The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States

[OntarioVanMan]

By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.


1. Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

Myth : The United States has the best health care system in the world.

* Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

* Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

* Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

* Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

* Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

* Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

6. Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public

* Fact: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.

* Fact: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)

* Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country

[Turtle]

1. Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship?

Because health care, universal or otherwise, is not an inalienable right, and the privilege of US citizenship does not grant you any additional rights other than the inalienable rights the country was founded upon. Just because you want it, even if you want it really, really bad, that doesn't make it a right. US citizenship is a privilege, granted by law, not a right, and any "right" granted by that citizenship is equally a privilege.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but universal health care is an emotional attempt to usurp "the strong survive, the weak shall perish," survival of the fittest mechanism of evolution and the survival of the species. Until polar bears, screech owls, big mouth bass, slugs, dogs that poop on the perimeter of truck stop parking lots, and all the rest of God's creatures have universal health care, homo sapien universal health care is still going to be a privilege and not a right. Universal health care is an invention of society, and like everything else that society has invented, it's not for everybody.

People don't want their rights infringed, so when some people have an agenda like universal health care, they use emotional buzz words like "rights" to make people feel they are getting shortchanged so they will step up and demand their rights not be infringed. It's the same reason "gay rights" exists as a term, and gays work very hard at associating "gay rights" with "civil rights", even though no such gay rights exist. It is to make gays stand up and demand their non-existent rights, and to make those who infringe upon these non-existent rights feel guilty enough to grant them those rights. Using the phrase, "as a right of citizenship" is a misdirection, a desperate, emotional attempt of using mind game buzz words to push a political agenda. There are no rights of citizenship. There are benefits of citizenship, but no rights.

I read an article just last night that said if you watch television more than 4 hours per day, versus 2 hours or less, you have a much greater chance of dying from some cardiovascular disease. The article was about how TV is killing you. No mention was made of your chances of drying from cardiovascular disease if you sit there at the computer for 4 hours and don't watch TV at all, or if you sit there for four hours and stare at the wall or read mindless romance novels. The illusory corollary is that TV is killing you, when it might very well be that someone who is already leading a sedentary life is predisposed to sit there and do nothing for 4 hours, be it watching TV, playing on the computer, or watching the paint dry that a hired painter applied, and the television itself has nothing to do with it.

The facts in the piece above do not, I repeat, do not support the conclusions drawn at the end. They do if you have an agenda and only want to look at narrow supporting data, as the conclusion is based on illusory corollary and not on a complete set of mitigating factors such as cultures and lifestyles that include everything from the commercials for burgers and fries that we are constantly bombarded with to the US Department of Agriculture's own agenda of pushing and subsidizing certain crops over others, crops which end up making a Twinkie with 38 different ingredients cheaper than a bunch of carrots or a head of lettuce. Universal health care plays no role in this, and the facts presented are done so to make you mad at not being first in the world, the best in the world, in health care.

Universal health care is not necessarily a bad thing, unless you buy into it based on being duped and manipulated by those who prey on your emotions for their own ends, which is exactly what is happening here in the US with universal health care.

Most people in the US think health care needs some kind of reform. Conservatives think the U.S. health care system needs reform because there is too much government involvement in health care, liberals because there is not enough. Ever since the 1993 debate on universal health care, polls have consistently shown that two-thirds of the American people supported the idea of universal coverage. Polls also show, consistently, that Americans do not want to pay the higher taxes to achieve this goal, which politicians and pundits alike take to be an amusing example of public inconsistency.

Actually, the public was entirely consistent. People who constantly use comparative health care statistics of other countries to show how badly the US fares, always seem to stop short of showing the fact that other nations manage to cover everybody, and manage to do so at lower cost, not the higher cost that is being presented here in the US.

[LDB]

I'd suggest a significant portion of decline is due to 1. an exponentially greater number of criminal aliens plus immigrants who have skewed the numbers negatively and 2. an exponentially overburdened system due to cause 1. A major part of the solution is to revoke prior amnesty, legislate permanently forbidding any future amnesties as well as penalties so severe all former and current criminal aliens will voluntarily flee the nation as quickly as possible.

[greg334]

This is one reason why Doctors should stay out of the debate - it isn't about medicine or who gets what but how it is paid and by who.

Unlike other countries, we do not allow anyone sick not to have access. In France and other enlighten countries, they seem to kill off their elderly while limiting access to medicines.

The doctor's stake in this is far less than the patient's and they have less to do with the real cost of medicine than the patient or their insurance company.

These numbers are not about medication or the standard of living, our standard of living is far better than even the Europeans who they want to model the system from. What these numbers are all about is how to find the worst while ignoring other factors, political and civil.

