Rerun
June 4th, 2009 | Editorial Cartoons | 17 Comments
Tweet
I admit that I (along with tens of millions of other Americans) have a big stake in the issue of health care reform. When the Rocky folded, I lost not only my income, I also lost my health insurance, 80% of which had been paid for by the company. Yes, I took COBRA, which is underwritten by the federal government for nine months, after which I’m responsible for the full amount. So the first thing that happens after losing my job is that my expenses go up by about $15,000 a year. Is is just me, or is there something very wrong with this system?
And that’s just the first part. Approximately sixteen months from now, if we don’t get major health care reform in the interim, my wife and I will have almost no chance of finding affordable private insurance, thanks to pre-existing conditions. Believe me, we are not alone in this. The statistics are frightening. Each year more than 20,000 Americans die from treatable illnesses because they don’t have health insurance and either wait too long to seek medical care or are refused service by providers. Almost two million Americans go bankrupt each year because of medical bills, and one and a half million lose their homes. According to a Reuters study, 62% of all bankruptcies in this country are as a result of medical costs.
We remain the only wealthy country in the world without universal health care. In almost every other industrialized country, a medical bankruptcy would be a national scandal. Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany and Japan have figured it out. All of them cover all of their citizens, at a cost well below ours, and all of them have better health outcomes by every measurable standard. Their people live longer, healthier lives, have a lower infant mortality rate, and pay far less than we do for far better care.
Yet the folks who make the most money from our shockingly incompetent health care system are gearing up one more time to fight any reform that will hit them in the pocketbook, aided and abetted by political allies in Washington. How any politician representing any district in this country can support the status quo is beyond me, but there is a reflexive disdain for change among a large group of our representatives, all of whom have the best health insurance available. American health insurers make billions from a system that denies coverage to the people who need it the most, and spend a lot of that money building up the campaign war chests of their Washington allies, not to mention funding misleading advertising campaigns to talk the public out of the reform we most desperately need. I don’t know if the despicable Harry and Louise ads will run again this time. They were devastatingly effective in derailing the Clinton administration’s attempt at reform. Something like them is surely being filmed as I write this.
I know the ads I’d make if I were in charge. This cartoon would be one of them.
Topics: Harry and Louise, health care, insurance, Obama, reform
E-mail
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
Ed,
You have lots of company in that life boat. I lost my job in June 2008. I’ve got COBRA until December, paying about 1/2 of my SSA for it. I will then have another 16 months until I am eligible for Medicare. Of course, I have a pre-existing condition, so the insurance companies don’t want to insure me at any cost. I worked and paid insurance premiums for 45 years. Now, I can’t get insurance.
What a great system we have!
“Socialism” is starting to look pretty good. Not likely to be in time though.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Congress passed, or was in the process of passing, a bill that would not allow insurance companies to reject applicants based on pre-existing conditions?
March 17, 2009 – WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Legislation that would require health insurers to provide coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions was introduced in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday by Democratic lawmakers.
The measure is not expected to pass on its own, but its language or something similar could be folded into a sweeping healthcare overhaul expected to come before the House of Representatives and Senate by this summer.
“Introduced” is the operative word….
Ah. Thank you for clearing it up Jerry. One could hope that the measure would be passed but somehow, I’m not very optimistic.
My family is Canadian. Let me tell you all from experience. What you like to call universal health care really really sucks. You do not want any of this nonsense.
How illuminating!!
It really really sucks? Whata bout it sucks? Compared to what? No care at all?
I just saw one of the new “Harry and Louise” ads showing folks from Canada and Great Britan. I’m sure a that you can find two bad stories out of millions.
How about 30 million bad stories?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but every time I have to deal with the government for a Drivers License, etc, it’s a horrible experience.
Long lines. rude workers that could care less and red tape miles long and somehow I am expected to believe that the government can deliver cheaper and better health care than what we have now?
Liberals will love it until their one of their elderly parents are denied life saving surgery because the government determines that the money would be better spent on someone younger so it would be worth it.
No thanks, I dont want that.
Feel corrected – as you are wrong.
In the first place, elderly parents are already under Medicare and have nothing to do with the conversation but the issue you pose might be one we should be having.
I haven’t heard any discussion about changing the delivery system just the payment system. You think today’s insurance companies are any less rude, and more caring than government workers?
While we are on government workers, which really isn’t relevant but they are our military, our law enforcement, our firefighters, our teachers just to name a few.
P.S. When is the last time you stood in a long line for a driver’s license? I’m in a backward State and we have been renewing for years by mail.
You are fooling yourself if you think the Government is not going to ration health care when everyone has access to it.
Name a single government run health care system in the world that does not have rationing?
In you go to Yahoo.com and watch the article on the hundreds waiting in line for hours for free health care. Welcome to your future.
Sounds like fun.
Clueless!
If you don’t think that the insurance companies are rationing health care today, you are sadly mistaken.
What article on waiting lines?
