Healthcare Is Still An Issue

While many have been understandably focused on Katrina, Roberts, and Iraq lately, some interesting information has come out recently shedding some light on the healthcare situation in this country. It's certainly not the most exciting story to be following right now, but it is, over the long run, perhaps the most important. An article in New York Newsday sums it up well.

Health insurance is becoming ever more unaffordable for workers.

Premiums have soared 73 percent since 2000, far outpacing the rate of inflation and wage growth, which grew at 3.5 percent and 2.7 percent respectively, according to the 2005 Annual Employer Health Benefits Survey, released yesterday.

Meanwhile, more companies are shifting costs to employees - requiring they shell out more for office visits, deductibles and drugs - and fewer are offering insurance coverage at all.

"Health insurance is becoming more expensive for the average person," said Gary Claxton, co-author of the survey, which was sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust.

And some the companies putting more of the burden on their employees aren't the ones you might think. Costco, which champions fair wages as good business practice, and Starbucks, which famously offers health coverage to employees who work more than twenty hours per week, are two companies that are looking to legislators to help them solve this problem.

To put their dilemma in perspective, Starbucks is now paying more for employee healthcare than they are raw materials for their coffee. This is a similar statistic to the one constantly cited about General Motors. About $1,500 of every GM vehicle sold goes to paying for employee and retiree healthcare costs. Figures like this are constantly cited by anti-labor conservatives, who view such healthcare expenditures as excessive and frivolous. But companies shouldn't have to choose between happy shareholders and healthy employees.

The Republican response to the healthcare crisis is nearly always blame shifting. The President and his cabal in Congress constantly claim that the rising cost of healthcare is due to malpractice lawsuits. There is overwhelming evidence however, to prove that is completely untrue. In fact, rising healthcare costs have been matched by record profits for private health insurers.

The only reason they blame malpractice suits is that trial lawyers are an overwhelmingly Democratic constituency. That's not news to anyone, but it is important to make the case, over and over again, until everyone understands it, that Republicans are completely devoid of innovative healthcare ideas at a time when it is one of the most pressing issues facing both the American people and economy. For them, the nation's healthcare problems just serve as another excuse to beat up Democrats.

This is also so important right now as it relates to the news that Democrats are now more trusted than Republicans on almost every major issue, from the economy to Iraq. Our party's largest advantage is in the area of healthcare. Only 28% of voters see the GOP as preferable to the Democrats when it comes to handling healthcare.

The GOP has thrown up road blocks and smoke screens every time the Democrats have pushed a national healthcare agenda. But now, with the problem continuing to get worse and the GOP having such little credibility on any issue, much less one that has historically favored Democrats, healthcare has to go right back to the top of our platform. It's no longer just a matter of doing what is morally right, making sure that healthcare is a right and not a privilege. It's also a matter of maintaining a competitive economic edge in global marketplace full of nations who wouldn't dream of putting the burden of healthcare on private business.



Display:


Healthcare - Why Employer Based? (3.00 / 1)

This gets at the heart of what I see as the fundamental irrationality of our system:

It's also a matter of maintaining a competitive economic edge in global marketplace full of nations who wouldn't dream of putting the burden of healthcare on private business

For the moment please put aside any historical reasons which have led to our current system in which employers are the gatekeepers for healthcare. If we were designing a system from scratch that would attempt to ensure all Americans had good, available healthcare would ANYONE seriously suggest that American business is a logical place to handle healthcare insurance and healthcare reimbursement? It makes no sense to saddle business with this burden and it should be clear that it leaves people at the mercy of their employers and stifles both job mobility and the entreprenurial impulse.

Both business and individuals are fed up with the current system. Democrats will only gain by standing up for the right of ALL Americans to receive good healthcare. Americans of all political persuasions are deeply concerned and deeply insecure about maintaining access to healthcare for themselves and their families no matter what happens to the job market or their own jobs. In this age of employment insecurity most of us worry that our lives and the lives of our families will be endangered if we lose our jobs.

What a powerful disincentive for anyone to be entreprenurial. People feel they must cling to their jobs or lose their access to healthcare. They fret that if their job goes then the most minor of health problems will cause them financial hardship. This isn't theoretical. People are deeply concerned.

Why aren't Democrats speaking for them on this issue and boldly proposing solutions that will free Americans to pursue their dreams without fearing for the health of their families?

by Curt Matlock on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 02:23:38 PM EST

Re: Healthcare - Why Employer Based? (none / 0)

Because the insurance companies don't want National Healthcare because of the big money maker it is.  They bribe... I mean, lobby GOP and Republican senators to make sure this doesn't happen.  I hope I am wrong, but the evil bastards of our party who are whores to the insurance companies will fight the rest of the party from doing this.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 04:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not just Republicans. (none / 0)

Some of Lieberman's biggest contributors in 2004 were drug companies.
by craverguy on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 04:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Healthcare - Why Employer Based? (none / 0)

Good question, it is an historical leftover. I do not understand why my health insuere is part of my employer's (if I have one) 's business.

One job I had, the Personnel head said he would rather just pay everyone the extra $$ and let us buy it. GREAT IDEA!

