It's hard for me to call these bills "reform." I guess it might change things for the better, but I apparently need to grieve the lost opportunity for what I believe to be the needed change: universal coverage and a single payer system.
Here's where I start the health care discussion: EVERY human being is Yahweh’s child and protecting the health of every human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility. The proposal that best meets those values, that I have seen so far, was put forward by George McGovern. To steward my energy, I copy his proposal:
It's Simple: Medicare for All
By George S. McGovern
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Washington Post
For many years, a handful of American political leaders -- including the late senator Ted Kennedy and now President Obama -- have been trying to gain passage of comprehensive health care for all Americans. As far back as President Harry S. Truman, they have urged Congress to act on this national need. In a presentation before a joint session of Congress last week, Obama offered his view of the best way forward.
But what seems missing in the current battle is a single proposal that everyone can understand and that does not lend itself to demagoguery. If we want comprehensive health care for all our citizens, we can achieve it with a single sentence: Congress hereby extends Medicare to all Americans.
Those of us over 65 have been enjoying this program for years. I go to the doctor or hospital of my choice, and my taxes pay all the bills. It's wonderful. But I would have appreciated it even more if my wife and children and I had had such health-care coverage when we were younger. I want every American, from birth to death, to get the kind of health care I now receive. Removing the payments now going to the insurance corporations would considerably offset the tax increase necessary to cover all Americans.
I don't feel as though the government is meddling in my life when it pays my doctor and hospital fees. There are some things the government does that I don't like -- most notably getting us into needless wars that cost many times what health care for all Americans would cost. Investing in the health of our citizens will enhance the well-being and security of the nation.
We know that Medicare has worked well for half a century for those of us over 65. Why does it become "socialized medicine" when we extend it to younger Americans?
Taking such a shortsighted view would leave nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance and without the means to buy it. It would leave other Americans struggling to pay the rising cost of insurance premiums. These private insurance plans are frequently terminated if the holder contracts a serious long-term ailment. And some people lose their insurance if they lose their jobs or if the plant where they work moves to another location -- perhaps overseas.
We recently bailed out the finance houses and banks to the tune of $700 billion. A country that can afford such an outlay while paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can afford to do what every other advanced democracy has done: underwrite quality health care for all its citizens.
If Medicare needs a few modifications in order to serve all Americans, we can make such adjustments now or later. But let's make sure Congress has an up or down vote on Medicare for all before it adjourns this year. Let's not waste time trying to reinvent the wheel. We all know what Medicare is. Do we want health care for all, or only for those over 65? ...
4 comments:
Get the government out of my health care!
Well unless I have medicare, then that's ok. Also, it's ok for Veterans. Oh don't forget the fact that the FDA has approval over drugs to be sure they are safe. Also, don't forget that the states have several requirements for health care plans (I just got a notice yesterday from my insurer of a notice that the State of Missouri was requiring them to send out). But dammit get the government out of my healthcare.
I really like this approach. At least with this approach we would have a barometer with which to gauge our Congressional representatives positions.
There is one small problem with Mr McGovern's proposal, money. Not the money to pay for it. As he noted needles military activities, billionaire bailouts and outrageous premiums for questionable coverage are sucking every last cent from the working class. He failed to mention the amount of money poured into the capitol building by the health industry. I read somewhere that there are six health lobbyists per congressperson. That money outweighs just about anything you can throw at them.
I dropped the discussion of "why" we're not getting the change I think we need, I just wanted to put out there what I thought we needed. McGovern mentioned the money pouring into the capitol, I snipped it, my ellipses may not show up well at the end of the block quote. You can read his entire column by clicking on the title "It's Simple: Medicare for All." I believe lobbying efforts play a big part in preventing true change in health care, and I also believe there is an ideological opposition that has nothing to do with industry money (as evidenced this summer).
There was an opening SNL skit recently, from the night Duane "The Rock" Johnson hosted (The-Rock-Obama), where a Republican senator tells Obama that it isn't that they want healthcare reform to fail. They want Obama to fail. If Obama would just reverse his stance on healthcare, the Republicans would gladly support it. It's funny, but the cynic in me also wonders if it is at all true.
Post a Comment