A Moral Imperative: Healthcare

I had no intention of writing this diary when I woke up this morning. I was idly reading a news story, and came across this. It starts out

WASHINGTON - Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

I think most of us already know what I'm about to say...

The time has come for universal health care. Period. The specifics for how this is going to be achieved are an important detail to debate, but for the moment, I don't really care. I just know that our current system is way past the point of decency.

We live in a nation that spends half a trillion dollars on war. Half a trillion dollars mastering the technologies of organized murder. Much of that goes into weapons research that produces weapons that we will never use. Much of that goes into weapons that, if we did use them, would end the world.

We live in a nation that almost succeeded, last year, in making special provisions so that people like Paris Hilton don't have to pay so much taxes.

We live in a nation where people like us are demonized by people on the right who claim to support "the sanctity of life."

We live at a time when we know more about Britney Spears's latest haircut than the suffering of our fellow citizens.

This isn't a small issue. Not to the millions and millions of American citizens suffering. Not to the thousands who have died premature deaths.

We often are outraged, and rightfully so, when we learn our government has made the choice to torture a few hundred of our citizens in secret camps. However, this is little different than our government's decision to torture millions of our fellow citizens, in broad daylight, by denying them access to health care. We have the money. We are simply choosing not to spend it.

About an average of three or four Americans die in Iraq every day. How many people die because their government has barred them from the hospitals and doctor's offices in their own towns? I cannot find a statistic on this number. Is it because we care so little about our nation's poor? Or, do those with power wish to hide this statistic, as it might outrage us more than we already are? I don't know.

When I read about the latest American casualty today, my blood boiled. Only one thought was in my mind.

Not one more death. Not one more mother's child. Not one more grave needlessly filled.

The time is now.

•  Tip Jar

  I'm very glad that in this election, as opposed to 2008, candidates are finally talking about the need for healthcare for all (or at least, Barack Obama and John Edwards are. I'm not sure about the stances on the other candidates.)

  I realize that while morally we need to fix this now, practically its probably impossible until 2008 because of Bush and veto power. But after the White House is ours...no more excuses!

  by Mikesco on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:56:49 PM PDT

•  HR676 U S National Healthcare Insurance Act

  I agree and offer this as the means to get it

  With the re-introduction of  Rep. John Conyers’ HR 676: The United States National Healthcare Insurance Act -- enhanced Medicare for All we have a chance to get it now.
  Please ask your Senators and Representatives to support HR676

  Ask all candidates for the Presidency to pledge their support.HR 676, a single-payer system of privately-delivered, publicly-financed healthcare.

  by danmac on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:14:29 PM PDT

•  I

  think if you take a long hard look at countries that have universal health care it is hard to come to the conclusion that these systems are fundamentally more caring or effective than a privatized system.

  If this kid was in Britain for example, while he may have had the "right" to a "free" tooth extraction, he would probably have been on a 2 year long waiting list and may have died just the same.

  They way you structured the poll is typical of those that advocate universal healthcare:  anyone that is opposed must be a morally reprehensible monster that hates the poor. This is not true. I am opposed to it for many reasons but I do not hate the poor. In Britain, the poor neighborhoods have worse health care than wealthy neighborhoods. Socialism is not a cure-all for humanity's ills. I wish it were, but it is not.

  I probably won't convince you of anything, but you should at least watch this video.
  Waiting for Surgery in Canada

  and read this article- Canada is moving away from single payer - it was recently ruled unconstitutional.

  And just because this site is obviously against socialist medicine does not mean that it isn't worth reading some of the articles here.

  by FHayek on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:32:04 PM PDT

  •  This is

    the flip side of something I see a lot of on DKos: the belief that universal health care must necessarily be single payer.  Single payer is just one possibility among many to achieve universal coverage.  You point out that Canada is moving away from single payer; the UK is also trying to bring some competition into its system.  Other countries in Europe have systems that involve more or less state control, including the Netherlands, which achieves near-universal coverage with largely private insurance.  
     Two plans currently on the table nationally--by Edwards and Wyden--call for universal insurance through both public and private means.  
     I hope you're open to being brought around on this one.  There are universal coverage options that still preserve individual choice and that will (hopefully) avoid some of the failures of overly centralized systems.

    by andy76 on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:55:07 PM PDT

    •  I

      think you have a point.

      That being said, I'd have to really look at the fine print to see if the laws would truly foster a competitive system that wasn't hampered by gov regulations too much. The devil is in the details.

      As it stands now, healthcare is probably the most regulated industry in America.  On top of that, government already finances almost 50% of total healthcare expenditure through medicare and medicaid. Government effectively sets the price floor for the entire country. If we could do away with many of the laws that restrict interstate competition between insurance companies and also get rid of many of the laws that mandate certain types of coverage as well as reduce by a large amount the funding of healthcare through medicare/medicaid than it might be a better situation than now. The other issue is that there are very few cost incentives or price awareness in medical care. If consumers don't have an incentive to shop around or profit from behaviours that reduce their health care costs, then they will have little incentive to reign them in.  Maybe it would be best to have a mandatory high deductible/catastrophic event plan and then let people choose additional coverage on top of that.

      By Jane Zhang and Vanessa Fuhrmans
      Word Count: 1,396  |  Companies Featured in This Article: Humana , UnitedHealth Group , Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck

      WASHINGTON -- As pressure grows for the government to pick up more of the nation's health-care tab, new data show its contribution is already at 45% and is expected to approach 50% within 10 years.

      The government's widening role in financing health care stems from the recent expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs, the growth of relatively new initiatives like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, increased spending by enrollees in programs like Medicaid -- which covers many of the sickest patients -- and cutbacks in employer-sponsored health coverage.

      Overall, health spending in the U.S. is expected to double ...

      link

      by FHayek on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:12:18 PM PDT

  •  You soud like

    A REPUBLICAN you started out with a lie

    by roxnev on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:05:59 PM PDT

•  Let post every artical

  About our piss poor health care

  by roxnev on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:03:21 PM PDT