|
|
Tags for This Article:
Government (2754) Corporations (822) Economic (774) Health (711) Health (687) Trade (440) Healthcare (183) Maryland (150) Healthcare (144) Hospital (128) Medicare-Medicaid (125) Employees (71) Manufacturing (71) Uninsured (40) Delaware (4)
|
(more...)
(less...)
Group(s): Democrats (unofficial)Add to My Group
It is obvious that none of the major Presidential candidates of either the Democratic or Republican Parties are supporting the right approach to providing universal healthcare. Frankly, all the Republican candidates are going to be major obstacles to achieving this national goal. While the top Democratic candidates (Clinton, Edwards and Obama) do support the concept, they are all offering Band-Aid approaches for a life-threatening economic and health crisis in America. A bill has already been introduced in The House by Congressman John Conyers that effectively addresses the issue. H.R. 676 expands Medicare to cover all citizens. The scope of the healthcare crisis in America is huge. It has very serious economic and moral implications. It is crippling our nation in terms of protecting American manufacturing, competing in the global economy and undermines our national security. It reflects badly on us as a just and moral society. It is literally killing Americans in huge numbers. The number of Americans without health insurance is currently 47 million and growing rapidly. The number of underinsured Americans is much larger than the number of uninsured Americans. In America, over half of all personal bankruptcies are the direct result of medical crises. Over half of those bankruptcies are from individuals who had health insurance when their medical crises started. Industry friendly studies of the number of Americans who died because they had no health insurance place the number at around 50 per week. The number is absurdly low and illogical. Doing without healthcare at any point in life for a significant period of time will likely create health issues and physical damage. This damage accumulates over a lifetime and shortens your lifespan. You die younger than you would have if you had always had adequate healthcare. You might die at 70 instead of 85. In addition, the last years might have much lower levels of quality. Since most people die after reaching the age where Medicare coverage is already in effect, those deaths are not counted as resulting from a lack of healthcare insurance although they can be directly traced to an earlier lack of coverage. Most of the deaths resulting from a lack of healthcare insurance are thus concealed. Even using the fraudulent 50 per week figure, killing Americans to preserve the profits of HMO’s and insurance companies is completely immoral. Bankrupting Americans because of illness is a national disgrace. It does not happen in other industrialized nations. Out of the top 75 most industrialized nations in the world, only in the United States are citizens not provided by their government with universal healthcare. In the United States, we saddle our businesses and corporations with the cost of providing for the healthcare needs of their employees. Our international competitors do not. This is one of the major reasons why good paying manufacturing and service sector jobs are leaving our nation. It is economic suicide. None of the Band-Aid approaches advocated by the top Democratic Presidential candidates deal effectively with the trade implications of healthcare policy. I am personally supporting Edwards because he is more inclined to advance fair and balanced trade agreements than Clinton and Obama. For example, Clinton and Obama supported the most recent “so-called free trade” agreement with Peru while Edwards did not. However, even Edwards has not yet addressed the clear connection between international trade and healthcare. The best solution for providing universal healthcare is expanding Medicare to cover all American citizens. Medicare is a proven program. It is popular and cost-effective. Our current private system has much higher levels of overhead costs than does Medicare. The only inefficient aspects of Medicare are the “privatized” programs added by the Bush White House and their Republican allies in the Senate. Medicare has been hugely successful despite ongoing Republican and corporate attempts to undermine it. We can count on Republican politicians to label any move toward universal healthcare as “socialized medicine.” They attempted mightily to destroy Medicare in the past using such tactics and failed completely. Politically, providing universal healthcare by expanding Medicare will be much easier than any other approach. The private, profit-drive healthcare system is terribly unfair and inefficient. We spend 17 percent of our total economy on healthcare while our international competitors spend only 8 percent. They cover everyone and we do not. The numbers speak for themselves! Expanding Medicare to cover everyone will not prevent citizens from buying supplemental healthcare if they can afford it. It will greatly help doctors who are General Practitioners by making medical need become effective demand. It will help hospitals by removing the burden of providing healthcare to those who cannot pay for it. It will make our workers healthier and more productive. There must be a grassroots movement built behind “Medicare For All.” Local activists, union leaders, businesses and politicians must all exert their efforts in a common movement. Most national union organizations and state AFL-CIO organizations are supporting H.R. 676. They are joined by many members of Congress. The legislation has 89 co-sponsors with more being added frequently. Many candidates are backing it! Local leaders are already getting organized all over the nation. People like Amos B. McCluney, Jr. in Delaware and Alena Bandy in Maryland are actively organizing Medicare For All state chapters. Both leaders are grassroots Democratic activists with roots in the United Auto Workers. Both are reaching out into the community recruiting civil rights leaders, churches, community organizations and local politicians behind H.R. 676. They are not alone. I personally have talked with local activists from Tennessee, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and several other states who are working on building support for this legislation. Pressure must be placed on all opinion leaders to support Medicare For All. Presidential, Senatorial and Congressional candidates should be pressured to support H.R. 676. All candidates should be placed on record that they would not veto Medicare For All nor place legislative obstacles in the way of passing H.R. 676, even if they do not actively support passage. Candidates failing to make such public pledges should not be supported by any American citizen. Average Americans must reframe the debate over healthcare. Instead of calling for universal healthcare or single-payer healthcare, we should simplify the debate. We should be calling for “Medicare For All” and supporting H.R. 676. Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
