Tag Archives: Universal Health Care

Moderate Democrats Health Care Plans Fall Short

Listening to the Democratic debates since they began last year, I have been dumbfounded and angered that so many of the candidates running for President this year believe that some halfway measure to achieve universal coverage for health care is possible, if only voters would vote for them.

With the exception of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the rest of the candidates, those still running, and those who dropped out, advocate a public option or fixing the ACA. (see “Medicare for All and the Democratic Debates”) Their proposals fly in the face of study after study, article after article that firmly states that the only way to provide universal coverage at lower cost, and that will save money is Medicare for All.

They are trying to scare the American people with words like “Socialism” and suggesting that their taxes will go up, or that they will lose their employer-based or private health insurance.

As I have written in the past, there is a concerted effort on the part of the health care industry to defeat Medicare for All/Single Payer, and they have been targeting the Democrats to do so.

An article last Monday in The Hill by Diane Archer, senior adviser at Social Security Works states that twenty-two studies agree that Medicare for All saves money.

According to Ms. Archer, researchers at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine.

Every single study, they found, predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

In addition, all of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. As reported last year, even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank belonging to the libertarian Koch Brothers, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage

The key takeaway from the studies is that Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs.

This is because Administrative savings from Medicare for All would be about $600 billion a year. Savings on prescription drugs would be between $200 billion and $300 billion a year, if we paid about the same price as other wealthy countries pay for their drugs. A Medicare for All system would save still more with implementation of global health care spending budgets.

None of the other Democratic candidates can make that assertion because their plans leave many uninsured and and keep in place the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to make huge profits from the health of the American people.

While I am no fan of Bernie Sanders as a candidate, and his recent dispute with the Nevada Culinary Union not withstanding, his goal is to cover every American with universal health care. Elizabeth Warren’s plan differs somewhat from Sanders’, but has a more reasonable time frame for implementation.

The inconvenient truth, folks is that Medicare for All will save money, will cover everyone, and will finally bring down the cost of health care so that no one has to go broke paying for it, or decide not to get medical care when needed because they can’t afford it.’

Those of you who are not physicians or in the insurance industry, or the pharmaceutical industry who pontificate on social media that Medicare for All is bad, are only delaying the inevitable. You consultants, analysts, researchers and other auxiliary industries to health care must see the truth staring you in the face. You are on the wrong side of the debate, and on the wrong side of history.

COVID-19 and America’s Social Safety Net

Friday’s HuffPost published an article by Emily Peck on the Coronavirus (COVID-19) and its impact on the country’s broken social safety net.

The article indicates that millions of working Americans do not get paid sick days. It also states that a stunning 70% of low-wage workers and one of three workers in the private sector, have no access to paid sick time.

According to Ms. Peck, the US is one of the few countries in the world without a national paid sick leave policy. In addition, she adds, millions of Americans do not have health insurance, or their policies are designed to keep them away from doctors with high co-payments and deductibles.

Both these issues, Ms. Peck writes, highlights how coronavirus, or COVID-19, could test the US’ uniquely weak social safety net.

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, the executive director of MomsRising, a nonprofit advocating for paid leave is quoted in the article, “Right now we’re looking at a situation where we have a lack of policies that most other countries take for granted that protect their public health.”

This isn’t just a “coronavirus” problem, Ms. Peck says. Even though the CDC warned Americans earlier in the week, so far there have been very few case reported in the US. (Note: As of this writing,  there have been 74 reported cases in the US, and two men have died in Washington State, and one case was recently reported in Rhode Island, and one in Manhattan)

Yet, fears of an outbreak has put a spotlight on the public health system. With cuts to many agencies by Trump, many experts fear that we will be unable to deal with the crisis, especially since the Trump called it a hoax at a recent political rally.

He also appointed his evolution-denying Vice President, Mike Pence to coordinate the Administration’s response after gagging several Administration personnel from appearing on the Sunday talk shows. It was mentioned after the announcement that Pence did not believe that smoking causes cancer when he was Governor of Indiana.

For the Democrats, says Ms. Peck, coronavirus makes the case for policies like universal health care and paid sick and family leave.

Some key points to consider:

First, flu rates are higher without sick leave. What about coronavirus?