Take one thing, infant mortality, and it doesn't tell the entire picture. Most of the problems we have here with infant mortality is not a problem among the poorest (even though we don't have poor in this country) but freedom. We are not like France and other EU countries that can and do force mothers (and even fathers) to see a doctor for pre-natal care. In some cases they even tell the people what to feed the kids and provide state sponsored programs to make sure they are trained right - we don't do this and most who have access don't take advantage of them.

[Oilerman1957]

This is one reason why Doctors should stay out of the debate - it isn't about medicine or who gets what but how it is paid and by who.

Unlike other countries, we do not allow anyone sick not to have access. In France and other enlighten countries, they seem to kill off their elderly while limiting access to medicines.

The doctor's stake in this is far less than the patient's and they have less to do with the real cost of medicine than the patient or their insurance company.

These numbers are not about medication or the standard of living, our standard of living is far better than even the Europeans who they want to model the system from. What these numbers are all about is how to find the worst while ignoring other factors, political and civil.

Take one thing, infant mortality, and it doesn't tell the entire picture. Most of the problems we have here with infant mortality is not a problem among the poorest (even though we don't have poor in this country) but freedom. We are not like France and other EU countries that can and do force mothers (and even fathers) to see a doctor for pre-natal care. In some cases they even tell the people what to feed the kids and provide state sponsored programs to make sure they are trained right - we don't do this and most who have access don't take advantage of them.

We dont allow anyone who is sick access to health care?, No we dont, as long as you have money or insurance to pay for it.

We dont have poor people is this country? Thats just funny, Cant even comment on that one.

We have the highest cost per person for health care in the world.

What people are forgetting is your paying for people who dont have health insurance through your premiums anyways. Thats a fact.

[chefdennis]

You understand that The above "facts" are from a WHO (world health organization) study and that WHO is a UN organization!?!? that in itself makes the "facts" worthless and biased and have been shown to be politically based and skewed in favor of a government run system...you know a typical liberal tool tht the UN wants worldwide.......

take a look at here:

WHOm Are They Kidding?
By Glen Whitman on 3.10.08 @ 12:07AM

The American Spectator : WHOm Are They Kidding?

and here:

WHO’s FoolingWho?
TheWorld Health Organization’s Problematic
Ranking of Health Care Systems
by Glen Whitman
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

And then here:

Carroll: U.S. health care is not inferior

By Vincent Carroll
The Denver Post
Posted: 06/23/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
Carroll: U.S. health care is not inferior - The Denver Post

The most annoying claim in America's health-care debate? Easy. It's the repeated charge that the U.S. gets inferior results despite spending much more on health care than other countries.

Often this claim will be followed with the superficially appalling news that U.S. health care is ranked 37th in overall performance by the World Health Organization.

Admittedly, the United States does spend more on health care, at nearly 16 percent of its gross national product, than any other country. Even relatively big-spending Switzerland, France and Germany devote only 11 to 12 percent of GDP on health care.

On the other hand, we're also wealthier than other countries. As people grow richer — here, in Europe and any place you care to name — they tend to devote more resources to their health. So in the natural course of affairs, we should be spending more than others, although probably not as much more as we do.

But what about the allegedly inferior results? Let's first dispose of that 37th place ranking, since it's become a staple of the indictment of U.S. health care at least since Michael Moore exploited it in his movie "Sicko." To appreciate how strange the ranking is, you really have to ask yourself just one question: Would I prefer to be treated for a serious ailment or injury in Oman, Portugal, Greece, Colombia, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Chile, Dominica and Costa Rica as opposed to the United States?

If you answered no, along with most other sane people, you have begun to see the problem: All of those nations, some of them quite poor, appear above the U.S. in the oft-cited WHO ranking. Meaning the ranking must be flawed.

Glen Whitman, an economics professor at California State University, analyzed the WHO's screwy rankings in a paper published last year by the International Policy Press. As he explains, WHO based its list on five factors, three of which involve political value judgments.

For example, one of the criteria is "financial fairness," related to the percentage of household income spent on health. The use of this measurement, Whitman notes, "necessarily makes countries that rely on market incentives look inferior."

Indeed, the rankings "are designed in a manner that favors greater government involvement" in health care (Whitman's emphasis).

It gets worse. The rankings are also adjusted "to reflect a country's performance relative to how well it theoretically could have performed."

It's as if the Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA title in five games but ended up being ranked No. 2 because, in the opinion of experts, they should have swept the title in four given their talent and resources.

A more relevant comparison, Whitman argues, would be to "ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise" — by comparing, say, five-year mortality rates for specific ailments.

