The reform of health care in this country has become a causus belli (cause of war). Circling in news reports or on the internet are videos showing lunatics shouting at politicians during town hall meetings as if their visceral reaction is a template for how the rest of America is feeling about the reform. It isn’t.  If any of these crazies would take the time to turn their TV off of Fox News and do a little research they would find changing health care coverage is in the best interest of most people in this country.

The first issue someone needs to understand is why would the free market be the best instrument to run health care? Is it good to have a company determine the future of your continuing health care needs? Is there an insurance company out there who really gives a damn about you, especially if you become a profit liability? In other words, should profitability be a component of health? Finally, what recourse does anyone have if an insurance company refuses to cover them?

Many who are opposed to reforming health care and the single payer system cite the fact the US has the best health care in the world. The reality is we don’t have the best care in the world, we have the best medical technology in the world. With much of this technology being developed in universities, this aspect of our health care system will not change if the system itself changes.

According to the World Health Organization the US ranks 37th in overall health, right behind the likes of Morocco, Chile and Costa Rica even though the United States ranks first in health expenditure per capita. As for life expectancy, the US ranks 24th. Why does the US spend upwards of 7% more on GDP for health care than those who have socialized medicine yet get less in return for our investment? The answer has a lot to do with the profit margin. Should we live in a nation where capitalism is the driving force behind the health of our citizens? If we trust the military to protect us (and it is a government institution) then what is wrong with the government protecting us through a single payer health care service that runs parallel to the private one; that acts as a competitor to the current private insurance oligopoly?

The people that are screaming at congressmen in these town hall meetings are not doing a service to anyone, especially the middle class. Shouting down those who represent them is no substitute for open dialogue. Take a lesson from Charlie Rose and not from Bill O’Reilly. There are many of us out there who are waiting for the United States to catch up to the other 26 countries (most of them socialist) whose level of health care is better than ours.

It is about time when those who really don’t give a damn about us stop defining who can and can’t get covered for health care. Barack Obama has shifted the momentum today. He, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and the Democratic Party are seizing the day and weighing options on how to move forward with health care reform. With Republicans incapable of modeling reform, the Democrats are considering going it alone. These days they can do that. With 60 votes in the Senate, the Dems can seize the day. The big question is will moderate Democrats abandon their party on this issue? There will be immense pressure exerted from the White House and from their own ranks if they stray. It is simply pathetic that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn’t have a nationalized health plan. It is even more pathetic that those who gain wealth from the system can also determine who can get covered, and even those who have insurance can find they are not covered under certain circumstances. Today, with nearly one in ten Americans out of work, the crisis of health care is even more pertinent. This issue has been warm since the election of Barack Obama. It is about to get red hot. As the Congressional August recess looms, critical mass is quickly approaching. All indicators are the President wishes to have significant movement on the issue by then. Obama has also pointed out the concept will not become effective until 2013 so that the minutiae of the plan can be carefully scrutinized and perfected.

We’re not going to solve all of them immediately overnight, and that’s why I think we have to anticipate this program’s not going to start up probably until 2013. That gives us four or five years to start developing programs to solve this problem.

Barack Obama (7/15/09)

The notion of it becoming a law and then enacted immediately is simply right-wing scare tactics.  After enduring eight years of insanity at the hands of George Bush and the Republicans and now realizing the fruits of change, it is time the Democrats do what we elected them to do since their counterparts are not organizing to adopt their own proposal but instead simply wish to stop health care reform.

Just over a year ago a poll was conducted that listed the happiest countries in the world. The US ranked 21st on the list. The top ten are Denmark , Puerto Rico, Colombia, Iceland, N. Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, and Austria. The US sits at twenty first place. What makes most of these countries happy? Most of these nations have a safety net. Most of them are socialist and provide health care for their entire citizenry. On this merit I rank the establishment of a nationally funded health care system as the number one issue in which Obama needs to address.

Many of the Conservatives will be apoplectic at the thought of national health insurance but despite the economic times (and maybe due to them) such a program is right for America now for many reasons. In order to compete against other advanced economies whose states provide health insurance (and that is most of them), US companies need to be released from the burden of providing expensive coverage for their employees.  With our manufacturing base exiting this nation at a rapid clip and finding a home in developing nations with their cheap labor, the growing cost of company provided health care makes moving overseas attractive for the manufacturers that still remain in the US. And this is not just limited to manufacturing. Segments of the service economy, the backbone of the modern US economy, are also moving to East and South Asia as well as Latin America. Eliminating the cost of health care will make staying in the US more appealing for businesses. This will enhance the American free market, not harm it. If a society doesn’t produce goods in which to trade it loses its economic foundation.

The US spends twice as much as any industrialized nation on health care per capita. Despite spending over $7000 per person per year, this nation still has more than 47 million of its citizens who are without insurance. The private companies serve as a patchwork system where greed finds a home in the halls of Washington as lobbyists work their magic to inflate prices of drugs and care. It is said that a failure to modernize and a lack of a cohesive health care system costs $1 for every three spent. The money saved in unifying a national health care system is purported to be in the neighborhood of $350 billion per year. Hospitals would no longer suffer from patients not being able to pay for expensive care and emergency rooms wouldn’t be filled with people who wait until they can no longer stand the pain before they seek care. Sure, we would see higher taxes, but the rewards to our system would be manifested in a stronger and less strapped business sector. As jobs in the 21st century are rarely life long, like the employment trends of the 20th century, many Americans have found themselves more exposed to a less than sympathetic health care system.

Those who are complaining about the stimulus package should look at the details. One large component of the bill is providing extended COBRA insurance for those who have been laid off. It simply is throwing money into the already inefficient health care system. It is time for Obama to stare down the naysayers and begin the transformation of our outdated health care. Perhaps the US can then move up the happiness scale.

When I was a kid if we didn’t eat all the food on our plate our parents would say, “Don’t you know there are people in China that are starving.” That doesn’t apply much anymore.

How much do you think you know about the world? On this Christmas Eve I’m going to start out with a quiz. For each pair tell which nation has the highest infant mortality rate.

Sri Lanka or Turkey

Poland or South Korea

Malaysia or Russia

Pakistan or Vietnam

Thailand or South Africa

Professor Hans Roslings will give you the answers in a fascinating speech about the changes occurring in the developing world. It is about 20 minutes long and divides the Third World into winners and losers. It culminates in a graph that compares the US and China and tells us what we know is transpiring, except in graph form it seems more menacing.