hearts and minds

June 17, 2009

Defend Your Health Care Rights – 5 Myths and 3 Principles

Filed under: Ethics & lobbyists,Health care crisis,legalized bribery — Hearts & Minds @ 6:00 pm

There are 5 prevalent myths we need to overcome, and 3 basic principles on which we can agree, in order to stand solidly on the high ground while defending our health care rights. It’s now up to you and me. No one else will do it for us. We owe it to our family, our country, and ourselves. (My other articles present more information concerning myths, the principles, and the prescription for health care. The devastating effect that the legalized bribery known as campaign “contributions” is having right now on the discovery and adoption of an effective solution to the health care crisis by “our” elected legislators is examined in this series of articles, and especially in this entertaining and easily read one.)

_______________________________________________

THREE PRINCIPLES to uphold in protecting and strengthening your health care:

(1) The quality and security of your family’s health care is threatened and compromised because health insurance corporations administer the U.S.A. health care system. The people and technology providing America’s health care are among the very best in the world. Your family may need that quality and proficiency at any time. In order for you to have the health care you need, when you need it, the health care system needs to be efficiently and properly managed and administered. But the health insurance industry has had that responsibility for generations, and has been badly and increasingly failing in their responsibility. That’s because they have no responsibility or accountability to the people or to the health and well-being of the nation. They only have a responsibility to generate profits for themselves.

As far as running a good health care system, the insurance corporations have failed by driving total health care costs through the roof, while falling far behind other modern nations in terms of health care outcomes. Our per-capita health care costs are double what three-dozen countries are paying which have health care outcomes that are now better than in the United States. The insurance corporations have failed by arbitrarily denying patient choice and critically needed health care, causing needless suffering, personal bankruptcy, and death. They have failed while reaping exorbitant profits. We cannot allow health insurance corporations to continue to administer health care to the increasing detriment of families and our country.

We must have a rational health care administration that is answerable only to the people and to the doctors and nurses. We must have an administration which will allow every family to choose and retain their own health care provider, and will allow the provider to freely recommend and provide the health care that is medically indicated and appropriate for you and your family. That is not what we have today.

Currently, employers get to select what policy (if any) they will make available, and to provide information about you and your family to the insurance corporation and their “affiliates”. The insurance company gets to impose loopholes and conditions on your policy, with profit-taking fine-print restrictions like “preferred or in-plan provider” and “excluded treatment options” and “pre-existing condition” and “annual, lifetime, or incident limits” and “pre-approval required” and “co-pays and deductibles”. And, of course, your employer or the insurance company can change their relationship with you or each other pretty much at will. These conditions limit and block what should be your family’s health care choice and security. These employer and insurance industry prerogatives must be eliminated for your family to be assured of getting the health care it needs, and of not being driven to the poorhouse by them. Responsible, ethical health care providers must no longer be forced to consult the fine print of a particular insurance policy, or a corporate gatekeeper without medical training, responsibility, or accountability, before deciding what health care to provide your family.

(2) You (and all families) need comprehensive health care throughout life, but you don’t need health insurance to provide it. We shouldn’t have to (and frankly, we can’t) choose one of some 1500 different insurance policies offered now, with all the fine print and complicated clauses. We just need to be able to choose our professional health care providers, and (with the help of these providers) our treatment plan, (without interference from health care system administrators). We need “comprehensive health care guaranteed for all”, administered for the people, and for the doctors and other professionals who provide it with integrity.

(3) Your family has a basic right to comprehensive quality health care. That right can no longer be subject to the business decisions of your employer, the fine print in a complicated insurance contract, or the efforts of corporations to improve their bottom line that jeopardizes your family’s health. Recognizing your basic right “promotes the general welfare”, as our nation’s founding fathers defined the sacred responsibility of the government they fashioned.

