What a difference a border makes. General Motors executives say soaring health costs in their U.S. plants are forcing them to seek health benefits give-backs from unionized workers, yet they insist national healthcare is not an appropriate solution for America. As company spokeswoman Sherri Woodruff puts it, “GM thinks there has to be closer cooperation between the government and the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (12)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe insurance industry itself is a symptom of cancer in the hearts of men.
Posted by SGB on Apr 27, 2005 at 7:00 PM Universal medical care is the hallmark of a civilized society. The republicans have a long way to go.
Posted by Lefty on Apr 27, 2005 at 7:09 PM The most frustrating thing about this particular debate is the lack of a mathematical model (from either the pro-univ. health care side or the anti- ) that backs cost-benefit assertions with actual and complete data, rendered in a way that non-PhDs or non-partisans can grasp. All we get is selective reporting, anecdotes, and (as the article points out) rampant ideology. From anyone, can either of the arguments, “It’s unaffordable” or “It can be done”, be supported with some numbers that reflect what would really play out if health care was provided as a right of citizenship? Because short of that demonstration, in testable terms, we’ll just be stuck with the current situation, in which corporate money and influence coupled with anti-tax rhetoric will keep any change in this realm from happening.
I understand the moral argument against basing access to health care on whether it can be afforded (or, more correctly, that it is restricted from those who can’t at least afford decent insurance), but that tactic seems to be going nowhere. A data-based argument might (I emphasize, might) be more persuasive, to citizens if not to the governing boards of corporations that market health services or insurance. The benefits to the country of subsidizing preventive health services and education over and above catastrophic intervention would be an obvious inclusion.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 28, 2005 at 12:52 AM Ben, I disagree. A “right” to a service implies the mandatory servitude of others. Rather, in a country that can easily afford to do so, universal medical care is just “the right thing to do” because, on balance, it has proven to be more efficient economically, and universal medical care is SAFER than the medicine provided by private enterprise.
Posted by Lefty on Apr 28, 2005 at 6:53 AM Imagine the hit to AIG and Berkshire Hathaway if it ever happened here. Tin cups for Hank Greenberg and Warren Buffett?
Posted by uninsured in america on May 2, 2005 at 9:30 AM we spend about 16% of our GDP on healthcare:
6.6% public-funded,
9.4% PRIVATELY funded.Canada spends less than 10% total and the large majority of that is publicly funded. Europeans countries spend between 6-10% with 5-8% being covered by the government and 1-2% private. BUT REMEMBER: They are all univeral!! Ours doesn’t even cover everyone!!
Anyone who can consider those simple numbers and NOT think we have some serious work to do is either disgustly selfish, hopelessly ignorant or blindly partisan to the GOP.
Wanna talk a drag on the economy for the real benefit of a very small few? Healthcare is one of the top contenders! I can’t believe people voted against Kerry while groaning about their healthcare costs. This was one of his biggest promises. Granted, it wasn’t perfect but it was a start in the right direction.
Posted by John on May 3, 2005 at 4:36 PM Private healthcare is a huge boondoggle for insurance companies and related industries who have enormous influence over both political parties. No Democrat or Republican will ever deliver meaningful healthcare reform. Remember the Clinton plan? Protect profits above all else.
Kerry is a fraud. Vote Nader or don’t bother.
Posted by Rayhorn on May 4, 2005 at 4:51 PM Clinton never had a plan. Paul Tsongas did. For a full year prior to the New Hampshire primary he distributed copies to anyone interested. His campaign was thought to be a joke. The money was behind Slick and of course, everyone remembers the famous speech of his about the ‘come back kid’. Yet, it was Tsongas who won the primary! Only after that defeat did Clinton attempt to co-opt the health care issue. Inattentive voters bought it and managed to doom the US to two terms of Republican surrogacy DLC style with no intention of ever realistically dealing with health care. Gore and Kerry, more of the same. Champion the Green party if you must, but, it would be well worth while to pressure the Democrats, also. Insist that it return to its roots and not make the mistake of offering up the usual suspects in the form of a Gore, Kerry, or Hillary Rodham Slick. Without some sort of solidarity on the left, we might as well get set for four years of Jeb or Mitt. Unless you make your voices heard, then yes, it will be the status quo.
Hempshackle
Posted by B Q Hempshackle on May 5, 2005 at 1:17 AM Please call me at 810.629.5369 - Mark Taubits/General Foreman
Posted by Tim Geyer on May 14, 2005 at 9:45 AM Universal healthcare with a single payer program works and works real well.
The waiting argument is bogus. I have a top US private employer paid insurance program and I still have to wait for even an appointment not to mention how long it took me to get an MRI.
Taiwan province (it looks like a province to me but many consider it the 51st state.) Anyway, Taiwan has a single payer program and spend less than 5% GDP on it. 100% of the people are covered and cancer treatments are included. My wait time in Taiwan was always shorter than the US. I didn’t have any problem in Taiwan getting an MRI for my bum knee.
Single payer works - civilized countries have it. Harry Truman wanted it. Let’s make it happen.
How hard can it be it? It will alot cheaper than what we have right now.
Posted by Master Thespian on Jun 7, 2005 at 1:08 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Dave Lindorff
- Radioactive Wounds of War
Tests on returning troops suggest serious health consequences of depleted uranium use in Iraq - Before Sunset
A broad coalition is pushing Congress to rein in the Patriot Act - GMs Healthcare Double Standard
Bad ideology trumps good business - Beating the Boomers
Why Bush and Co. are racing to cut Social Security - A Milli Vanilli President
- Protesting Too Little?
Homeland Security wants to cage dissent at this summer’s political conventions
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