In the US, the article reports, just 10 states, 20 cities and three counties have some kind of paid sick leave. This is compared with the rest of the world, where more than 145 countries have this benefit. People who live in those places, research shows, are less likely to get sick, Ms. Peck reports.

And lack of paid sick leave is certainly a “risk factor”, according to Nicolas Ziebarth, associate professor in health economics at Cornell. Professor Ziebarth’s 2019 paper in the Journal of Public Economics, looked at Google data on flu rates, compared cities with leave policies with those without, and found that flu rates were 5% lower in places with sick leave.

An upcoming paper of Professor Ziebarth’s, based on CDC data, has found that the rates are actually 11% lower.

For those workers in low-wage jobs, if they get sick, they cannot afford to take time off of work because they are barely getting by. So, they end up going to work, and they get their co-workers sick.

Working from home isn’t an option.

Many companies are telling employees to work from home with the threat from coronavirus. However, for low-wage hourly workers, says Ms. Peck, this just isn’t an option. Many work in industries that have contact with the community — such as food servers, people who care for children, clean offices and homes.

As stated above, it is not just sick leave, The US also lacks any kind of comprehensive paid family leave policy, according to Ms. Peck, which would enable workers to take time off to care for a close family member’s health issues. This issue first came to light in 1993 when Bill Clinton signed into law, the Family and Medical Leave Act, which required covered employers to provide employees with job-protected and unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons.

An example of just how needed is paid family leave, comes from the experience of Ericka Farrell, a mother of three in Maryland, who lost her temp job in the early 2000s because she had to take so much time off to care for her young son. She did not regret staying home, but now works with MomsRising to advocate for paid leave herself, writes Ms. Peck.

Millions are uninsured. Many more have terrible insurance.

According to Ms. Peck, even if you take time off when you are sick, you might not be able to afford to see the doctor. Slightly more than 10% of Americans. she mentions, or about 30 million people, don’t have health insurance. This is because their employers do not offer it, or it is too expensive.

Things to consider regarding the uninsured:

  • Far less likely to go to the doctor
  • Americans with insurance face obstacles to getting care due to high co-payments
  • Then there are the deductibles, which have been going up for decades
  • Most people haven’t come near clearing those deductibles at the beginning of the year

John Graves, associate professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was quoted as saying, “If we as a society are going to face a spreading infectious disease, the worse time of the year is the beginning of the year.”

Graves added that the US health care system is simply not designed to deal with a potential pandemic.

First, he says, the US relies on employment-based insurance. If people are thrown out of work due to an economic downturn, they lose coverage.

Second, insurance is designed to encourage people not to see the doctor through so-called “cost-sharing.”  Co-payments and deductibles exist to discourage people from visiting the doctor or going to the hospital for every “cough and sniffle.” Graves said.

Lastly, in 2018, the Administration made it easier for people to buy insurance plans with less generous coverage, and don’t always cover expenses stemming from preexisting conditions, the article says. Experts have said that these plans they consider junk policies, have even higher out-of-pocket costs.

So what does this all mean?

It means that cuts to the social safety net guarantees that should the coronavirus get out of hand, the US is not prepared to deal with it effectively, and many more people will probably die who shouldn’t because of politics and ideology.

Hospital closings in rural areas, the firing of hundreds of health care personnel at the federal level, silencing the experts in infectious diseases, and the appointment of a man who rejects evolution and says smoking does not cause cancer to coordinate the Administration’s response, is a recipe for a catastrophe of unimanigable proportions. Calling it a hoax in front of your ardent supporters who believe everything you say, will only lead to more confusion and more deaths.

But this crisis also proves that it is high time those on social media sites like LinkedIn who are part of the health care industry, whether they are physicians, in the pharmaceutical industry, work in hospitals, are device manufacturers, or are consultants and researchers, accept the fact that single payer, universal health care (Medicare for All) is not just an economic necessity, but a public health necessity as well.

Is your big, fat five or six figure incomes more important than human health? It’s your call.

Why The US Doesn’t Have Universal Health Care – It Is Not What You Think

Landing Negroes at Jamestown from Dutch man-of-war, 1619.

Yesterday, The Sunday New York Times Magazine ran a series of articles titled, The 1619 Project.