Not only is it morally and ethically “the right thing to do”, it is the practical and wise “right thing to do”. One of every three health care dollars is now wasted in the United States because of the unnecessary cost of running a multitude of bureaucracies administering a health care system that is empowered to decide what health care you and your family “deserves”, as determined by your employer, the insurance policy fine print, what assets you have left, and the fickle finger of fate. It is much less costly, and far more effective, to have a health care system that simply provides the comprehensive health care you and your family actually needs.

______________________________________________________

The FIVE HEALTH CARE MYTHS blocking your families right to comprehensive health care security:

Myth 1: “The United States has the best health care system in the world.”
Truth: We could have the best health care system in the world … if only it weren’t for the way it is administered. If you have unlimited wealth, or are among the very small percentage who have an ironclad lifetime guarantee of no-strings-attached top-drawer insurance, as many politicians have, you can get the finest health care here in the U.S. But for the rest of us, the United States has steadily fallen from the best in the world to the back of the pack of industrialized nations. The World Health Organization once ranked the USA at the top. But we are now ranked behind more than three dozen other countries around the world in objectively measured health care outcomes. That means that your family, any American family, is more likely to experience unfortunate outcomes.

Myth 2: “Guaranteed comprehensive health care for all sounds like a nice idea, but where are we going to get the money to pay for it?”
Truth: We are already spending more money on health care in America than comprehensive health care for all would cost. The truth is that the United States now spends twice as much per capita on health care related costs as all other modern nations in the world spend – countries that all provide guaranteed comprehensive health care for all, with better health care outcomes. We don’t have to spend more, we have to waste less.

Myth 3: “Universal health care is socialized medicine, which eliminates patient choice of physician and care options, and would prevent us from getting health care when we need it. We don’t have to scrap the whole health care system to fix a few problems.”
Truth: First, not a single bill in the House or the Senate proposes socialized medicine. HR 676 and S 703 propose socialized insurance with medical care provided by the current national network of privately employed doctors, clinics, and hospitals. It’s like the insurance provided by Medicare and by the Social Security system.

Item, the United States does already provide some actual socialized medicine. Military hospitals and clinics, and the V.A. Medical Centers are owned and operated by the government, supported by taxes, and staffed by government employees. Bethesda Medical Center is an example of long existing “socialized medicine” in the United States. Bethesda provides perhaps the best, most cost effective health care and medical research available anywhere in the world. Our Presidents and Senators and their families enjoy the “socialized medicine” provided by Bethesda Medical Center. Tell me, why is that not good enough for us?

Item, HR 676 and S 703 do not propose socialized medicine. But even existing socialized medicine systems, and comprehensive national health programs around the world, as well as HR 676 and S 703, provide full patient choice of physician and care options. By contrast, in the current U.S. employer-based system, supervised by private insurance corporations, it’s not the patient and her doctor; it’s the employer and the insurance company who have the real choices. The arbitrary rationing that is imposed by insurance corporations, and which is based on increasing profits, harms way more patients than are harmed by necessary triage that is based on purely medical assessment of treatment urgency by doctors.

Item, HR 676 and S 703 would change only the administration of the system, while leaving the health care itself, including the doctors and nurses, the clinics, the hospitals, the medical schools, the labs, all unchanged. Nobody is proposing scrapping the whole health care system and starting over. HR 676 and S 703 both propose to keep your health care system intact, while replacing the administration by insurance corporations, which has utterly failed in its responsibility to the people, with an expanded Medicare administration that is responsible and accountable to the people.

Myth 4: “Everyone needs to have access to affordable health insurance.”
Truth: The truth is that “everyone needs health care”. But health insurance is not health care.
Only private insurance corporations, their top executives, major stockholders, and the government officials and major party strategists they have in their pocket, need health insurance.

Myth 5: “Government isn’t the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem.”
Truth: This is more than just a myth that should have died when it was born. This is a despicable and discouraging lie that slanders the principles that justified our American Revolution and form the bedrock of our democratic republic and our carefully fashioned and honed constitutional government, which is still a work in progress. This infamous cynical philosophy disparages the sacrifices and lives lost by every generation of Americans who worked and fought, were wounded and died in combat, to establish, defend, and strengthen the United States of America.

