Tag Archives: Brexit

Health Care Is Not a Market

For the next twenty-one months, there will be a national debate carried on during the presidential campaign regarding the direction this country will take about providing health care to all Americans.

However, to anyone who reads the articles, posts and comments on the social media site, LinkedIn, that debate is already occurring, and most of it is one-sided against Medicare for All/Single Payer. The individuals conducting this debate are for the most part in the health care field, as either physicians, pharmaceutical industry employees, hospital systems executives, insurance company executives, and so on.

We also find employee benefits specialists and other consultants to the health care industry, plus many academics in the health care space, and many general business people commenting, parroting the talking points from right-wing media.

That is why I re-posted articles from my fellow blogger, Joe Paduda last week and yesterday,  who is infinitely more knowledgeable than I am on the subject, and has far more experience in the health care field, that not only predicts Medicare for All (or what he would like to see, Medicaid for All), but has vigorously defended it and explained it to those who have misconceptions.

For that, I am grateful, and will continue to acknowledge his work on my blog. But what has caused me to write this article is the fact that most of the criticism of Medicare for All/Single Payer is because those individuals who are posting or commenting, are defending their turf.

I get that. They get paid to do that, or they depend on the current system to pay their salaries, so naturally they are against anything that would harm that relationship.

But what really gets me is that they are deciding that they have the right to tell the rest of us that we must continue to experience this broken, complex and complicated system just so that they can make money. And that they have a right to prevent us from getting lower cost health care that provides better outcomes and does not leave millions under-insured or uninsured.

However, not all these individuals are doing this because of their jobs. Some are doing so because they are wedded to an economic and political ideology based on the free market as the answer to every social issue, including health care. They argue that if we only had a true free market, competitive health care system, the costs would come down.

But as we have seen with the rise in prices for many medications such as insulin and other life-saving drugs, the free market companies have jacked up the prices simply because they can, and because lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry have forced Congress to pass a law forbidding the government from negotiating prices, as other nation’s governments do.

Yet, no other Western country has such a system, nor are they copying ours as it exists today. On the contrary, they have universal health care for their citizens, and by all measures, their systems are cheaper to run, and have better outcomes.

None of these countries can be considered “Socialist” countries, and even the most anti-Socialist, anti-Communist British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill said the following, “Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”

Notice that Sir Winston did not say, free market competition. He knew that competition is fine for selling automobiles, clothing, food, and other goods and services. But not health care.

He also said that you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else. We’ve tried the free market in health care, and drug prices and other medical prices are through the roof.

However, another thing they have not done, and I believe none of the other OECD countries have done about health care, is to divide the “market” into silos such as the elderly with Medicare, the poor with Medicaid, children with CHIP, veterans with the VA, and their families with Tricare, etc.

No, they pay for all their citizens from a global budget, and do not distinguish between age level, income level, or service in the armed forces.

And their systems do not restrict what medical care their people receive, so that no only do they have medical care, but dental care, vision care, and hearing care. It is comprehensive. And if they have the money to pay for it, they can purchase private health insurance for everything else.

In the run-up to the debate and vote in the UK on Brexit, the point was raised that while Britain was a member of the EU, their retirees who went to Spain to retire, never had to buy insurance because the Spanish providers would bill the NHS.

However, once Britain leaves the EU, they will have to buy insurance privately, because the NHS won’t pay for it. But not all retirees can afford private insurance, so many British citizens will have a problem.

As I have mentioned before in this blog, I was diagnosed with ESRD, and am paying $400 every three months for Medicare Part B. I was doing so while spending down money I received after my mother passed away in 2017. My brother and I sold her assets and used that money to purchase property so that she could go on Medicaid, and eventually into a nursing home when the time came for her to be cared for around the clock.

Since my diagnosis, and prior, I was not working, so spending $400 every three months, and paying for many of my meds, has been difficult. I am getting help with some of the meds, and one is free because my local supermarket chain, Publix gives it for free (Amlodipine).

I hope to be on Medicaid soon, but would much rather see me and my fellow Americans get Medicare for All, and not have to pay so much for it. (a side note: we have seen that Medicaid expansion has been haphazard, or reversed, even when the government is paying 90% of it)

So why are we not doing what everyone else does? For one thing, greed. Drug companies led by individuals like Martin Shkreli, who is now enjoying the hospitality of the federal government, and others are not evil, they are following the dictates of the free market that many are advocating we need. No thanks.

For another, Wall Street has sold the health care sector as another profit center that creates a huge return on investment by investors and shareholders in these companies and hospital systems. Consolidation in health care is no different than if two non-health care companies merge, or one company buys another for a strategic advantage in the marketplace.

There’s that word again: market. We already have a free market health care system, that is why is it broken. What we need is finance health care by the government and leave the providing of health care private. That’s what most other countries do.

