Arguably, one of the biggest domestic issues presidential contenders will face is the debacle that is the health care industry. More and more people cannot afford health insurance, and the pResident can only stress that individuals look at health care as a commodity, to be bought at a low-cost box store.
The problem that is health care has many tentecles, from the insurance industry, to the pharmaceuticals, to hospitals and doctors groups putting profit before medical care. Earlier today, WhitesCreek asked:
Q: Who deserves the blame for the health care mess: the US government, the big drug companies or something else?
As I was purusing my favorite news outlets, I stumbled upon this James Ridgeway piece, that goes beyond WhiteCreeks question, and asks how do the presidential candidates plan to fix the major problem of the insurance industry and pharmaceuticals?
With Americans pegging health care reform as the top domestic priority, the candidates are unveiling their plans. Some are better than others, but none include the changes necessary to take on the twin scourges of the health care system: insurance providers and Big Pharma.
By changing the insurance industry and regulating the pharmaceutical industry, we will see a reduction in the cost of health care. Mostly, I have advocated for capping how much pharmaceuticals can charge for medicines, just like most other developed countries do. But, that does not alleviate the added expenses of for-profit hospitals and doctors groups that have found loopholes in the Medicare and Medicaid laws, and overcharge the government, and other, too numerous to list, added expenses. There is one sticking point that I had pointed out over at TOAAW a while back, that Ridgeway also points out before disseminating the plans of all the presidential candidates.
“Universal health care” has become the grand Democratic mantra, found on every campaign web site and repeated in every stump speech and debate. But the phrase itself is misleading—most often, it actually means “universal health insurance.” While the plans do outline some modest and not altogether meaningless reforms, especially when it comes to care for children, most are designed to preserve—and even benefit—the twin scourges of the U.S. health care system: the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. With the exception of the acknowledged mavericks Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Mike Gravel, no one has suggested anything resembling a single-payer national health care system (that is, one that is managed and administered by the federal government), which would boot out the rapacious middlemen of the insurance industry and reign in Big Pharma—the primary obstacles to quality, affordable health care in this country.
The very unfortunate thing is that the only two candidates that are promoting what most people want, as far as the health care issue, don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected.
What I find even sadder, is that not one of the so-called front-runners bother listening to the people. Instead these cadidates walk a line based on wrapping up pretty packages for the people to make us think we want something other than what we are asking for (in this case universal health care coverage as opposed to universal health care) because they may miss out on that more important contribution from the very corporations that are profiting from our trials and tribulations while trying to get care.
I think all of the candidates are underestimating the importance of the health care issue in the minds of the electorate, so they’re simply throwing out some feel-good “plans” that won’t offend any of their corporate backers.
Of the candidates who do stand a snowball’s chance, Edwards sees a potential “evolution” toward a single-payer system, but he isn’t willing to advocate it. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have some good ideas for improving the current system, but none of them are advocating the radical overhaul we desperately need, and none of them are even attempting to address the ridiculous inflation in hospital, drug, and doctor’s costs. They’re all tinkering with insurance reform, as if that will exert enough pressure to push down prices.
That’s just wishful thinking.
I’ve studied this issue as best I can, and I’m still not entirely convinced a single-payer system is the only (or even best) solution to the problem. However, the more I look into it, the more I lean that way.
I do know one thing, though: merely tinkering with insurance pools and coverage rates will not fix the underlying escalation in provider costs. Today’s high insurance rates are a symptom; the disease is a much more widespread greed which has metastasized far beyond the insurance industry.
Actually, the plans under consideration aren’t even as good as “universal health insurance”. I prefer to consider them *mandatory* health insurance. The fact that most of the plans involve employers buying insurance policies dooms them to leave large groups of people who do not have employers — the self-employed, the unemployed, and most critically, children — with the same [lack of] coverage problems they face today.
Being self-employed myself, insurance for me (my family) is a $17,000 per year expense. I can’t afford that. And then I’d have to jump through hoops to get basic care. It’s legalized extortion, as far as I’m concerned. As a small business owner, the plan available for the couple of employees I have don’t give them any sort of coverage, not to mention the insurance then becomes an unnecessary expense. If the health insurance being pushed (minimal care) doesn’t cover their needs, then it disrupts my business (absenteeism), and therefore an unnecessary, and costly, expense.
By next fall, unless one of the frontrunners drastically changes their stance, I’ll find myself holding my nose at the voting booth.
Russ, I’ll lend you my copy of Money-Driven Medicine, if you haven’t read it yet (as long as I get it back! let me know in email). The insurance industry has several tentacles in the health care industry, one of which is setting prices for procedures.
[...] the ArchCrone asks Why are none of the front-runners advocating real health care for all; Forbes tells us “A new study finds large disparities in how different states perform in [...]