satisfying for citizens of other nations who have a single-payer system—whose governments would not dare cut their programs. It is favored by 59% of U.S. physicians, according to Physicians for National Health Program. It would be welcomed by industries with employer-provided healthcare plans that add to the cost of competing in the global market. (American auto manufacturers must ask approximately $1,400 more per car than Canada’s automakers.)
An interesting note: Those advocates for continuing and expanding private healthcare insurance are nearly all covered by employer-paid plans. This group includes all Congress members and government employees.
(NOTE: This is the second in a series of articles about healthcare reform written by our colleague Joe Mayer.)
Labels: health insurance, healthcare, single-payer
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Joe,
Another excellent piece that really goes to the heart of the problem. Sadly, I think many of us do not know the level of insurance we have until there is a problem ... and I am not just referring to health care, but consider the last "storm" and how many people found out their coverage was different than they thought.
Universal Care should be predicated upon Universal Participation. I could expand on that but you already know more than I.
Sadly, reading today’s Washington Post editorial , Congressional Democrats may be getting more cover NOT to push HR 676.
Which begs the important question : why is only one member of the Minnesota delegation supporting HR 676 National Health Care Act ?
Democrat Keith Ellison is a co-sponsor but McCollum, Oberstar, Peterson and Walz have not signed on.
Additionally, the following were co-sponsors during the 110th session but have not signed on yet :
Joe Baca (CA-43), James Clyburn (SC-06), Bob Filner (CA-51), Phil Hare (CA-17), Rush Holt (NJ-12), Eddie Johnson (TX-30), Stephen Lynch (MA-09), James Moran (VA-08), Charles Rangel (NY-15),Betty Sutton (OH-13), David Scott (GA-13), Linda Sanchez (CA-39), Loretta Sanchez (CA-43), Jose Serrano (NY-16) and Anthony Weiner (NY-09).
If the Democrats won’t support this legislation, it’s time to start looking for primary challengers who will.
One last comment, I believe that the Obama Administration has been holding public hearings in concert with members of Congress (none in Minnesota but there was one in the Dakotas) … but Universal Health Care does not seem to be a focus. In this case, a fix may actually produce more problems than improvements (see Massachusetts).
Post a Comment
<< Home