So those of you standing in the way of Medicare for All/Single Payer, be advised. We are not going to let you deny us what is a right and not a privilege. We will not let you deny us what every other major Western country gives its people: universal, single payer health care.

Your time is nearly up.

RIP GLOBALIZATION?

From all the commentary this weekend and on Friday about the referendum to leave the European Union (EU) in the UK, it would seem that the dream of a handful of international bankers, multinational corporation heads and politicians of both the left and the right since the end of the Second World War have made a terrible and unforeseen error in pushing for a globalized world economy.

How did we get to this place? Simple, as a result of the economic policies of the 1920’s and 1930’s, Europe and her allies in North America, were plunged into a second global conflict. Near the end of the conflict, the economic leaders of the Allied nations gathered in Bretton Woods, NH to carve out the Bretton Woods Agreement, which established the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Along with this, came the United Nations to deal with the political and military crises that would arise in the second half of the twentieth century. To provide greater perspective, we must go back to the First World War and recognize that here in the US, many Americans were woefully ignorant not only about world affairs, but of geography as well. In 1914, I doubt many Americans could point out just where Sarajevo or Serbia was, or where any of the other nations drawn up into that war were located.

Following on the heels of an earlier organization, the National Civic Federation, several prominent business, political, academic, labor and other leaders formed the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council promoted the study of geography and political science in colleges and universities, as well as promoting social studies in high schools and junior high schools.

The Council also published Foreign Affairs magazine, which became a forum for the discussion of world events and dissemination of political theories and policies from leading academics and business leaders. But there was one other thing that the Council did. It provided the US government with its future Secretaries of State, War, Treasury, and later Defense, among other lesser administration positions from the 1920’s onward.

My first major in college was political science, and more specifically, international relations and foreign policy. I also had a graduate course in American Foreign Policy at NYU as part of my History Masters degree.

After WWII, the Cold War forced many of the Western countries to realize that in order to defend against Communism, as they had against Fascism, they needed to have greater cooperation. So the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO was born, and within Western Europe, the idea of European cooperation led to the formation of the Common Market, of which the UK was a member.

In the 1950’s and 60’s, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and  was created, followed by the European Economic Community (EEC). These developments were spelled out in the Brussels Treaty of 1948, the Paris Treaty of 1951, the Modified Brussels Treaty of 1954, and the Rome Treaty of 1957.

In the 1960’s, the Merger Treaty of 1965 created the European Communities, made up of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), as well as the  ECSC and EEC.

The Maastrict Treaty of 1992 created the European Union, and its membership has grown steadily, especially after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

Meanwhile, in other regions of the world, similar ideas were taking shape. In Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was formed to do for Southeast Asia what NATO and the European Communities were doing for Europe.

To foster greater cooperation between North America, Western Europe and Japan, the three industrial regions of the world, David Rockefeller, Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank and Zbigniew Brzezinski created the Trilateral Commission. In the next two decades, membership in the Commission was expanded to every other region of the world.

Like the Council on Foreign Relations, members of the Commission could be involved in politics in their respective countries, but once they achieved national office of any kind, they resigned from the Commission. Membership was recommended by current members, and the incoming Jimmy Carter Administration of 1977-1981 saw the following members leave the Commission: Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance, among many others.

It was in college that I studied global politics, or what would become known as Globalization, and with the expansion of the Commission’s member countries, and the fall of Communism, it seemed that globalization would continue.

Yet, they made one big mistake. Neglecting to replace the jobs lost to globalization from the 70’s to the present and thinking that “free trade” conducted through treaties such as NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and under the approval of the WTO would benefit both the developed and underdeveloped worlds. Hardly, as the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump in the US, as well as Bernie Sanders on the left can testify to.

Globalization has been mostly a one-way street out of the developed countries and into the undeveloped or developing countries. It has had the unintended consequences of stirring up racism, bigotry and resentment, as well as distrust in institutions and government. It has also favored the wealthy and those international players already in the game, but locks out those who are attempting to benefit from it, as many in the medical travel industry have tried and failed to do.

With other European nations threatening to leave the EU, and opposition here to TPP, and other trade deals (“I’m going to make better deals”), it would seem that globalization, far from dead yet, may at least be stopped in its tracks for the foreseeable future. That may happen if the US does the stupid too, and elects a moron.


I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

I am also looking for a partner who shares my vision of global health care for injured workers.

I am also willing to work with any health care provider, medical tourism facilitator or facility to help you take advantage of a market segment treating workers injured on the job. Workers’ compensation is going through dramatic changes, and may one day be folded into general health care. Injured workers needing surgery for compensable injuries will need to seek alternatives that provide quality medical care at lower cost to their employers. Caribbean and Latin America region preferred.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Will accept invitations to speak or attend conferences.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com.

Transforming Workers’ Comp Blog is now viewed all over the world in over 250 countries and political entities. I have published nearly 300 articles, many of them re-published in newsletters and other blogs.

Share this article, or leave a comment below.