Gov't care is not the only alternative. How about like car insurance, it's all independent. Tax breaks/credits for premiums, like employers get now, but only to the insured. Keep the companies out of it.  Have a basic regulatory set of plans that would allow clear comparison. You would select your plan and your employer would pay them, but no business arrangement between employer and insurer, no sweetheart coprorate-accounted funny money.
No cherry-picking empoyers with all young people, less reason for age discrimination due to ins costs. Have a few tiers, like life ins is now, smoking, age, a high-risk pool for the chronic.

They want a free market, well, let's try it. We're nowhere near a free market now.  If that flops, we tried. Then go Medicare for all.

by astuar on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 02:21:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Grassroots priorities (none / 0)

I live in Corvallis, OR. Health care HAS risen to the top of the agenda for local Democrats in my community. We are also concerned about the Iraq war,  our energy/environmental crisis, and improving education.

We see opportunities for job creation by expanding access to health care and reducing health care costs, encouraging innovative energy alternatives, and offering high-quality effective education to students of all ages.

We see a corrupt and out-of-touch government with its priorities backwards, squandering our hard-earned taxpayer money on an unnessesary war and tax cuts for the wealthy, instead of investing in our communities and our future.

Health care for all, clean and sustainable energy, and high-quality education are our priorities, and we are beginning to find our voice. We are seeking quality representation of these views from our future statewide and national leaders.

Check out Future Roots, for rootsrockreggaegrass from the heart of Oregon's beautiful Willamatte Valley!
by robin oz on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 02:46:30 PM EST

pretty big issue in VA this year (none / 0)

And that's at a state level:

 Election 2005

Most Important Issue
Economy     28%
Health Care     15%
Education     14%
Taxes     11%
Transportation     8%
Immigration     7%
Same Sex Marriage     6%
Gun Ownership Laws     5%
Abortion     4%
Not Sure     3%

RasmussenReports.com

   

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 03:16:54 PM EST

Re: pretty big issue in VA this year (none / 0)

Its sickening that that many people think Gay Marriage is more important than the economy, health care or education.  
by yitbos96bb on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 04:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pretty big issue in VA this year (none / 0)

If I had a same-sex partner and we wanted to get married but couldn't, it would be the biggest issue for me.
by nocloset on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 05:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pretty big issue in VA this year (none / 0)

Fair point.  I was thinking of the view point of opposing Gay marriage with the poll.  But I guess the Issue poll would include those who supported it as well.  

I ammend... I can't believe people would actually think opposing Gay marriage is more important than education, the economy etc.

by yitbos96bb on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 11:26:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pretty big issue in VA this year (none / 0)

Well, it's not just the anti-gay marriage people.  I can understand why same-sex marriage might be a top issue for a gay man or woman, can't you?
Matt Flynn
by Flynnieous on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 05:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's time for Dems to start calling GOP.... (none / 0)

Obstructionists!!!!!  It's time we throw it back in their faces!!  They are obstructing good legislation to protect the citizens of the U.S.

Protect from shady corporations, health insurance, drug companies, etc.....call them that and frame it that way..every day!
The REPUGS are "obstructionists!"

by djhwood on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 04:36:43 PM EST

Re: It's time for Dems to start calling GOP.... (none / 0)

I just threw out a few simple suggestions in another comment: We need more frequent elections. We need to eliminate computer voting. We need to make it illegal for judges to make obviously faulty decisions, or to neglect to correct gross injustice.

Add to those: We need to have a law that says that no fat-cat can obtain better health care than you can, under any circumstances. Why should anyone get better treatment? Is a poor bloke 1/10th of a man?

The politicians don't deserve any new judges to enforce their shabby laws until we get laws like these.

by blues on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 01:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That Pew link (at the bottom)... (3.00 / 0)

...backs up something I have been thinking for a little while now, but have been hesitant to say.

Namely, I think there is a decent chance that Democrats will pick up 100 seats or more in the 2006 elections.  That means 300+ seats, which is enough to overturn a veto.  Now, the Democrats always seem to blow these chances with insider bullshit, but I think there is a chance for a group of outsiders and reformers to do our version of the 1994 Republican blowout.

I mean, look at the If Congressional Elections were held today bit:

Total 52 Dem/40 Rep/8 Other/Dunno.

Now, the Dems always do better in these generic numbers than in the actual results, but look at the breakdown...

Cons Rep     94/4/2
Mod/Lib Rep  75/18/7
Independents 27/55/18
Mod/Cons Dem 3/95/2
Lib Dem      3/97/<.5

Holy shit those are good numbers!  For example, Mod/Cons Dems are voting Dem more than Cons Reps are voting Rep!  Indies are voting 2 to 1 Dem (and Indies decide it)-with another 18% considering it (or "not voting", by picking a minor party canidate).  Independents usually decide elections.  And six times as many borderline Republicans are voting Dem than borderline Dems are voting Rep, with three and a half times as many more considering it!  And basically no Liberal Dems are considering voting Green or something else.

by Geotpf on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 09:19:24 PM EST

Re: That Pew link (at the bottom)... (none / 0)

But all those voting computers, with weird memory cards, hackable Windows programs, etc. are waiting in some dark storage bin. They will correct any political errors the voters may commit.
by blues on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 01:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.