To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
As
an ardent advocate of single-payer healthcare for many years, I am more
than a little frustrated by Washington insiders--beholden to healthcare
corporations--telling the American people that passing single-payer
healthcare reform, specifically HR. 676, the United States National
Health Care Act, can't happen. The fact is they are standing in the way
of it happening.
As
an ardent advocate of single-payer healthcare for many years, I am more
than a little frustrated by Washington insiders--beholden to healthcare
corporations--telling the American people that passing single-payer
healthcare reform, specifically HR. 676, the United States National
Health Care Act, can't happen. The fact is they are standing in the way
of it happening.
They cite specious reasons like we're an entrepreneurial nation and
need a uniquely American solution, or we can't afford it, or
single-payer won't work in the U.S. Well it works quite well in the
form of Medicare, an incredibly popular and uniquely American program.
In a nutshell, HR 676 basically improves and expands Medicare to cover
everybody.
The say it can't happen because Americans don't want it. Polling indicates otherwise; a January 30, CBS poll shows significant support:
Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government
providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the
government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who
say such insurance should cover all medical problems.
In January 1979, four in 10 thought the federal government should
provide national insurance. Back then, more Americans thought health insurance should be left to private enterprise.
Besides being the moral and compassionate thing to do (two values which
Americans used to embrace), single-payer healthcare makes good business
sense. In this study (PDF), research shows single-payer healthcare/Medicare for all would:
The U.S. already spends far more on healthcare than any other nation;
yet with all our power and treasure, we are the lone wealthy
industrialized nation that does not ensure healthcare for all of our
citizens. Fifty million Americans are currently uninsured, and twenty
two thousand of those Americans die every year because they do not have
access to healthcare.
Meanwhile, CEOs of healthcare corporations earn $3.3 million to $22.2 million in salary per year, paltry amounts compared to their stock options.
When a CEO earns $1.6 billion in stock options ("Business 2006: Who
Won, Who Lost," Associated Press, December 2006), who loses? The
average American, that's who--the people who are dying, getting sick
from lack of preventative care, facing bankruptcy from medical bills,
losing their jobs and their homes. They are Americans who can't afford
"health insurance" and certainly can't afford large contributions to
senatorial, congressional, and presidential campaigns.
These CEOs and their corporations have senators like Max Baucus (D-MT)
in their pocket. Baucus flatly refuses to even discuss single-payer as an option. The time to take this option off the table is after an honest debate of the pros and cons of HR 676, not before.
So why does the lock-down exist? Could it be because many members of
Congress and the Senate are dependent on healthcare corporations for
contributions to their election campaigns? HR 676 is a simple elegant
solution to what ails us. Congress appears hell-bent on creating a
complicated and convoluted program, which won't work because it
includes for-profit healthcare corporations as the centerpiece.
All evidence suggests that the majority of Americans want single-payer
healthcare, that it would be good for all businesses (with the
exception of the healthcare corporations), and that it would stimulate
the economy. HR 676, if passed, would create a far more affordable and
sustainable system than the current alternatives, which basically puts
the healthcare corporations on the public dole and includes mandates
that force people who already cannot afford insurance to buy it.
If there ever was an opportune moment for guaranteed healthcare for
all, now is that moment. Too bad our elected officials refuse to do
what they were elected to do--represent us, instead of the interests of the very powerful and wealthy healthcare corporate lobby. Let your member of Congress know that single-payer healthcare/Medicare for all should, at the very
least, be an option that should be discussed. While you're at it, give
Max Baucus a call.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
As
an ardent advocate of single-payer healthcare for many years, I am more
than a little frustrated by Washington insiders--beholden to healthcare
corporations--telling the American people that passing single-payer
healthcare reform, specifically HR. 676, the United States National
Health Care Act, can't happen. The fact is they are standing in the way
of it happening.
They cite specious reasons like we're an entrepreneurial nation and
need a uniquely American solution, or we can't afford it, or
single-payer won't work in the U.S. Well it works quite well in the
form of Medicare, an incredibly popular and uniquely American program.
In a nutshell, HR 676 basically improves and expands Medicare to cover
everybody.
The say it can't happen because Americans don't want it. Polling indicates otherwise; a January 30, CBS poll shows significant support:
Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government
providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the
government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who
say such insurance should cover all medical problems.
In January 1979, four in 10 thought the federal government should
provide national insurance. Back then, more Americans thought health insurance should be left to private enterprise.
Besides being the moral and compassionate thing to do (two values which
Americans used to embrace), single-payer healthcare makes good business
sense. In this study (PDF), research shows single-payer healthcare/Medicare for all would:
The U.S. already spends far more on healthcare than any other nation;
yet with all our power and treasure, we are the lone wealthy
industrialized nation that does not ensure healthcare for all of our
citizens. Fifty million Americans are currently uninsured, and twenty
two thousand of those Americans die every year because they do not have
access to healthcare.