It turns out that some such comparisons exist. Moreover, as Nobel-winning economist Gary Becker pointed out in a recent blog post, "the U.S. health system tends to look pretty good" when measured on this basis.

"A study published in Lancet Oncology in 2007 calculates cancer survival rates for both men and women in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union as a whole," Becker wrote. "The study claims that the most important determinants of cancer survival are early diagnosis, early treatment, and access to the best drugs, and that the United States does very well on all three criteria. . . . [T]the calculated five-year survival rates are much better in the U.S."

Instead of hearing about this, we are incessantly reminded that life expectancy in the U.S. is no better or slightly worse than in a number of other advanced countries — never mind that our higher homicide and accident rates seriously distort the comparison.

The American health care system is in need of reform. It's inefficient, its costs are rising at unsustainable rates and it leaves too many people uninsured. But for all of that, most Americans do get something for the fortune they pour into health care — pretty good treatment, at least compared to the rest of the world.

E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.

[Oilerman1957]

Just one mans opinion, doesnt make it worth any more then yours or mine.

[chefdennis]

As was the 1st article....the opinion of a worthless organization...The UN....with all of its liberal anti USA bias...that is until they need money, then they are the best bud of the USA...

[Oilerman1957]

As was the 1st article....the opinion of a worthless organization...The UN....with all of its liberal anti USA bias...that is until they need money, then they are the best bud of the USA...

LOL, its always the liberals fault.

[chefdennis]

Oiler wrote:

LOL, its always the liberals fault.

WOW!!! FINALLY you got it!!!

And yea the "facts" (more b/s then facts) are from a Liberal UN and their Study.....

[mjolnir131]

I have always disputed the USA being ranked number 22-23 different writers use one of those two numbers,I mainly think that it's a snow job because when the wealthy from those countries that do have universal health care really need medical treatment allot of them come here, granted allot of our middle class go to Mexico for elective surgery so cross border doctor shopping is universal.

We can't afford this bill or any bill that has the government taking care of health care,Most of the reasoning being used for why we need to have this health care are very real issues that need tackled individually not as one overpowering bill. Yes we do overpay for allot of our medical services. They are very over priced, now granted this does let us have the newer treatments sooner but is it worth it?

Any time a governing body steals from one class to give rights to another class both classes lose.

[Oilerman1957]

Oiler wrote:



WOW!!! FINALLY you got it!!!

And yea the "facts" (more b/s then facts) are from a Liberal UN and their Study.....

You label the U.N as liberals then why not label the article as them conseratives? Its all b/s, they all have there own agenda{ more then likely it somehow puts money in there pockets} Divided we fall. The partys have succeded in doing this and people are falling for this. your on the right, your on the left, its all b/s to get you to support one party or another.

[Oilerman1957]

I have always disputed the USA being ranked number 22-23 different writers use one of those two numbers,I mainly think that it's a snow job because when the wealthy from those countries that do have universal health care really need medical treatment allot of them come here, granted allot of our middle class go to Mexico for elective surgery so cross border doctor shopping is universal.

We can't afford this bill or any bill that has the government taking care of health care,Most of the reasoning being used for why we need to have this health care are very real issues that need tackled individually not as one overpowering bill. Yes we do overpay for allot of our medical services. They are very over priced, now granted this does let us have the newer treatments sooner but is it worth it?

Any time a governing body steals from one class to give rights to another class both classes lose.

The governing class is the same as the rich class and they have been stealing from you for a longgggggggg time.

I had the opportunity to see a medical bill of a friend who had gone through the same treatment as me and i do mean all the same things were done, I had insurance and he didnt, My insurance company paid 3 times more then he did as he was on self pay. So I am already paying for his treatment through my premiums, What part of this is people not getting? IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE YOUR PAYING FOR THE ONES THAT DONT.

[mjolnir131]

Liberal is so misused today it's meaning has the connotation of coming up with new ideas to solve old problems and nothing more. the ultra left has not come up with a new idea for 30-40 years,we get the same repackaged old ideas that fail, over and over.

[chefdennis]

Oiler wrote:

its all b/s to get you to support one party or another.

hmmmm well since i don't support either and am a registered independent and a member of the "Constitution Party"...Constitution Party National Political Headquarters...

I guess they didn't do a very good job huh.....

Oh and in case you are interested,

but your pro union entitlement mentality wouldn't fit in too well....its more a group that believes in "Self Reliance" not a handout from the government or the efforts a labor organization to "share the wealth" and make "the man pay" their way.....

Constitution Party National Political Headquarters

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:


Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;

American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.