For what do soldiers, sailors, marines, and men and women of the air force and coast guard fight and die, if not for their government? What is the United States of America if not the government, and what is the government if not the people? Government is not “the problem” because government in America is the people. Or it damn well should be. When government is not working right and not serving the people, then we need to work together to fix it (like we need to fix ourselves, at times).

Fixing government does not mean “shrinking it down to a size where we can drown it in the bathtub”, as a nutcase political consultant once proclaimed more than a generation ago. When you or your family makes a mistake or needs fixing, do you fix it by forever berating the family that made it, and weakening your family as much as possible? Or do you try to heal and strengthen it? Government in America is designed to fairly represent the people, and to protect all our rights. But it should only represent living, breathing people – and corporations are not people. Each person possesses one vote, and each person has the Constitution, as well. That means we can fix our government. Government will never be perfect, but what else comes close? Corporations? Not hardly.

Corporations are mandated to serve their shareholder interests only, and those interests are determined not on the basis of “one person – one vote”, but on the basis of so many dollars per vote. Corporations didn’t give the people our “bill of rights”. Corporations don’t die in wars – they thrive in wars. Corporations cannot and never will represent the people, nor concern themselves with the health and well-being of our families. Fixing government means continuing struggle to ensure that we have a government that is of, by, and for the people, all the people, and nothing but the people.

A U.S. government like that would be, by far, the best, most accountable, most responsible and responsive administrator of America’s health care system. That doesn’t mean it would interfere with your doctor or your health care. The administrator has no business interfering at all with the relationship between the provider and the receiver of comprehensive health care services. Even with the current state of corruption, our government would be far superior to the myriad insurance corporations which are merely targeting ever higher profits, without a care for the health of American families, without a care about the overall cost of the system, the impact of their failed management on the rest of the economy, or the personal tragedies left in their wake. Our government already does a far better and more efficient job administering the U.S. military medical service and what’s left of Medicare and the Veteran’s Administration medical service, than the insurance corporations do administering the part of the health care system that they currently control, and which has almost all of us playing lifelong health care Russian roulette with them.

______________________________________

We can and should gladly and gratefully stick with the fine doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals that currently provide health care in America. We can easily continue with the current hospitals and clinics and other private providers of health care. But if we honestly and clearly discuss the intractable problems causing our growing health care crisis, we cannot possibly endorse a reform that retains insurance industry corporations as administrators and managers of our health care. It is irrational, costly, and tragic to have private, for-profit insurance corporations, and private employers, administering our health care. It is as simple as that. No other modern country in the world today does it that way, and they all have much lower costs and better health care outcomes, with guaranteed comprehensive health care for all. Besides that, businesses employing their citizens are more competitive in the international market. And families in those countries do not suffer bankruptcies as a consequence of medical expenses.

We need HR 676 or S 703 – the single-payer solution to the health care crisis. We need to end the cruel game of Russian roulette, with worsening and tragic outcomes, that has emerged with the mismanagement and consistently poor administration of the health care our families need by health insurance corporations. And to do that, we need to also end the stranglehold that corporations and the lobbyists have right now on our elected government officials and on our families health care. Where, when, and how do we start? We start by talking about health care security with our friends, extended family, neighbors, co-workers, and about how to get our families health care security and our government in our own hands, for a change.