According to the Times:

The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to re-frame the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.

As a student of American history, I was fully exposed to the current literature of the time regarding slavery, slaveholders, and the impact it had on the African-American culture and people, through my introduction to such historians as Eric Foner, Eugene Genovese, Leon Higginbotham, and John Blassingame, as well as from my three African-American/Sociology courses as an undergraduate.

So, I believe that this series by the Times, is not only needed, but timely, given the racial animus we see day after day from the White House, the far right, and on the Internet.

Readers of this blog  have seen that I have advocated on behalf of Medicare for All/Single Payer, because of the many causes for our broken health care system.  However, it  is not solely based on economics, politics, or defending the profits of the insurers and pharmaceutical companies. But rather due to race, as Jeneen Interlandi writes.

According to Interlandi, the first federal health care program served freedmen after the Civil War, but white legislators argued that it would breed dependence.

This health care program, the medical division of the Freedmen’s Bureau addressed the health care crisis due to the smallpox virus spreading across the post-war South. And according to Jim Downs, white leaders were worried about black epidemics spilling into their communities, and wanted the former slaves to be healthy enough to go back to the plantation. However, they feared that free and healthy African-Americans would upend the racial hierarchy.

Interlandi describes how whenever there was some move to deal with health care, there was always some backlash or outright ignoring of the solutions to the problems facing the south in the post-war period and Reconstruction. Not only that, but when federal social programs were introduced, Southern Democrats (yes, but now they would be, and are Republicans) forced concessions to bar African-Americans from receiving the benefits of those programs, or the AMA barred black doctors, medical schools excluded black students, and most hospitals and clinics segregated black patients.

There is the story of the African-American doctor who discovered blood types, and died because he was refused admittance to a hospital because he was black. This story was brought to the attention of viewers of MASH when the subject of race was part of that episode’s plot.

In college, I wrote a paper on the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment that exposed African-American men to syphilis to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis; the African-American men in the study were only told they were receiving free health care from the United States government.[3]

So those of you who oppose single payer health care should stop and consider if being the only nation in the Western world to not provide its citizens with universal health care should continue to be based on racial prejudice or simply because you want to profit by not doing so.

No Socialists Here

Dear Insurance company execs, pharmaceutical company execs, employee benefits consultants and executives, Wall Street investors, and all other stakeholders in the current dysfunctional, broken, complex, complicated, and bloated mess called the US health care system.

You have heard many politicians, and journalists, not to mention your own peers, or even you yourselves label the push for Medicare for All as “Socialism.”

We even have the Administrator of CMS, Seema Verma, calling it, and the public option plan,  “radical and dangerous for the country” recently when she spoke to the Better Medicare Alliance’s Medicare Advantage Summit in Washington, D.C.

Her solution, and probably yours as well, is to keep selling Medicare Advantage plans, which only makes the current system worse.

So, to help you get over your fear and loathing of Socialism, and to prove to you that the only reason why the US is the only Western, industrial nation to not provide its citizens with universal health care is because you are making money off of other people’s health, or lack thereof.

You are doing so, because you are greedy. There I said it. Now I hope you will pay attention to the following graphic:

Do you see any socialist countries? Do you see any radical and dangerous regimes that are hostile to the interests of the US? Well, maybe Slovenia. After all, they did send us Melania and her illegal family.

But back to the case at hand. I defy any of you hotshots in the health care space to prove to me that all of these Capitalist, free-market countries are flaming Reds, or even a bit Pinko.

You can’t, because it is not true. You and those who call Medicare for All, Single Payer, or even the so-called “public option” radical, just don’t want the government to interfere with your looting the pockets of the American people for your financial gain.

And that is why we are the only country with an “X”, instead of a check mark below our name.

Medicare for All and the Democratic Debates

See the source image

For those of you who did not watch the two nights Democratic debate, and those like me who did, one thing is clear. Medicare for All is very popular among the audiences who attended, judging by the applause garnered each time a candidate was asked about their plan for providing every American with health care.

On the first night, the moderator asked for a show of hands to the question as to who supported eliminating private insurance, only two candidates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York mayor Bill de Blasio raised their hands.

The rest of the candidates on the first night supported keeping private insurance or giving people the choice of a public option, and de Blasio and former Congressman Beto O’Rourke sparring over the issue.

