UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE: Communistic Or Common Sense? -pt 2

Commentary and opinion by Chris Stevenson
Email pointblankdta@yahoo.com

Number 8 on a list of "things you have to believe to be a republican" is "providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, providing health care to all Americans is socialism." Now this list basically pokes fun at all the best-known standard beliefs of the republican party, government is right now content to have/or use conservative politicians and talk-radio grunts to train you to dislike good detailed plans that are actually closer to the realm of achievement than most of us think, such as free national health care.

Part one of this essay disclosed how the reforming of the prescription drug industry, pharmaceutical industry, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can become reality through the elimination of price gouging, and the reduction of review time, and overall approval time (the time of a new drug's discovery, and FDA approval). Under this rule pharmacy firms pay $330 million in user fees to the FDA over five years. It was initially thought that when Congress authorized the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) in 1992, much of those problems would be solved by now. But what may have been overlooked was the average clinical development time (FDA directed human testing), from 5.5 years to 7.2 years.

Whereas a recent study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizen revealed that bureaucracy within the health care industry cost the US almost $400 billion ($399.4 billion), $285 billion of that can be saved by National Health Insurance (NHI) annually on paperwork alone. According to these researchers that's enough to insure the whole US population, in other words don't listen to those know-it-all conservatives who claim it can't be done, we've already been paying for universal health care without even knowing or receiving it. Of course don't expect this to happen soon, the health care bureaucracy was designed to stick it to you, not convenience you. As much money as insurance companies are costing the government, don't expect Washington to turn on them, insurance executives would climb out their windows and jump at the mere thought of any benefit to the patient. At least that's what almost happened to Canada during the '60's, only it was their doctors who started the lunacy.

On July 1 1962 Saskatchewan's government introduced the first public health care program, the first Canadian province to do so. 90% of the region's doctors went on strike, but returned after 3 weeks. The bitter feelings divided a whole nation against doctors, insurance companies, and big business. Though the rest of the country followed suit, doctors started "extra-billing" in '78 in order to profit more. Eventually extra-billing was banned in '84. It's not that I'm implying that doctors shouldn't make good money, but part of what makes doctors fall into the role of villains is the medical and insurance industry running out of control (unaffordable). How are we to anticipate American doctors to react to a national health measure? The best litmus test is to initiate a national program state by state, as did Canada with provinces.

"We're already paying for universal coverage. We're just not getting it," blared Dennis Kucinich during his ill-fated presidential campaign. "We're pouring a large portion of every health care dollar into the waste of the private insurance companies, their executive salaries and stock options, their lobbying and advertising." Kucinich's plan was called "Enhanced Medicare for All." He feels this would put doctors and patients in control of the system, as opposed to insurance companies: "And it does not cost any extra money. Coverage will be more complete than private insurance plans, encourage prevention, and include prescription drugs, dental care, mental health care, and alternative and complimentary medicine." Kucinich sees his plan phased in over a ten-year period. Actually he was the only candidate in the early '04 presidential campaign to have such a detailed health care plan. I think this is a plan that should be considered even though the Congressman is out of the presidential running.

One conservative opponent Thomas Sowell snapped back with typical response: "Insurance companies... have to make money in order to keep functioning. So does every individual who was not born rich. But some people react to the word "profit" with automatic responses, like Pavlov's dog." Of course it works both ways, we all know how republicans react to the word "socialism?" Cuba of course is not as wealthy as Canada and especially the US, but for a small island of over 11,000,000 with a life expectancy of 76.1 years they do pretty good. What they have are 53 physicians per population of 1,000, and 60 hospitals per 1,000, and the infant mortality rate is 7.2 deaths per 1,000 live births (Cuba's is comparable to US figures despite embargoes, Canada's mortality rate is 2% lower than the US, according to a recent study by Dr. Gorden Guyatt. This amounts to 2,200 less deaths per year). What would you prefer, some hick label, or good coverage for free? In Canada, as in Cuba you simply do not get billed for medical coverage, it's quite possible to be able to walk into a large major hospital in Canada, literally look for the billing office and not find them until you get to a small office in the basement: "A Canadian hospital negotiates it's annual budget with the provincial health plan and receives a single check each month to cover virtually all of it's expenses," stated Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, and former staff physician at Public Citizen's Health Research Group. Sounds like sound policy to me, common sense.

Stevenson is a columnist for the Buffalo Criterion. Pointblank can be read at www.voiceoffreedom.com,email comments to Stevenson at pointblankdta@yahoo.com