Here are ten solid sources of useful, accurate information. Please contact them.
Learn and see how you can help. Do what you can – now – for your family and for your country.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/Health Care – Now!
http://www.pnhp.org/Physicians for a National Health Program
http://guaranteedhealthcare4all.org/Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care
http://www.freshaircleanpolitics.netCampaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics
http://www.singlepayeraction.org/Single Payer Action
http://pdamerica.org/policy/priorities.phpHealth Care not Warfare
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/april/america-s-rn-union-targets-congressional-healthcare-leaders-in-new-ad-drive.htmlNational Nurses Organizing Committee
http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/Unions for Single-Payer Healthcare
http://www.businesscoalition.net/Business Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare
http://www.wisdc.org/blog/2009/06/113-million-reasons-why-not.html Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
http://moneyedpoliticians.net/ Ending legalized bribery

Advertisements

18 Comments »

  1. Exactly….

    Thank you!

    Comment by Bob — June 17, 2009 @ 5:24 pm | Reply

  2. Excellent piece, Clyde. Of course getting a meaningful health care system is dependent on the politicians who have shared in the $46 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry. Good guys these, and we keep re-electing these jokers. We want health care reform and the industry wants just the opposite. Who do you think is going to win?

    It’s unfortunate that government has some inefficient departments and personnel, but as it relates to Medicare they are costly but not generally harmful. And given the choice between having health care controlled by government versus CEOs whose salaries and bonuses are determined by the amount of profits they return to the shareholders, I’ll take government over the CEO any day. Politicians can be unelected and CEOs can’t be.

    Health care should become a part of our infrastructure because it is what economist call “inelastic.” It does not lend itself to the competitive marketplace.

    Jack Lohman
    http://SinglePayer.info

    Comment by MoneyedPoliticians — June 22, 2009 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  3. Well done

    Comment by fred — June 22, 2009 @ 9:40 pm | Reply

  4. Good analysis and I agree with almost all of it. I would add a caution. The one government program I am familiar with that deals with health care and disability is the Social Security Administration. It is standard practice for SSA to initially deny every disability claim regardless of merit. Applicants then have to go through a long process typically ending up in court. They typically win but not until they expend significant funds for legal representation. Of course many many people never get approved because they do not know how to appeal the decision and have no funds for doing so. This is a scandal. My source for this is my daughter’s experience after she was diagnosed with a serious auto-immune disease and the comments of her lawyer who does nothing but represent clients who are turned down by SSA. He is a busy man.

    One of the reasons for this policy is pressure from Congress and the executive branch to hold costs down. SSA then acts just like the private insurance companies. They hold down costs by denying claims and setting up red tape road blocks. I worry that the same thing will happen to a public option health insurance program.

    Comment by Tom C — June 23, 2009 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

    • No system is perfect. No solution to a complex of problems will solve all the problems forever. Government (even a truly representative constitutional democracy of one person-one vote where there is little or no corruption) will be far from perfect. But a health care system has to be administered, and it is better, by far, for a health care system to be administered by a democratic government (where comprehensive health car for all is a right) than for it to be administered by a cabal of powerful corporations (who have the role of determining who deserves what health care, if any, when). And the keystone problem afflicting our health care system, and jeopardizing the quality and security of the health care our families will get is the administration of our health care by the insurance corporations. It’s impossible to make any significant tune-ups, reforms, or improvements while those corporations are in the drivers seat.

      It’s one thing to take constructive action to head off what may go wrong, or be imperfect, if any significant health care reform is undertaken. It’s another to allow or employ that worry to discourage and derail the basic, fundamental reform we need in how health care should be administered. See also the next comment, and my reply to it.

      The most important way we can ensure a government that is responsive to the people is prevent the government officials from becoming dependent on corporate dollar distributions, and lobbyists.

      Comment by clydewinter — June 23, 2009 @ 2:57 pm | Reply

  5. Another very well done article, Clyde. I truly appreciate all of your hard work and research. I also agree with Tom C’s comment about the Social Security Administration. I personally know of several people who have legitimately applied for Disability and both of them received the inevitable denial. Unfortunately, both gave up the fight. I understand the need to prove disability; both of them had the proof. Ultimately, they gave up because they did not have the resources to fight the battle in court. The majority of people in these cases routinely don’t have the resources to pay a lawyer whether it’s an upfront payment or not. I’m on the fence as to a totally government run healthcare system but I know that they way things are going, job or not, no one will be able to afford any type of healthcare if things continue as they are. Thanks again.