It will not work You seem to have the same mistaken belief that many have that universal healthcare equals free healthcare. It is not free. In countries that have it, a tax is levied against your pay each week exactly like a health insurance premium. You are also mistaken in thinking that universal healthcare equals better quality care. The only difference there is that instead of an insurance provider determining what care you receive, the government decides. I know that in the UK there are many treatments and prescription drugs that are not paid for by the NHS because they are deemed too expensive. You have to settle for treatments and drugs that are less effective and may have more side effects than ones that cost more. You also think that eliminating health insurance coverage will be a boon to employers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The minimum wage in the UK right now is around $11/hr. The reason is that the amount that is required to pay for the NHS is so great that they can't afford to have millions of workers making only $6-$7 an hour there as they would be getting more back in healthcare benefits than they are paying in taxes and the healtcare system would collapse. The raising of the minimum wage is a means of passing off the cost of the NHS to employers by forcing them to pay workers more so the government can collect more in taxes. This additional cost of doing business is also reflected in the prices of everything you buy. When the supermarket clerk, the kid flipping burgers at McDonalds, the gas station attendant and other typically low wage workers are being paid so much money then we have to pay more to shop in those places. OK, so the low wage workers benefit from a higher paycheck you say, not so fast. The worker does not get to keep that money as it is deducted from their pay before they ever receive it. The worker making $6-$7 an hour today will still be making the same $6-$7 an hour after the cost of healthcare is deducted from their pay. Universal healthcare will also create a shortage of qualified medical professionals working in the public hospitals. Why is a doctor or nurse going to pay huge sums on their medical training and then settle for the minimal amount the government bean counters will be willing to pay them to work in a hospital when they can work in private practice or a private hospital where the patient pays and make a lot more money? Aggravating this is the fact that people who would normally live with a sniffle or minor aches and pains will be running down to the doctor for every little thing. I know I would be if I was being taxed for it anyway. That means you will have to wait longer to see a doctor. Just getting an appointment to see a publicly funded GP will be a problem, forget trying to get a hospital bed for a surgical procedure. There will also be a ripple effect in the economy. The additional cost to employers of having to pay their employees more money to cover the healthcare tax means they will have less money for creating new jobs which will increase unemployment. The increase in prices on goods and services that will result will put a damper on sales and slow the economy even further. The cost to government will also be high. If you think Medicare/Medicaid abuse and fraud is bad, there will be much greater abuse and fraud under a universal healthcare system. We all remember the jokes. Pentagon pays $200 for toilet seat, Army pays $400 for a hammer, do you really want to see this happen in our hospitals when the government, funded by our taxes, is paying? We are seeing it now in Iraq. Soldiers being ordered to destroy perfectly serviceable trucks when they break down or get a flat tire so the military can order another one. Do we want to see this in our hospitals where things like dialysis machines, heart monitors, and other equipment that people depend on to stay alive breaks down and has to be discarded on a weekly basis? Universal healthcare has ramifications that you are not seeing. It is steadily running the countries that have it into ruin. by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 314 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 7:29:23 AM
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
Arguments against Medicare For All are bad Funding Medicare For All can be done many different ways. I think taxing imports could be a significant element along with higher taxes on incomes over $500,000 annually, higher corporate taxes, elimination of tax loopholes, elimination on the income ceiling for Medicare payroll taxes and ending no-bid government contracts. As the article clearly states, we spend 17% of GNP on healthcare while our industrialized competitors spend only 8%. Eliminating profit-taking middlemen will go a long way to making universal healthcare affordable. Our nation certainly will profit hugely with a more efficient government-run system. The critic above is merely repeating Republican and corporate talking points against the proposal like the article predicted. This are false flag arguments and nothing more. by
Stephen Crockett (127 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:02:13 AM
Bob Kincaid is a founder and host on the Head-On Radio Network ("The H.O.R.N.), America's Liberal Voice. "Head-On With Bob Kincaid" can be heard every weeknight from 6 to 9 p.m., Eastern at www.headonradionetwork.com Archives are available at www.whiteroseociety.org
Wow! Sweden's ruined? I had no idea. Please don't tell the Swedes, either. They're rather happy with their system, have great education, good housing, low crime and a meaninful sense of community. P.S.: Medicare is and has been and will remain the single most economically efficient healthcare delivery system in the U.S. Statements to the contrary remain the stock-in-trade of the Profiteer Healthcare Denial Industry (i.e. insurance companies), who can't for an instant deliver the services Medicare does for even 10 times the price. I say "will be" advisedly, however, noting that destroying Medicare is the wet dream of Repiglickins, Libertarians and other right-wing corporatists everywhere. by
Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 43 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:31:44 AM
My name it means nothing, my age it means less. My deeds of activism are mine to enjoy and share as I feel necesary, not as some clown in a small forum's administration thinks I must..This place gets worse each and every visit.
