Why don’t we have universal health care?
A buddy of mine, Jay sent this along. I figured some of you folks might be wondering the same thing
AB:
I noticed this article on Commonwealth Fund talking about the 41% percent of working Americans who struggle with medical debt. As one those people struggling (I have special needs daughter), I can see that the current system is screwed up. Why can’t we fix it?
Jay:
The fix is insanely easy. Heck, we have two choices: Medicare for all and private insurance for all.
The first solution, medicare for all, isn’t the be all, but it is universal and it would work well enough. If you combine it with a federal mandate requiring all doctors to take Medicare without any exceptions, you have national health care built on an established framework
The reasons we don’t do it are simple, too:
- Campaign Contributions from private industry who like the system as it is. In a nutshell, legal bribery.
- Conservatives who against all reason fear it, or think somehow our national health would decline.
- It’s expensive and we don’t think we afford it and our empire a the same time.
I figure it would likely cost another two trillion we don’t have and can’t tax.
Also if we tried to negotiate drug prices down for the program, it would be such a threat to the profit margins of the drug companies, they would do anything to stop it. Nothing scares drug companies more than the kind of price controls and negotiations that other nations take for granted.
Congress, of course, being on the take getting campaign contributions galore, doesn’t want to lose the lobbying money.
Also in the Conservative mindset, if lots of Americans die or go broke or die early, so what? There are always high birth-rate third world nations much worse off than us to import people from.
Now of course there is another option too. Managed care, a PPO, preferred provider organization for all. It’s very cheap - only about $450-$600 billion to cover everyone - and we could wrap Medicare and maybe the VA system into the program. It would actually save us money in the long run.
However it would mean a lot less government jobs and more oversight, something Congress doesn’t want. Those government employees all vote, after all.
And either way, if we did manage care, there would be a big fight over reproductive medicine. I can tell you that Fundamentalists in every state will howl if birth control or, heaven forbid, abortion coverage is included. The “Congress without a Spine” is in no mood for such a fight.
So instead, we get coercive half measures like Massachusetts’ buy private coverage or go to jail fascism or just nothing at all.
It’s too bad, really, but the US government is both dumb and broken on this issue.
Fixing it is doable, but we have to get new people in office. I’ll grant you, that’s not an easy task, but it is very possible, if and only if we stay on it.
Adam Benjamin Prosper was born in Colorado and now lives in Southern California. He is a blue collar guy, freelancer writer and occasional trouble maker. A. B. believes in honor, freedom, truth, justice, the environment and all that jazz. Most importantly, he believes in us the American People and our limitless capacity to make America great if we try. He blogs at http://www.abprosper.com
- Original article
- FILED UNDER: Guest Blogger
- August 27, 2008








Conservatives mostly fear national healthcare
because they are from the ruling class or indentify with the ruling class. The rest of the country is either a resource to be exploited or a problem to be controlled. Having a large labor pool to draw from that breeds rapidly and dies early is a conservative's wet dream. Hence the emphasis on private health care, banning birth control, eliminating sex education, and preventing a woman from having control over her own body.
Basically the conservative mindset wants working people to breed quickly, overpopulate an area, and then have famine, disease, or war eliminate the surplus.
A progressive minset wants people to control the population through education, birth control, and not having children they cannot afford to take care of.
I will leave it up to you to figure out which one is more compassionate.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37August 27, 2008 - 12:13pmUhhh.... yeah. Conservatives are evil.
So, half the population sits around thinking about how to torture the other half? Nice. Some one should study your brain after you kick. Maybe we just don't want the government to do for health care what they did for public housing. I mean, do you really want a bunch of wonks in charge?
- Email this page
By IlluminatiHottieAugust 27, 2008 - 12:32pmYou're not paying attention
The "wonks", as you call them, are ALREADY in charge, and making a killing in profits...in more ways than one. Single-payer health care would destroy that profit margin, and losing the gravy train is a very powerful motivation for them to fight single-payer health care by any and all means necessary, including the common fabrications of "four-month wait times" and "DMV waiting lines".