    Comment by Christina S — July 1, 2009 @ 8:47 pm | Reply

    • It’s terrible when arbitrary unfair actions by those who hold power are allowed to continue unabated.

      Proof of eligibility is necessary in the case of Social Security programs. If one applies for Social Security benefits on account of age, proof of age is required, among other qualifying factors. If survivor benefits are applied for, proof of age and proof that one’s parent or parents are deceased is required. If one applies for disability benefits, proof of disability is required. It is necessary that ineligible or fraudulent claims be detected. If, however, there is a systematic pattern of administrative tricks being used for the purpose of delaying, discouraging, denying legitimate claims, that must be stopped, and those responsible should be removed from a position of public trust.

      However, incentives for such tricks (and other outrages) would not be present in a health car system, if comprehensive health care were considered a basic right. Eligibility determination could not then be a delaying or blocking mechanism employed to discourage, delay, and deny the provision of medically indicated health care to people who need it. And since the administration of health care is substantially more direct and less costly when health care is considered a basic right, the total per capita cost of health care is less expensive (and the health care outcomes are superior) in a system that provides comprehensive health care to all on the basis of medical need rather than on the basis of what the health care administrators determine that you, and everyone else, individually deserves, depending on a variety of individual legal, contractral, and economic factors, and business considerations. If you doubt this, the evidence has been cited elsewhere in the series of articles I have written on the health care crisis.

      There is only one drawback to a health care system that does not allow administrators (currently health insurance corporations, in the U.S.) to refuse or delay the provision of needed health care in a timely fashion to anyone. That one drawback is that such a system does not allow those administrators to have the extremely powerful position and the highly lucrative role of being the gatekeepers to the provision of health care. In other words, such a system would not allow either for-profit corporations or the government, to decide who deserves what health care, when. Bottom line? The only drawback to eliminating the unnecessary, complicating, extremely costly administration of our health care system by insurance corporations is that the huge profits of the health insurance corporations and the obscene “compensation” received by top executives in those corporations, and the many billions of dollars spent by those benefiting from this corporate control of health care on lobbying and campaign “contributions” to Congress and the two major political parties, would end.

      That’s the only drawback, and that’s why some very rich and powerful people in media corporations and even in “our” government say over and over that we can’t have such a health care system administration.

      Comment by clydewinter — July 2, 2009 @ 2:15 am | Reply

  6. The challenge is great, when there are (so called) advocates of change that still adhere to the status quo. You are reaching out Clyde. One of the few that makes change a feasible goal. Your milestones are recognized and appreciated. Never give up. Are you going to start up the Bull Moose Party?
    What is the platform and where do I sign up. Greg

    Comment by greg d — July 12, 2009 @ 12:43 pm | Reply

    • The Bull Moose Party actually stood for two extremely significant reforms almost a hundred years ago. Those two reforms continue to be desperately needed today. I need to do research on this to verify the following. But for now, my understanding is that the Bull Moose Party and Teddy Roosevelt adopted two primary planks in their party platform:

      1. A national health care system for all citizens.
      2. Public financing of elections in order to end the obscene bribery of government officials known as large campaign “contributions”.

      Any political party, and candidate for public office, that intends to make a reality of the promise that government should be of, by and for the people, instead of by and for the corporations and the lobbyists, should strongly endorse these two platform planks.

      “Instant Runoff Voting” is also a very important and reasonable reform that would allow people more choice when voting, without “throwing their vote away” if they wish to vote for candidates of the Bull Moose Party and other political parties, or independent candidates. IRV would also simplify, streamline, and reduce the cost and frequency of elections, making most primary and run-off elections unnecessary, while allowing and even encouraging more choice by voters. Just about any citizen who learns about IRV likes it and wants it. Who doesn’t want IRV? Corporations, special interests, and politicians of the two major parties. The Bull Moose Party should also endorse Instant Runoff Voting.