I’m always astonished by the comments of folks opposed to health care reform. It usually comes down to the badly misinformed notion that people in countries with universal health care endure long waits for essential services, or that any change means government-run health care, or that there will be rationing if we insure everyone. let’s take the latter first. We have obscene rationing now. 22,000 Americans die every year of unnecessarily of treatable illness because of lack of health care. Many, many others are sicker than they need be because of lack of access. We have a 40% higher infant mortality rate than Canada, a lower life expectancy than any other industrialized nation. Then there’s the economic catastrophe of two million bankruptcies and more than a million home foreclosures directly attributable to medical costs. Every country rations medical care; we do it in the worst imaginable way.
Now let’s talk waits. It’s true that people Canada and England endure longer waits for non-essential care than those of us who are insured in this country, although the scare stories circulated by those who oppose reform are greatly exaggerated. Frankly, I’m willing to trade a longer wait for shoulder surgery in return for coverage for all, economic security, and the better overall health results other countries have.
Now, for the third argument–that government-run health care means hopeless bureaucracy. Nobody is talking about government-run health care. What’s being proposed is a government health insurance plan in addition to private plans. If your employer provides one, or you have your own, you can keep it if you want, or you can choose the government plan. The fear-mongers in private insurance are terrified that they’ll lose their massive profits if a government plan that will insure everyone takes off. Too bad. Perhaps if they didn’t spend a quarter of their revenue employing armies of accountants whose sole job is to deny you coverage, they’d be able to compete in a leaner environment.
Why Americans continue to put up with the most irrational, expensive and unproductive health care in the industrialized world is beyond comprehension.
When I first saw the column, I couldn’t figure out if Ed was talking about a future health program here in the US, or was he talking about what is going on today in Britain, France, Germany and Canada. There are 15% of the people who are uninsured here in this country, and we are about to change 100% of the system for these 15%. Just insure the 15% who do not have converage if they so choose. It’s that simple. My sister has lived in Canada for 40 years and she comes to the US for all her health needs. The waiting list for a heart procedure is 9 months in Canada. People just come over the border and in 5 days get their procedures done here in the US. Britain just announced that if you have breast cancer and you only have 3 or 4 years to live, you are not going to get care over someone younger. Socialized medicine has failed the test in every country that it has been tried in and Europe is leaving that failed experiment and we are going full speed ahead into that which does not and has proven not to work. Oh, by the way, my sister in Canada pays 65% of her gross wages to the govt. And that is 65% without the debt that we are going to have to pay off to finance this debacle. We should all have a fair shot to START equally in life, but not where we FINISH.
I haven’t heard about the “change the 100% for these 15%” – where did you get that?
What is a “heart procedure”? Whe your sister got it in 5 days, what did it cost?
“Socialized medicine has failed the test in every country that it has been tried”. Where are the facts for this sttement? Based upon what criteria?
“65% of gross wages to the govt”? How do arrive at that number? You imply it is their health care. Point me to some place to bear out your “facts”.
If you truly believe that today, in America, we all have a fair shot to start equally in life, you are either delusionjust choose to ignore the facts. Besides, no one is talking here about where you finish, just that everyone should have an equal chance to finish. It’s tough to stay in the race if you are dead.
Wow, where to begin. Tony, if the only issue with American health care were the uninsured, I might agree with some of what you say. However, we are not about to change the system for those 15%. ALL of us are deeply affected by the absurdity of our system. To start with, there’s the cost–twice as much as anywhere else in the industrialized world. Second, the results–the very worst outcome at that cost, in every measure of public health. We have the shortest life spans, the highest infant mortality rate, the longest hospitalizations, lowest immunization levels, all the while performing the most and most expensive procedures. This costs all of us in time, money, productivity, lost man-hours at work, not to mention greater risks of catching communicable diseases. It hampers business, and distorts the economy in fundamental ways. And none of this addresses the underinsured, which accounts for yet another 7% of the public, not to mention the bankruptcies, foreclosures and economic distress major illnesses force on even the well-insured–economic outcomes tolerated in no other industrialized nation.
The question is not whether we want the Canadian system; we can debate its merits within the context of the real question: do we want the American system? My answer is a definite NO! The next question is what do we want to replace it.
ok, late at night here, and trying to work my way around something. Seen clips of the Pres’s speach today about the new goverment run HC. One of the things he seemed to say, it won’t effect current Heath plans, just those that are uninsured. Ok, what I’ve been thinking, what’s in it to stop employers from dropping their coverage (that they are paying alot for, my boss is paying though the nose for me and the rest of my co-workers) and saying “Well, you can get it for free? why should I pay for it?”
Yeah, sounds bad, and alot of people will point out how who would give up a good Health Care for something so so….but the thought that is hitting me now, why pay for a caddy, when a KIA will do?
Just wondering if anyone else has thought this, and arguments against?
So, why is you boss paying through the nose for you? He’s just a nice guy? Likely there are petitive pressures in order to keep great workers like yourself. But, you’re right, he could just stop paying through the nose and keep all that money for himself.
The part I’d like to hear more about is that you can then get it for free. I really like that. Can you guide me to where I can learn more about free coverage for working folks making a nice wage?
Today, you’re driving a caddy and 50 million folks are walking. A KIA looks pretty good from here.
I just got through reading this article:
“Citi boosting salaries to offset lower bonuses”
Why wouldn’t the same thing happen if Citi wanted to get out of providing health care insurance?