Thank you Mr. Crockett This article will not be well received among the infestation of libertarians currently scurrying about here, nevertheless it is both accurate and literate. Medicare, for those who actually think things through, operates with a three percent overhead, making it the single most efficient form of health care in this nation. Regardless of the distortions of the care provided by other nations or the obvious lies as to the negative impact of providing care to all Americans from agendised and extremely selfish and selcf centered folsk sans a clue as to the obligations one incurs to one nation and fellow citizens the facts are very plain. We are 37th in providing health care to our citizens, despite all the prattle ,despite all the dire warnings , every western nation ranks above us such matters......every western nation has lower infant mortality rates than do we, every western nation is more inclusive in providing health care than are we. Intolerable to anyone who loves his country, period. by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:09:26 AM
My name it means nothing, my age it means less. My deeds of activism are mine to enjoy and share as I feel necesary, not as some clown in a small forum's administration thinks I must..This place gets worse each and every visit.
Thank you Mr. Crockett This article will not be well received among the infestation of libertarians currently scurrying about here, nevertheless it is both accurate and literate. Medicare, for those who actually think things through, operates with a three percent overhead, making it the single most efficient form of health care in this nation. Regardless of the distortions of the care provided by other nations or the obvious lies as to the negative impact of providing care to all Americans from agendised and extremely selfish and self centered folks sans a clue as to the obligations one incurs to one nation and fellow citizens the facts are very plain. We are 37th in providing health care to our citizens, despite all the prattle ,despite all the dire warnings , every western nation ranks above us such matters......every western nation has lower infant mortality rates than do we, every western nation is more inclusive in providing health care than are we. Intolerable to anyone who loves his country, period. by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:10:20 AM
Watching I am going to respectfully disagree with the WATCHING'S comments and agree with the columnist. I SAY: the latest proposals demand that the government pay for doctors training. if we can blow $2-trillion on a war to kill we can afford at least that much to save lives. I say: we are already on Medicare and most people don't do that, and those few who do, did it anyway before they were on medicare because they are hypochondriacs. that only helps doctors make more money anyway and some doctors encourage that and so do drug companies. since drug companies began making commercials, they have created a world of hypochondriacs. I say: it is no different than Medicare now. Besides other nations with national health care have greater life expectancies than Americans do. by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1313 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:24:08 AM
Bob Kincaid is a founder and host on the Head-On Radio Network ("The H.O.R.N.), America's Liberal Voice. "Head-On With Bob Kincaid" can be heard every weeknight from 6 to 9 p.m., Eastern at www.headonradionetwork.com Archives are available at www.whiteroseociety.org
Nicely put, Stephen I would only add that the current healthcare "model," in which human illness, misery and grief is a commodity for the profiteers even fails to provide adequate coverage for the people who HAVE it. Witness the case of Nataline Sarkysian. She HAD for-profit healthcare, and her for-profit healthcare provider (Cigna) killed her outright by simply denying her the treatment that would have had a 65% chance of saving her life. Nataline's story is repeated day-after-day, time-after-time in thousands of families across the United States. Why? Because denying coverage maximizes profit. Profit is the operative word and the Holy Bug-a-Boo in this debate. Heaven knows it's a third rail among right-wingers, Repiglickins and Paulistas. The vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the last several years have been caused by healthcare debt that people had as CO-PAYS from a profiteer healthcare company. Clearly, the system is broken not just for the uninsured, but for the for-profit "insured," as well. H.R. 676 is really the only viable option out there. As long as the profiteer motive remains a variable in our healthcare system, feeding and being fueled by the agony of suffering Americans, we will continue to live in crisis. by
Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 43 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:07:36 AM
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
Great information source on the issue ILLINOIS TEACHERS UNIONS ENDORSE HR 676 by
Stephen Crockett (127 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:48:54 AM
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
I have great respect for DK but I can read polls He is unlikely to go up in the polls significantly under our current condensed primary calendar. I honor his support of H.R. 676. It helps the cause of Medicare For All. However, I see no way he can become President in 2008. The race really looks to be a three person contest between Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Biden and Richardson have better chances than DK at this point. by
Stephen Crockett (127 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 4:03:31 PM