      Comment by clydewinter — July 12, 2009 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

  7. Six U.S. Senators (3 Democrats and 3 Republicans) have accepted “campaign contributions” totaling over 3 million dollars from health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, and these six, in particular, are working hard right now for those “donors” (instead of for the people) doing all they can as Senators to keep the insurance corporations in charge of our health care.

    They are Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Mike Enzi (R-NV), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Senator Max Baucus, who refused to allow testimony regarding the single-payer solution to be presented to the Senate Finance Committee considering the health care crisis, has been “given” over one million – two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000!!) by health insurance corporations and big pharma corporations.

    The only single-payer bill that has been introduced into the U.S. Senate Country Club has been S 703. S 703 was introduced by the only Independent in the U.S. Senate – Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Sanders is not a member of either the Republican or the Democratic Party. No Senator of either major party has yet introduced a companion bill to Enhanced Medicare for All (HR 676) in the Senate, and no other Senators have co-sponsored Bernie Sanders’ S 703.

    Comment by clyde winter — July 29, 2009 @ 11:36 am | Reply

  8. Clyde
    I agree with alot of what you are saying but have you even read the bill? Over 1400 pages of convoluted jargon. I listened to a woman today on a talk show who has read the whole bill, she talked about all the onerous regulations that are hidden in the bill and the takeover by government officials and limiting access for mainly the elderly and disabled for care. I can’t honestly believe that you think government control is the answer. I know we have problems with our current system but handing control of 1/5 of our economy to the government is not the answer.

    Comment by Kurt D — July 30, 2009 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

    • Kurt, my article – indeed all of my articles regarding the health care crisis, published since early 2003 – have focused on the current administration of our health care system, and how that administration by insurance corporations is and has been the primary and proximate cause of the worsening health care crisis. This article, on which you are commenting, was written and published in late June, 2009, well before “the bill” (to which you apparently refer) was fashioned. It was thus, of course, not possible for me to have read it before publishing this article.

      More importantly, I have consistently made the clear and simple case that an effective correction of the faults in our health care system must do three things. First, it must improve measured health care outcomes for American families. Second, it must provide comprehensive health care for ALL Americans, based on medical assessment ONLY, provided by health care providers chosen by you, alone. Third, it must REDUCE current per capita health care costs, and effectively and responsibly control future costs, while also improving international competitiveness of businesses employing Americans. That sounds like a tall order. But it is definitely and provably doable. However, not just any cobbled together “reform” will do it.

      Finally, it is clear to me and to many other careful observers and analysts that the only way to accomplish these three objectives is by removing entirely insurance corporations from the role of gatekeepers and administrators of our health care. People don’t need health insurance. Only insurance corporations, their major stockholders, and their top executives, need health insurance. People need health care. The case for this is made in this article and in my other articles on the health care crisis, published over the last six-plus years, and by the references I cited in them, including in my latest article, posted here just a few days ago.

      Unfortunately, I don’t expect the corporate lobbyists and their bought-and-paid-for politicians of both major parties (which is the great majority of them) will fashion a bill that will properly address and correct the failed administration of our health care, without a demand from the people that they are unable to ignore or sidetrack. Accordingly, I have not mentioned or discussed the 1400 pages to which you refer. Instead, I have specifically mentioned and endorsed the proposed legislation that the major media, the politicians, and the lobbyists have completely ignored and claim to have taken “off the table” – hoping that the people won’t become aware of it and learn the truth about the health care crisis. That proposed legislation has been published and available for all of us to read for months and longer. It was NOT crafted by corporate lobbyists, as the bill to which you are referring was.

      I earnestly recommend that you read my latest article on the health care crisis, and use the links I provided there to learn more about the proposed bills which have been ignored, thus far, in both the Senate and the House, and by the mass media.

