I commented some months back that since the likes of General Motors and Walmart were suffering financially from high health care costs we will surely soon see proposals for a system of universal health care.
The Associated Press reports that Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is set to propose national legislation that would establish a system of “universal health care.” It appears to me, from the AP report, that Senator Wyden’s heart may be in the right place, but his head clearly is not.
As AP reports Wyden’s plan is “Called the ‘Healthy Americans Act,’ the plan would require that employers ‘cash out’ their existing health plans by terminating coverage and paying the amount saved directly to workers as increased wages. Workers then would be required to buy health insurance from a large pool of private plans.”
Wyden’s plan may provide “universal health care”, a laudable goal to be sure; but he is not proposing a one payer system that, it seems to me, would result in lower administrative costs. Wyden’s system, it would seem, will result in large financial benefits to the “private plan” administrators and savings, reportedly, to employers.
It may be that politicians’ fears of the knee jerk cries of socialism that greet proposals for a publically owned, single payer system will prevent establishment of such a system and a plan such as Wyden’s is all we can hope for.
5 Comments
December 15, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Americans would benefit from parts of European countries’ social health care systems. Of course, fully implementing such a system into the U.S.’s economy would never work as it stands now, but small increments and changes here and there would certainly be largely beneficial. Who’s going to be convinced of such a change, though, when you have corporate giants such as HealthSouth tightening their grip on clients?
December 17, 2006 at 12:47 am
If GM and Walmart are suffering from high health care cost now, imagine what it will be like when the economy slows – which they always do. Tim, having recently returned from one of those European countries with socialized medicine, I can’t agree more as to how important it is that soon America adopt some of those “sinful” socialistic trends. The real test for socialized medicine is what their people think of it. From everything I saw, they love it.
NL
December 17, 2006 at 3:26 am
Hey Natvik,
It’s been a while.
The thing that gets me about those who cry socialism at the suggestion of a national, publicly owned, one payer system of health insurance is that “private sector”, for profit health insurance system are by their nature socialist institutions.
They are collectively owned by the share holders and the subscribers collectivize their resources and risks.
The only difference between a private sector health insurance system and a publicly owned system is profit.
We USA citizens, I believe, are in no way obligated, by our Constitution, to ensure profits for services we wish to provide ourselves.
The publicly owned Medicare system enjoys administrative costs substantially lower than are those for private sector insurance programs; and we have, through our elected representatives, a say in how Medicare is operated.
Private sector insurance managers couldn’t care less about their expenses, as they may simply raise their rates.
A bit over one hundred cities in Washington state have self insured for their liability, property, and vehicles exposures through pooling their risks. During the 20 or so years of the existence of the Wash. Cities Insurance Authority, directed by a board of one representative from each city member, has made a point of deciding to pay or fight claims based upon the principle of whether or not the claim is just. Consequently, plaintiff’s attorneys do not file specious claims at near the rate that such are filed against city’s insured through private sector programs.
Private sector insurers make the decision to pay or fight based upon the economic judgment as which is more expensive.
Solidarity forever.
December 19, 2006 at 5:22 am
A bit off the topic, but an example of good socialism is the distribution of electric power in rural America by PUD’s. Collectively owned by the ratepayers and meant to serve the people – what a concept! But when the distribution of utilities is left in the hands of capitalistic corporations, the people are NOT served. Where I live there, is no broadband internet offered – none. The capitalistic tendencies are to serve where all the homes are clustered, so they where home density is high they have 3 or 4 alternatives while we have none.
One of the puzzling questions several asked me when in a socialistic country recently was why we allow our government to serve corporations instead of the people. The answer of course is politicians pimping their services for cash to the highest bidders.
Like I say, off the topic of health care – but gosh I wish I could get a decent internet connection.
Take care, glad you are doing well.
NL
December 19, 2006 at 6:49 am
Well I think I morphed the topic a bit to socialism.
PUDs came about for the very reason you do not have high speed internet access. The privately owned electrical distribution companies cherry picked. Those PUD owner/customers in densely populated, lower service cost areas share in the cost of providing service to the rural, higher cost service areas.
The Grange sponsored an initiative (I think it was number 1) which authorized PUDs so service would be provided to farmers and others who lived in rural areas.
You enjoy phone service as result of the now historic, socialist concept of “universal service”, whereby, similar to PUDs, customers in the densely populated areas subsidize service to rural areas. The universal service concept was enforced upon the telephone companies (primarily Ma Bell) through governmental regulations.
Sadly, the requirement for universal service was eliminated with “de-regulation.” De-regulation, to which it is popularly referred ,is the means that enable richer providers of a particular service to consume the smaller providers.
Immediately upon the deregulation of the cable TV industry, TCI emerged as the nations largest provider by gobbling up the once locally owned firms. There are three or four other very large cable providers who have traded service areas with each other in order to consolidate their service areas and lower costs.
Airline deregulation initially resulted in the creation of a number of low cost airlines that out competed some established airlines, many of which ultimately went bankrupt. However, since there has been steady reconsolidation.
Likewise with phone companies. Remember when Ma Bell was dismembered into regional companies, ATT for long distance, and Bell Labs which underwent a name change. Since then there has been steady reconsolidation.
Our government’s purpose is to facilitate the mining of the public treasury by corporations; and, despite a few interludes of backlash to corporate excess when regulatory restraints were imposed, that has always been the purpose of our government. It was, after all, created by the rich and powerful merchant and agricultural interests of the time.