This is how some of the candidates responded to the issue:

“I’m with Bernie on Medicare for All,” said Elizabeth Warren

Amy Klobuchar said she preferred a “public option”, “I am just simply concerned about kicking half of America off of their health insurance in four years,”

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke allowed that the goal should be “guaranteed, high-quality, universal health care as quickly and surely as possible.” “Our plan says that if you’re uninsured, we enroll you in Medicare,” and called his plan Medicare for America.

On the second night, the same question about abolishing private insurance was asked, and again, only two raised their hands, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and California Sen. Kamala Harris.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, who defended the ACA, said that Americans “need to have insurance that is covered, and that they can afford.”

Candidates Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Ind., New York Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet all gave their views on universal coverage, noting the importance of a transition period, and suggesting that a public option would allow people to buy into Medicare.

While the rest of the candidates from both evenings’ debates were divided against their fellow candidates who supported Medicare for All, those who spoke up for it, Sanders, Warren, Harris and de Blasio, won over the audience in the hall. What remains to be seen is how their ideas are received in the primaries beginning early next year.

According to Bloomberg, (the publication, not the former New York mayor), Medicare for All enjoys broad support: 56% of Americans said they supported such a plan in a January survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. However, when told Medicare for All would eliminate private health insurance, 37% said they favor it while 58% said they oppose the idea.

So, supporters of Medicare for All have their work cut out for them. They need to convince more Americans that sustaining the current system of private insurance, whether they get it from their employers, or they purchase it on their own, is a big part of the problem facing the US health care system.

Another point that is forgotten in the debate is the fact that what is being proposed is not a government takeover of health care, but rather a transition from a broken system to a government financed system of health care. Candidates who support this should explain the difference, and not be led into the trap set by debate moderators or interviews of calling Medicare for All, government-run health care.

It must be made clear that the providing of care will remain private, but that paying for it will not. Sanders’ stump speech line about going to any doctor sounds reminiscent of President Obama’s promise that you can keep your doctor under the ACA, but the reality was far from that.

But the takeaway from the debates indicates that the campaign will be a long and hard fought one, and that Democrats must be very clear what it is they actually want to do on health care, know how to pay for it, and sell it as the best solution to our dysfunctional health care system, or as author Marianne Williamson called it, a sickness system.

Because already, the Orangutan has pounced on one issue raised in the debate, the support by all candidates for providing medical care to undocumented immigrants. In today’s charged political climate where racism has raised its ugly head, and nationalism is on the march, such ideas can be disastrous, especially if rejected by swing voters and independents.

Time and the primaries will tell.

Food for Thought

All those who are opposed to Medicare for All/Single Payer, here is a meme that should open your minds to the fact that the US is wrong to deny its citizens what other nations already provides. Any excuse offered is just a cop-out, and not a very good one.

 

Opinion | Universal Health Care Might Cost You Less Than You Think – The New York Times

Today’s New York Times Opinion piece on universal health care is a timely one, given the attempts by the medical-industrial complex and their allies to derail any move towards health care for all. It is even more important now that the 2020 Democratic primary campaign is gaining momentum.

Universal Health Care Start Dates

The graphic below shows those countries that adopted universal health care and the dates they did so. It also shows the dates those countries ended universal health care. Notice a pattern? They never did. But we are the only country to not offer universal health care, and are resisting doing so because of a medical-industrial complex that is greedy, profit-driven, wedded to an outdated ideological philosophy of the role of government and social services, including health care, all so that Wall Street, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, large hospital systems, and consultants and service providers to the industry can get their cut of the pie. And notice that none of them are Socialist.

GSK is paying docs again — and patients are the worse off

A shout out to Maria Todd for bringing this to my attention.

This would not be happening if we did what every other Western nation does, and give our citizens universal health care that does not line the pockets of multinational corporations, drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and Wall Street investors.

Health care should not be subject to the pursuit of profit.

One of the world’s largest drug makers, GSK promised it would no longer pay doctors to promote its medicines. Now it says doing so put it at a disadvantage.

Source: GSK is paying docs again — and patients are the worse off

Universal Health Care in Reach? Not So Fast

The magazine, The Economist, published a ten-page special report in their April 28th edition on universal health care worldwide.