The American health care system is hopelessly broken, and only those whose profit margins depend on it being broken are fighting against fixing it. Unfortunately for Americans, they're the ones who can afford to spend the money on publicity. It's yet another iteration of the Golden Rule: whoever has the gold, makes the rule.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manAugust 27, 2008 - 12:42pmAgreed, we need to keep the system just the way it is
Almost 2 million people went bankrupt last year solely due to medical expenses that insurance didn't cover. 47 million without insurance at all. Definitely a success story we should be proud of. And of course, don't forget that we pay the highest prices in the world for a healthcare system that is ranked just above Cuba, which spends just a tiny fraction of the amount we do. Yep, that's success as defined by repubs.
Let's not take the simple step of having government paying for all PREVENTATIVE care, which is ten times more cost-effective than waiting until someone is sick. Many insurance plans already cover preventative care 100%, because corporations have discovered the same thing, and they are able to keep their healthcare costs under control by the simple expedient of convincing their employees to take care of themselves before they get sick and need expensive care and lose time at work.
I would bet that government-funded preventative care would be far cheaper than government-funded universal care. But, being a logical idea, it will be rejected by repubs out of hand.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyAugust 27, 2008 - 12:44pmWhat makes you think that if
What makes you think that if the government ran health care they would pay for every procedure? Look at what they've done for our veterans.
- Email this page
By jumpingjackflashAugust 27, 2008 - 1:04pmBy jumpingjackheaduphiscrackAugust 27, 2008 - 2:04pm
To steal a phrase from SJI: Accuracy Fixxy.
You're welcome.
Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesAugust 27, 2008 - 1:13pmHealth care for veterans was
Health care for veterans was crappy when Dem's where in charge too. Ever see the movie "Born on the 4th of July"? How come the Dem run congress hasn't fixed the VA system?
- Email this page
By jumpingjackflashAugust 27, 2008 - 1:17pmActually, the dems have vastly improved the amount of money
allocated to improving care for veterans...over the objections of the Bush administration, which has actually cut the budget for the VA in coming years. And of course, McCain voted against the GI Bill that gave current Iraq and Afghanistan vets the same benefits that returning vets from WWII got, and that returning vets from Vietnam, such as McCain, also got.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyAugust 27, 2008 - 2:48pmI guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit
What I said was that maybe a good start would be for government to pay for preventative health measures, like many employers already do. Paying for an annual physical, basic blood tests, etc. would not be anywhere near as expensive as paying for illnesses that could have been detected earlier when they were more easily and inexpensively treated, or prevented all together. What's more, the kind of preventative care I am talking about doesn't require lots of high-tech, expensive equipment. Business has discovered that such measures have lowered their healthcare costs and reduced time lost due to illness. If the government made sure that every single American had access to free preventative care, we would not only see our healthcare costs go down, but we would also see a lot fewer people visiting the ER because they don't have a regular doctor, and hence, use the ER as their doctor, which is horribly expensive.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyAugust 27, 2008 - 2:54pmOh yeah
Absolutely. The Gubmint cain't dew nuthin right. But ah support aher troops.
An ah want good roads
An ah want the po lice to come a runnin when I spot them n*&^%*# in mah neyboorhood.
An we gotta build a fence!
An we gotta to keep them gays from marryin'
- Email this page
By justintymeAugust 27, 2008 - 12:46pmHealthcare
It's sad to say the least in that the issue is NOT simple. The US system is not homogenous. We don't have a system that is portable among all 50 states etc. Further each states population has to make it's own decision about priorities. The Mass health plan is within reach of "Universality". The problem is that individual people need to decide are they going to buy into the state plan or remain outside in the private sector. The cost of the Mass plan has also been restated cost wise to probably double by 2010. The reality is that the WE as americans need to stop sniping at on another and start realising the problems that are coming are going to be costly and require heavy lifting on ALL our parts.
Roman
- Email this page
By RUrbanczykAugust 27, 2008 - 3:42pmHey, you're missing the real American spirit....
Ignore the tough problems, blame them on someone else, and then shove them under the rug for the next administration or generation to deal with.
Repubs have been very successful at painting any attempt to reform healthcare as "socialized medicine", implying that only communists would want such a system. It says a lot of things, (all bad), that enough voters buy into that spin that they agree, or at least don't care enough to disagree.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyAugust 27, 2008 - 3:52pmNot smarter than
a 5th grader. Therein lies the problem.
btw I'm sick and tired of states rights. Mix 'em up
- Email this page
By justintymeAugust 27, 2008 - 4:17pm