Meanwhile, CEOs of healthcare corporations earn $3.3 million to $22.2 million in salary per year, paltry amounts compared to their stock options.
When a CEO earns $1.6 billion in stock options ("Business 2006: Who
Won, Who Lost," Associated Press, December 2006), who loses? The
average American, that's who--the people who are dying, getting sick
from lack of preventative care, facing bankruptcy from medical bills,
losing their jobs and their homes. They are Americans who can't afford
"health insurance" and certainly can't afford large contributions to
senatorial, congressional, and presidential campaigns.
These CEOs and their corporations have senators like Max Baucus (D-MT)
in their pocket. Baucus flatly refuses to even discuss single-payer as an option. The time to take this option off the table is after an honest debate of the pros and cons of HR 676, not before.
So why does the lock-down exist? Could it be because many members of
Congress and the Senate are dependent on healthcare corporations for
contributions to their election campaigns? HR 676 is a simple elegant
solution to what ails us. Congress appears hell-bent on creating a
complicated and convoluted program, which won't work because it
includes for-profit healthcare corporations as the centerpiece.
All evidence suggests that the majority of Americans want single-payer
healthcare, that it would be good for all businesses (with the
exception of the healthcare corporations), and that it would stimulate
the economy. HR 676, if passed, would create a far more affordable and
sustainable system than the current alternatives, which basically puts
the healthcare corporations on the public dole and includes mandates
that force people who already cannot afford insurance to buy it.
If there ever was an opportune moment for guaranteed healthcare for
all, now is that moment. Too bad our elected officials refuse to do
what they were elected to do--represent us, instead of the interests of the very powerful and wealthy healthcare corporate lobby. Let your member of Congress know that single-payer healthcare/Medicare for all should, at the very
least, be an option that should be discussed. While you're at it, give
Max Baucus a call.
As
an ardent advocate of single-payer healthcare for many years, I am more
than a little frustrated by Washington insiders--beholden to healthcare
corporations--telling the American people that passing single-payer
healthcare reform, specifically HR. 676, the United States National
Health Care Act, can't happen. The fact is they are standing in the way
of it happening.
They cite specious reasons like we're an entrepreneurial nation and
need a uniquely American solution, or we can't afford it, or
single-payer won't work in the U.S. Well it works quite well in the
form of Medicare, an incredibly popular and uniquely American program.
In a nutshell, HR 676 basically improves and expands Medicare to cover
everybody.
The say it can't happen because Americans don't want it. Polling indicates otherwise; a January 30, CBS poll shows significant support:
Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government
providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the
government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who
say such insurance should cover all medical problems.
In January 1979, four in 10 thought the federal government should
provide national insurance. Back then, more Americans thought health insurance should be left to private enterprise.
Besides being the moral and compassionate thing to do (two values which
Americans used to embrace), single-payer healthcare makes good business
sense. In this study (PDF), research shows single-payer healthcare/Medicare for all would:
The U.S. already spends far more on healthcare than any other nation;
yet with all our power and treasure, we are the lone wealthy
industrialized nation that does not ensure healthcare for all of our
citizens. Fifty million Americans are currently uninsured, and twenty
two thousand of those Americans die every year because they do not have
access to healthcare.
Meanwhile, CEOs of healthcare corporations earn $3.3 million to $22.2 million in salary per year, paltry amounts compared to their stock options.
When a CEO earns $1.6 billion in stock options ("Business 2006: Who
Won, Who Lost," Associated Press, December 2006), who loses? The
average American, that's who--the people who are dying, getting sick
from lack of preventative care, facing bankruptcy from medical bills,
losing their jobs and their homes. They are Americans who can't afford
"health insurance" and certainly can't afford large contributions to
senatorial, congressional, and presidential campaigns.
These CEOs and their corporations have senators like Max Baucus (D-MT)
in their pocket. Baucus flatly refuses to even discuss single-payer as an option. The time to take this option off the table is after an honest debate of the pros and cons of HR 676, not before.
So why does the lock-down exist? Could it be because many members of
Congress and the Senate are dependent on healthcare corporations for
contributions to their election campaigns? HR 676 is a simple elegant
solution to what ails us. Congress appears hell-bent on creating a
complicated and convoluted program, which won't work because it
includes for-profit healthcare corporations as the centerpiece.
All evidence suggests that the majority of Americans want single-payer
healthcare, that it would be good for all businesses (with the
exception of the healthcare corporations), and that it would stimulate
the economy. HR 676, if passed, would create a far more affordable and
sustainable system than the current alternatives, which basically puts
the healthcare corporations on the public dole and includes mandates
that force people who already cannot afford insurance to buy it.
If there ever was an opportune moment for guaranteed healthcare for
all, now is that moment. Too bad our elected officials refuse to do
what they were elected to do--represent us, instead of the interests of the very powerful and wealthy healthcare corporate lobby. Let your member of Congress know that single-payer healthcare/Medicare for all should, at the very
least, be an option that should be discussed. While you're at it, give
Max Baucus a call.