The report, which one social media commenter said was a perfect example of title and context differentiation, and gave no data or reason why health care was closer to being universal, is an example of a neoliberal publication going out on a limb with an issue vital to all human beings, and giving it short-shrift.

Throughout the report, The Economist mentions the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as the Gates Foundation as international organizations involved with public health in developing countries. The report contains statistics on the percentage of people in certain countries who do not have insurance, and other statistics to paint a bleak picture of health care in developing countries.

What the report fails to do is mention that it is exactly the World Bank, the IMF, international financial organizations, philanthropies like the Gates and other foundations, and the WHO, that have been responsible for preventing these countries from improving their health care systems.

Chapter Nine of the Waitzkin, et al., book previously reviewed in this blog, discusses in detail how these institutions influenced health care around the world for the benefit of multinational corporations in the developed world, and to the detriment of the health care in the Global South.

In particular, the WHO, which began in 1948 as a sub-organization of the United Nations, lost considerable funding due to ideological opposition to several programs operated by sub-organizations of the UN, and because the Reagan administration withheld annual dues. The UN began experiencing increasing budgetary shortfalls, which was passed onto organizations like the WHO.

But to the rescue, came the World Bank, and with this influx of private funds, the agenda of WHO changed to match that of the World Bank, international financial institutions and trade agreements. It was in the interest of these entities that health care be carried out in a vertical, top-down approach that left out key parts of the health care services needed in developing countries, namely surgery and concentrated on addressing infectious diseases like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

But there is another reason why public health in developing countries is in such a dismal state, and it has to do with the debt crisis these nations and others were subjected to by the nations of the Global North and the World Bank, IMF and international financial institutions.

According to the blog, One.org, “Developing countries spent years repaying billions of dollars in loans, many of which had been accumulated during the Cold War under corrupt regimes. Years later, these debts became a serious barrier to poverty reduction and economic development in many poor countries. Governments began taking on new loans to repay old ones and many countries ended up spending more each year to service debt payments than they did on health and education combined.

After many years of activism on the part of advocates for the poor and other activists, the nations of the Global North, through such organizations as the G8, the IMF and World Bank, decide to abolish debts worth billions of dollars owed by developing countries. Yet, despite this action, data in the World Bank’s global development finance 2012 report shows total external debt stocks owed by developing countries increased by $437 billion over 12 months to stand at $4 trillion at the end of 2010, the latest period of available data, according to the Guardian.

Third world debt was a serious issue when I was in college studying international relations and foreign policy, and I was aware of the efforts to reduce or eliminate this debt, so when I read in The Economist that the World Bank and WHO are engaged in public health issues around the world, I have to ask myself how is it possible that the very institutions responsible for the state of affairs experienced in developing countries as pertains to health care, are the very same institutions undoing the wreckage they created. Or at least not in ways that are advantageous to the citizens of those countries.

Instead of the vertical, top-down orientation these institutions are engaged in, a broad, horizontal orientation needs to be implemented that will radically alter the health care systems of these countries and provide all of their people with truly universal health care.

Lastly, The Economist looks at the US, and rightly points to our stubborn adherence to individualism and even quotes Republican congressman, Jason Chaffetz, who said, “Americans have choices.And they’ve got to make a choice. And so maybe, rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love, and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care.”

Many Republicans, like Rep. Chaffetz, says The Economist, believe health care is not a right but something people choose to buy (or not) in a marketplace.  I can tell you, dear readers, I did not choose to have End-Stage Renal Disease, nor did I choose to be long-term unemployed (that is due to neoliberal economic policies and to the financial meltdown caused by the very institutions that have a negative impact on universal health care), so Rep. Chaffetz and his Republican colleagues are wrong. And besides, you can’t buy health, as we all get sick and we all die. What you buy is a policy, but policies are not the same as care.

One other reason The Economist cites for the US being an outlier in providing universal care is resistance to reform by powerful interest groups.

I don’t believe this report did anything to move the debate forward towards universal health care, either here in the US, or around the world. It really did not cover any new ground, and its prediction for health care universally achieved is either wishful thinking or a delusion. Either way, until the economic order changes, nothing in health care will.