But, he added, many in this country, no matter they might say something else publicly, their actions and votes say, "If you're poor and get sick, tough, you're on your own."-
His second question, on the assumption that all could agree on the moral propriety affirming some fundamental right to basic healthcare, was, "How to provide comprehensive healthcare to everyone in a cost effective way, a way that doesn't break the country's bank? For effect, he repeated the qualifying phrase, "cost effective way."-
The Independent senator from Vermont then quoted from numerous respectable sources, including health insurance corporation statements. On a per capita basis, we spend twice as much as any other nation, but according to World Health Organization statistics, for overall health, we are 37th . . . among every other nation on earth. We are worse for birth weight, for life expectancy, for maternal death rates, for obesity, for diabetes, for virtually every measure that should embarrass us.
He suggested we might take a serious look at what other countries are doing, to get better results for the money we're spending. On average, per adult, we're spending $7,900 on healthcare. Yet we have at least 46 million Americans with no access to healthcare, the uninsured. Another 46 million are under-insured. Twenty thousand Americans die every year--nearly seven times as many as were lost on 9-11--because they lack access. Sanders then opined rhetorically, "But at least we're not spending a lot of money!"-
The total sum spent by the US last year on healthcare was $2.7 TRILLION! That was 18% of our GDP; 18% of every penny, nickel, dime, quarter and dollar our labors produced. And the trajectory is pointing to an accelerated rate of climb. Businesses, large and small, are making staffing and benefit decisions that bode ill for this country.
And with all that, Senator Sanders put another demographic on the table: In 2007, 1,000,000 Americans filed for bankruptcy, and of that one million, more than 62% was prompted by a medical calamity.
He noted that the per capita expenditure in Canada was $3,700; in France it was $3,400; in Italy, the per capita expenditure for healthcare was $2,600. All of them had not merely better results overall, but significantly superior results!
I'm going to insert reference again to Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown's opening remarks for a reason. (The entirety of his remarks can be found at 01·00·25.03·33·36) Senator Brown cited one salient piece of information from the US Abstract (See citation link in the third paragraph, above.) Despite every other gloomy statistic, once an American reaches 65, he or she then has the best chance of every 65-year-old on earth to attain longevity!I will not provide the answer here, the one noted by Brown. But you need to ask, what happens for all Americans, once they reach age 65? The answer is illuminating to the point of near epiphany, and should serve as a dagger to the heart of all arguments that are in opposition to the solution proffered by Sanders, cited below, or introduction of a "government option,"- favored by all except the Republican Party and the American Medical Association.
Now, back to Senator Sanders. He asked the committee, rhetorically, "What makes the US different from every other country? We spend more, but get less than any other nation on earth. What's different in our system?"-
We are the only nation that uses private insurance. He then observed what every senator, regardless which side of the isle he or she sits on, already knew: "The job of private insurance is not healthcare. The job of private insurance is to make as much money as it can. And one of the ways they make as much money as possible is to DENY [emphasis mine] healthcare to as many Americans as they can."- Every insurance company has an army of investigators whose sole function is to look for a way to deny coverage to as many people who are really sick as possible, and to rescind their policies whenever that is possible. A dollar in healthcare that is denied increases the company's profit by the exact same amount!
From public federal and corporate records, he introduced some highly provocative facts. Over the past 30 years, the number of the insurance industry's administrative staff that are dedicated to denial of coverage and rescission of same was 25 times greater than the number of physicians in the US! The growth of the private health insurance company profits, from 2003 to 2007 was 170%! The average annual income for the Top-Seven health insurance CEOs was $14.2 MILLION! And, last but not least, the total compensation package for United Health's William McGuire was$1.6 BILLION!!!!!
With these facts on the table, Sanders asked his rhetorical Question 3: "What kind of a system is most likely to provide comprehensive, universal healthcare for all Americans at the lowest possible cost?"-
Sanders answered the question he'd posted with, "a single-payer, universal healthcare system."- However every committee member suspected it was coming, the shock was palpable on the Republican side, just as much as if a rowdy renegade had stood in the middle of solemn funeral service and let loose with a torrent of the most gross obscenities.
No one on either side of the issue suffers under the delusion that a "single-payer"- system affording universal comprehensive healthcare to all Americans stands any chance of passage. The armies of money and might are just too formidable. But what we can achieve, what we must include in any reform, at the very least, is the "government option"- all Republicans stridently oppose. We must for all the truths laid on the table by Senator Sanders.
US Representative John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan's 15th District, is the only surviving, attending witness to the ceremony. Around 3:30 in the afternoon of August 14, 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the "Social Security Act of 1935."- There had not been a single Republican vote in favor. The president initially wanted the program to include universal healthcare for all Americans, but that would have been one bridge too far.
In the current committee mark-up, Alaska's Republican US senator, Lisa Murkowski, suggested that an overhaul of the current system was too complicated and too expensive, and that what should proceed to the floor from the committee was a simpler bill, one that would entitle Americans to access health insurance coverage through the present for-profit private insurers. And if changes were needed, "We can come back later . . .."-
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