      Kurt, you expressed concern about “handing control of 1/5th of our economy to the government”. First and foremost, health care is about our health care, not about big business or the economy. I suggest you seriously reflect on whether 100 percent of our health care should be controlled by private corporations motivated only by profit, and not able to be controlled or directed by you, me, or the American people in general. Especially when the record of the insurance corporations’ failed administration of health care is compared with the record of the administration of the U.S. military medical system and the U.S. Medicare system (not to mention the health care administration of the 3 dozen other nations of the world with better health care outcomes and lower costs than the United States has slipped to, due to the administration by insurance corporations). Health care is not a commodity. The health care system has to be administered by an entity that is responsible to the people for our welfare. And the administrator should not be a gatekeeper, getting between you, me, and our families, and the competent, professional health care providers we choose. The administrator should not be empowered to decide who deserves what health care, provided by which “preferred providers”. Insurance corporations simply don’t measure up and we can no longer afford to tolerate them in charge of our health care.

      Comment by clydewinter — July 31, 2009 @ 1:58 am | Reply

  9. […] labeling the single-payer solution a “non-starter” before the public discussion even started meant that the concise, uncomplicated analysis available to the people by advocates of the single-payer solution was and is largely out of sight. […]

    Pingback by Public Option, Insurance Co-op, Mandatory Insurance Purchase – Who Cares about the Fine Print in a Health Care Reform Bill? « hearts and minds — August 18, 2009 @ 2:20 am | Reply

  10. Clyde Winter: Thanks for stopping by the house.

    You are right on the money! Health care is a right – not a privilege.
    Right now there are too many entities separating a person from this right.

    First, the employer provided “benefits” go away when your job does. Your employer is interested in getting the most profit from you when you are healthy. If you are not healthy – your employer can and will separate you from your insurance. So when you need it most…it’s gone!

    Second, health insurance companies want to make a profit off of people’s fears or misfortune. This is fundamentally wrong. Health care should not be a business. Each human person is more than a profit or loss statement, and our society needs to help others when they need it most. Not everything needs to function as a business in a capitalistic society. Our public schools, roads and bridges, park systems, and military operate fine without a profit motive. They survive because they are the right thing to do. Health care for each person is the right thing to do.

    Third, The current system is inefficient. Each layer has a profit motive which interferes with a person’s right to health care. I believe the government without a profit motive can control prices and do a better job.

    Thanks for the great article. It’s about time for change.

    Comment by Joseph A — September 6, 2009 @ 4:52 pm | Reply

  11. […] is now up to the people to demand the health care we need, and a government that is of, by, and for the people. […]

    Pingback by President Obama’s Inspiring and Historic Speech on the Health Care Crisis « hearts and minds — September 11, 2009 @ 2:34 am | Reply

  12. […] related websites “Business Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare” SinglePayer.info; Defend Your Health Care Rights – Three Principles and Five Myths; Center for Media and Democracy; http://www.PRWatch.org; Wisconsin Democracy Campaign […]

    Pingback by A Government Takeover of Health Care?? « hearts and minds — October 9, 2009 @ 12:21 am | Reply

  13. Letting the state governments have a role in health-care legislation risks capture or veto by the industry, yet consolidation at the US level is inconsistent with a Union that stretches over a continent. There is a way out of this dilemma. See http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/the-health-care-industry-dominating-the-states-federalism-as-capture/

    Comment by euandus2 — December 29, 2009 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  14. […] MOURN – ORGANIZEA Government Takeover of Health Care, with Higher Costs, and even Worse Care??Defend Your Health Care Rights – 5 Myths and 4 Principles6minutes.com.au – "Medicare to drop gay discrimination" by Michael Woodhead Leave a […]

    Pingback by The Solution to the Health Care Crisis is Staring Us In The Face « hearts and minds — March 9, 2010 @ 5:06 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: