An Open Letter to America on Health Care

[gen. cutter]

America: What does it mean to have a constitution guaranteeing "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness" if your government and fellow countryman allow thousands of our own neighbors to die each month because they don't have health care? It is a complete disgrace of the constitution that these people lose their LIFE thru death, LIBERTY thru preventable disabling illness and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS thru ongoing pain and suffering.

Those who continue to support the FOR PROFIT system in place have bought into a lie of certain free market/capitalists- namely; that it is the only and best system for ALL industries. Capitalism is acceptable and even good in many areas of business- but NOT in health care. Our health, as the Constitution clearly implies, though it was an unknown and therefor not stated specifically at the time, must be a citizen's right, in order to guarantee those three fundamental rights, as stated above. Much in the same way shelter/housing is considered a fundamental right.

So I ask: what difference does it make if you pay for a doctor's visit thru your taxes to the government, or thru your pocketbook to a for profit corporation? No difference in care; if we have the best doctors in the world and we can write sound legislation. But a huge difference in cost; because no one in government is allowed to have a multi-million dollar salary.

This is a no-brainer, except to those with ties to the wealthy corporate health care industry, and those who believe their lies and fear mongering.

America: please consider the implications of a single payer system. If other Countries report success (ie: less cost and all covered) then we already have the proven data to create a system to match their success and even improve on the system.

We have the most expensive health care in the world, and yet rank almost last in quality of care of developed nations. We even have paying patients, fully insured, being denied care by their providers. Surely, this is enough evidence of a failed system.

What exactly are you afraid of?

[BackdoorJesus]

Health care is not a right.

Health care is a benefit given to some in addition to monetary and other incidental compensation for their employment.

It is also something a working individual can purchase for themselves with the money that they earn at their job, should their company not provide health care.

I have for the last 25 years been employed and covered for my health care. Why should my tax dollars pay for someone else who is unemployed or otherwise not covered?

[PMBalls]

Originally Posted by BackdoorJesus

Health care is not a right.

That is highly debatable.

Health care is a benefit given to some in addition to monetary and other incidental compensation for their employment.

Basic care should be given to all regardless of payment. Although if you consider health to not be a human right, as you said above, then I suppose you will disagree.

It is also something a working individual can purchase for themselves with the money that they earn at their job, should their company not provide health care.

Good luck getting anything worth having if you're paying out of pocket.

I have for the last 25 years been employed and covered for my health care. Why should my tax dollars pay for someone else who is unemployed or otherwise not covered?

Not everyone is so self-centered. You have heard of charity, yes? You give something to those who are less fortunate in the hopes that they will better themselves.

[BackdoorJesus]

Originally Posted by PMBalls

That is highly debatable.

No debate at all - there is nothing in the constitution that says a basic human right is care of one's health. Health care is a luxury, earned or paid for, but not a right.

Originally Posted by PMBalls

Basic care should be given to all regardless of payment. Although if you consider health to not be a human right, as you said above, then I suppose you will disagree.

Good supposition. Yes, I disagree with this statement with every fiber of my being.

Originally Posted by PMBalls

Good luck getting anything worth having if you're paying out of pocket.

just not a consideration for me - I seek and secure employment that ensures I am covered and I do not pay much out of pocket.

Originally Posted by PMBalls

Not everyone is so self-centered. You have heard of charity, yes? You give something to those who are less fortunate in the hopes that they will better themselves.

Not everyone has the money to throw around toward the poor and indigent, some of us are struggling to take care of our own homes and families. Sorry if you think that is self centered, but if more people felt the same way about taking care of their own homes and their own families there would be fewer people sitting around waiting for a handout from those of us that work for a living. Charity? Sure, I give through charity to my church, to the world wildlife federation, to my kid's school through fundraisers, and any number of other worthy causes. Charity is not something I need included in my income taxes.

[PMBalls]

Originally Posted by BackdoorJesus

No debate at all - there is nothing in the constitution that says a basic human right is care of one's health. Health care is a luxury, earned or paid for, but not a right.

I would say "life", from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", includes health care. Although it may be a moot point since, despite what people say, the constitution is not the Definitive Authority On All Things. Even the people who wrote it knew that, thats why we're allowed to amend it.

Good supposition. Yes, I disagree with this statement with every fiber of my being.

Thats why we're such good pals, its like we can finish each other's sentences!

just not a consideration for me - I seek and secure employment that ensures I am covered and I do not pay much out of pocket.

Through luck or your own good planning, you're in a better position than many many people. The people who had no chance at a good job? Fuck em?

Not everyone has the money to throw around toward the poor and indigent, some of us are struggling to take care of our own homes and families. Sorry if you think that is self centered, but if more people felt the same way about taking care of their own homes and their own families there would be fewer people sitting around waiting for a handout from those of us that work for a living.

I agree with the bolded part. And if those were the only people this whole thing concerned, we would be together on this issue. But there are people who are fucked eight ways from Sunday despite having the best of intentions. You want to condemn a group of a thousand people because a dozen of them don't play nice?
As for not having the money to throw around, believe me, I know what you mean, but a universal system, done right, would not cost you any more than the current system is costing you. Say you spend $1000/month on your insurance now. With the added taxes from the universal system, you have to pay the government an extra $250/month, BUT because of the new competition against the insurance companies, your personal coverage price goes down to $500/month. You just saved 25% despite having to pay other people's bills!

Charity? Sure, I give through charity to my church, to the world wildlife federation, to my kid's school through fundraisers, and any number of other worthy causes. Charity is not something I need included in my income taxes.

So you have no problem giving to those in need, you just don't want to be told to do it, and told where and how much? I can understand that, I agree with it actually. But I still think this is an issue that should be considered "worthy".

[BackdoorJesus]

That's right I don't want to be told what to give and who to give it to...I'm a grownup and can make those kinds of decisions myself.

I'll even take it down the slippery slope for you and say that I'd like to see a day where much like we currently can choose to donate to the presidential election fund or not, individuals can allocate ALL their tax dollars to the government programs they felt were important and not fund that which they felt was not essential to them. We would find out real fast how charitable everyone is then.

[PMBalls]

Originally Posted by BackdoorJesus

That's right I don't want to be told what to give and who to give it to...I'm a grownup and can make those kinds of decisions myself.

I'll even take it down the slippery slope for you and say that I'd like to see a day where much like we currently can choose to donate to the presidential election fund or not, individuals can allocate ALL their tax dollars to the government programs they felt were important and not fund that which they felt was not essential to them. We would find out real fast how charitable everyone is then.

I'd like to see that day too.

[gen. cutter]

Originally Posted by BackdoorJesus

Health care is not a right.

Health care is a benefit given to some in addition to monetary and other incidental compensation for their employment.

It is also something a working individual can purchase for themselves with the money that they earn at their job, should their company not provide health care.

I have for the last 25 years been employed and covered for my health care. Why should my tax dollars pay for someone else who is unemployed or otherwise not covered?

I think I used to agree with this statement (as a knee jerk anti-socialistic response), until I thought deeply on it. I don't think the founders could have anticipated every scenario in our future. That is why they made the Constitution living, changable. The undoing of slavery is another example.

I cannot personally believe that anyone here can honestly lay claim to be living in "the greatest Nation in the world", when MANY other nations have superior health care service for their citizens; ie: cheaper costs and ALL are covered. Those facts alone imply a change to our system.

You seem to take exception to paying for others in your taxes. The fact is: as PMB and I have noted, it is clear that public options LOWER the cost to ALL, because the government will not allow corporate level salaries or have to account for shareholders. It is just this waste of your hard earned premium dollars that accounts for even paying customers of your health insurance company to be turned down for doctor-approved procedures.

So if you get to keep more of your paycheck in the end, where's the debate? When you and other Americans finally see the monetary value of disassembling the healthcare company's scam, just don't think of healthcare as being declared a right. Think of this as a novel solution to lowering this country's outrageously unfair medical costs and attempting to reclaim our claim to: the greatest country on Earth. Hey, two birds with one stone!

[joerockhead]

Well, I do not believe that our constitution declares every citizen has to have health care.
But I do believe everyone on of them should have it available to them, and not at a price that will ruin them.

I also do not believe our US Government should pay for it or control it.

The US Government has shown time after time after time, that they cannot manage anything!!!
US Postal Service
Amtrak
Congress
Budget

Not to mention, how much control will the government have?
Who will be required to have this care?
how often do you get to have a checkup?
What procedures can you get under a "public option"?
Also, what about the poor bastard whom cannot afford coverage, but can afford enough food to be 400lbs and seriously out of shape. Does the government control that? Or how much alcohol is consumed? Tobacco? drug use?

I think that private coverage is the best, as long as it is available to all.

And if coverage is available to all, then how does that get covered?

Lots of hard questions, few good answers

Government control is NOT a good answer

[gen. cutter]

All those answers can be settled with sound legislation. Admittedly, that's asking a lot from our representatives; most of whom are embedded with big business in some way. But that's PRECISELY what this fight for a better health care industry is all about! Solid, legislation putting the people's health in the hands of their physicians.

It is clear that leaving the HEALTH of Americans in the hands of for-profit industry is woefully inept! Greed will prevail, even to the death and despair of their OWN paying customers!

If nothing else, a change in the system will send the message that their chance to show their commitment to people's health has been given; they failed, and are being replaced.

Who wants government control? And who says government WOULD be in control? Not if the laws are well written. That is the big scare tactic the health industry lobbyists would have you believe. Death panels?! Please! Read the bill and stop listening to Faux News.

I am not a fan of bigger government! HELL NO! But, leaving this is the hands of greedy corporations is equally distasteful. Simply put, this issue should be taken out of the hands of the Federal government. Each State should decide what is best for their citizens by a vote of its own. Once the great experiment is on, each State can watch carefully what the results are.

That's what big government proponents like Obama don't want to talk about. That the whole issue should be in the hands of the autonomous States. They desire the large umbrella of the Federal to grow. More waste, more taxes.

Just leave it to the States.

[joerockhead]

Originally Posted by gen. cutter

.....It is clear that leaving the HEALTH of Americans in the hands of for-profit industry is woefully inept! Greed will prevail, even to the death and despair of their OWN paying customers! ......Who wants government control? And who says government WOULD be in control? Not if the laws are well written. That is the big scare tactic the health industry lobbyists would have you believe. Death panels?! Please! Read the bill and stop listening to Faux News.

I am not a fan of bigger government! HELL NO! But, leaving this is the hands of greedy corporations is equally distasteful. ..........

Here is some info on your "Greedy"

I do not believe much that your favorite politicians say - Pelosi - Liar! Obama - Liar.

Government Option will ruin people and ruin the medical industry.
We will all pay in the end...

WASHINGTON – In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

The insurers may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

A look at some claims, and the numbers:

THE CLAIMS

_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th of 53 industries on the Fortune 500 list. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by joerockhead

Well, I do not believe that our constitution declares every citizen has to have health care.
But I do believe everyone on of them should have it available to them, and not at a price that will ruin them.

I also do not believe our US Government should pay for it or control it.

The US Government has shown time after time after time, that they cannot manage anything!!!
US Postal Service
Amtrak
Congress
Budget

Not to mention, how much control will the government have?
Who will be required to have this care?
how often do you get to have a checkup?
What procedures can you get under a "public option"?
Also, what about the poor bastard whom cannot afford coverage, but can afford enough food to be 400lbs and seriously out of shape. Does the government control that? Or how much alcohol is consumed? Tobacco? drug use?

I think that private coverage is the best, as long as it is available to all.

And if coverage is available to all, then how does that get covered?

Lots of hard questions, few good answers

Government control is NOT a good answer

Little did I believe someone else could articulate my own views so perfectly.

How wrong I was...

/salute;

[gen. cutter]

For-profit companies should not handle health care. Period.

People's health & lives are more important than profit.

Every other industrialized nation has figured this out. We, the people, have some kind of power when it comes to government; we can change policy with our vote. We have very little control over private business' policies.

For-profit companies should not handle health care. Period.

[BackdoorJesus]

No profit in health care?

Then there is no incentive for innovation. The profit motive and competition in our health care industry has put the USA at the forefront of health care technology and innovation.

Why do you think people come to the USA from other countries (that have "free" health care) to get procedures, tests and/or drugs that they can't get at home?

I'm not prepared to give up that level of quality so that we can provide health care to all at the lowest common denominator.

Sorry comrade Cutter...you'll need to do better than that to convince me.

[joerockhead]

Gen Cutter, what the hell are you smoking?

First, when $$ is involved, people come up with better ways to do things, better ways to save people, and better solutions to problems.

Free enterprise has shown that it is the best way to have this country and everything within it grow!

it is the Government that fucks it all up. They put in stupid regulations that restrict some profits, and or too much control.

Yes, there does need to be some control, but not 100% control which is about to happen.

The Health industry is NOT all that profitable.

If we continue the route we are heading, we will become the USSA - United SOCIALIST States of America.

the poor get food and housing and healthcare, it is there. Our Congress is not about to share that truth.

800 Billion dollars for 36 million people? what about the 360 Million + that are responsible and have health care? (at that percentage, we are talking TRILLIONS!)