corruption??? Under your proposal, if I am GE Medical and I am developing some breakthrough technology that can save lives, how do I get it into the marketplace so it actually does save lives? I have to convince a Federal bureaucrat that my new technology is worth adding to the Medicare portfolio of services. Do you think this will improve or degrade the level of technological improvements in medicine? Do you think this will increase or decrease the level of corruption in the system? Now, if you are astute you are already saying "But that happens today with the FDA". Correct. So we already have a corrupt Federal bureaucracy stifling innovation in healthcare, and your solution is to add another. Innovation (in any industry) is the only way to continually improve results and decrease costs. Innovation is best fostered by a decentralized organization, and is likewise stifled by a central authority. And, regardless of your opinion on the morality of this statement, innovation is best motivated by personal profit, even in the industry of helping other people. Fact. by
Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 3:42:18 PM
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
BS False Flag argument full of disinformation and ideology First of all, the current system kills people in large numbers. I doubt if innovations that are hypothetical are enough to justify killing people for profit. Profit motives are dampening innovations currently. If inventions are not profitable financially they do not make it to market currently even if they would save lives. Your focus on profit is at the core of your failed logic. Innovations that save lives are more likely to be financed and adopted in practice under government control than corporate control. Government will fund them and buy the product solely on the life-saving aspect. Corporations will not. All that matters in the corporate mindset is profit and loss. by
Stephen Crockett (127 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 4:11:37 PM
okay understood, thanks for setting me straight. corporations want money, the government wants to help people. got it. so in their efforts to help people, the government of course won't at all be concerned about money, because they are simply trying to help people. they will spend whatever it takes to cure every disease and heal all injuries. for everybody. got it. thanks for the help. by
Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 6:54:47 PM
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
Another Right Wing silly post! Government will not be driven by profit. Of course, a concern for cost is not lost when profit is taken out of the economic equation. You have made a false comparison intentally. The Spin job is obvious to all readers. It makes you look silly and maybe a little deceitful. Do all Right Wingers address issues with the intent to trick with false flag arguments instead of relying on sound logic and fact? In this single thread I have seen repeated use of false flag arguments. Why? Is you position really that difficult to honestly defend? by
Stephen Crockett (127 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:58:11 PM
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
Perhaps "Straw Man arguments" are a more accurate term Knocking down ideas falsely being associated with H.R. 676 is certainly dishonest but I am unsure of the most accurate label for each particular example of intentional intellectual distortion by the opponents of universal healthcare. Can anyone provide some guidance in any of these cases? by
Stephen Crockett (127 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:03:49 PM
done with you Look, you are not even trying to make a point. You are making assumptions about me, putting me in some box, and then attacking me. You are not using logic or debating anything. The whole point of your article was "We need Medicare for everyone". Why? How? Who cares, its good and we need it. All other solutions are just Band-Aids. I'll simplify my point too, so you can understand it. You wouldn't have Band-Aids without greedy, profit-driven Capitalists like Robert, James and Edward Johnson. by
Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 46 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 11:45:38 PM
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
Another set of false statements "Why?" we need Medicare For All is clearly stated in the article along with the answer to "how" is H.R. 676. Did you even read it? by
Stephen Crockett (127 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 7:30:11 AM
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
The Corruption Argument is pure nonsense This is a strange line of argument. Are you really trying to state that corporations are less corrupt than government employees? If so, you are blinded by ideology. Corporations are by nature only profit driven. Government is not. Governments provide services primarily based on public good and the needs of citizens. Corporations only care about money. Sometimes corporations do corrupt government (a fact which is evident under the Bush White House) but it does not really work the other way. This criticism is pure corporate disinformation and nonsense Right Wing ideology combined. It is illogical. by
Stephen Crockett (127 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 4:19:24 PM
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.
Medicare For All.net Here is an important resource site on the subject http://www.medicareforall.net . by
Stephen Crockett (127 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 5:07:11 PM
Insurance Tease is a small business concern, that is to say, concerned with the debacle called the American Health Care System.
Won't Work That's right all you single payer ney-sayers, it won't work. Just like it doesn't work in other countries with better health care rankings than the U.S. You know, the World Health Organization has ranked our American health care system 37nth. You know that the system of the U.K. is ranked 18nth, and the Canada's is ranked 30th. Now neither one of those systems is great, BUT THEY ARE BETTER THAN OURS! But, really now, why not look to France for an example, (#1), or Italy, (#2), or even Japan, (#10),? Any health care system that keeps the for-profit health insurance companies in place is doomed to raise your premiums, raise your deductibles, raise your co-pays and provide less service. You can download the .PDF on HR 676 at our website at www.InsuranceTease.com by
InsuranceTeaseDOTcom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 32 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 5:42:55 PM
|
|
