Wednesday, February 4, 2009

With Liberty and Health Care for All

Amid all the talk about stimulus and the debate on Capitol Hill about the most effective way to create jobs, one important campaign topic is being ignored in much of the mainstream media. The issue of health care has been pushed to the background of much of public political discourse in favor of the ongoing economic troubles. However a recent study done by the research arm of the California Nurses Association shows us that those two issues may not be as mutually exclusive as once thought. Their study chronicles how the single payer system of health care can not only solve the current health care crisis but also the economic crisis.

For those unfamiliar with health care talk, the single payer system refers to the government being the sole financial provider for everyone's medical needs. This is an idea that has been supported by many for quite some time and with good merit. Such elected officials as Congressman Dennis Kucinich(D-OH) and former Congresswoman and Green Party Candidate for president Cynthia McKinney as well as current Senator Bernie Sanders have all supported at one time or another the single payer system. If the single payer system could help the economic peril the United States is in, there is little argument as to the effectiveness of such a change in health care policy.

The actual research done by the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy make a compelling argument as to the financial benefits of the single payer system. The first point they make is of the impending job growth that would result. The study claims that 45 million new jobs would be created directly into the health care industry as well as to other related industries. The study also shows that this job creation would provide the needed boost in tax revenue that so many local, state and federal governments desperately need. According to the study in 2006 alone, taxes from the health care sector totaled $824 billion dollars.

In addition to the growth and stimulant it can be to the economy, converting to a health care for all single payer system would actually cost less money than many of the "bail-outs" that are going on now. To convert the nation to a single payer system would cost the government about $63 billion dollars. Mind you, this is after AIG was given $150 billion and Citigroup was given $350 billion. In fact, if the federal government only sought to provide for the 47 million Americans who do not currently have health care, than the price tag would go down to about $44 billion. All of these figures don't begin to address the money private business owners would save in real profit since they don't have to worry about insurance packages for their employees.

Through all of this analysis we haven't begun to touch on the social relevance of having a healthy society. I understand that in the United States the business of America is business. However some things should be so necessary to everyday life that they simply shouldn't be "for-profit". The health and welfare of a society is one of those things. Generally, this type of issue is largely debated by conservatives who aren't for the type of government spending it would take to do something like this, but even the most cynical observer would agree that the United States is already in a "spend or die" situation. Since the nation must spend, why not do it in a way that not only address the economic needs but finally puts an end to ridiculous reality that one of the richest nations on Earth has some of the poorest health care around. This should be the type of bi-partisan effort everyone rushes to get behind.

To read the study for yourself:
http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

A single payer system would not only have to cover the 47 million people in the United States who currently do not have healthcare but also the remaining 260 million minus those who receive medicare or other government sponsored healthcare. The problem this imposes would be one of conventional economic theory, a person will consume a good up to the point where marginal cost is equal to their marginal benefit. If the said person's marginal cost is 0 dollars as it would be under a single payer system, the person would consume an inefficient amount of healthcare resulting in over expenditure. The last thing the government needs to concern itself with is further expansion.

Anonymous said...

> Subject: First lady Michelle Obama wears Chinese designer Jason Wu's dress on the cover of Vogue magazine while most Chinese in China think blacks are Devils.
> > It's really tragic and sad that America's
> first
> > black first lady would choose to wear and continue to
> > support a designer from a country (China), that thinks
> all
> > black people are "black Devils", many
> Chinese also
> > avoid sitting next to black people on city buses, many
> > Africans suffer the indignity of being quizzed by
> Chinese
> > that believe that Africa is a primitive place that
> lacks
> > modern cities and transport,there is also official
> Chinese
> > police harassment where Africans are evicted from
> living in
> > rental apartments after Chinese residents complain to
> the
> > police of "the black devils making too much
> > noise", Taxi cabs will not stop to pick up
> Africans
> > claiming that they might be cheated and signs on
> public
> > buildings where Africans live in China read "you
> have entered an area that
> > is under 24 hour security surveillance".
> > All of this horrific information about chinese-black
> > relationships can be found in an African magazine that
> was
> > passed out during fashion week in NYC at
> > www.arisemagazine.net search "The Eastern
> Promise" pages 75-79.
> Last week the NY Post newspaper owned by Rupert Murdock and
> his Chinese wife Wendy Deng ran a cartoon of President Obama
> as a monkey killed by the NYC police department.

> >
> >Question:
> Why would a black woman, America's first black first
> > lady continue to support a designer from a country
> that
> > think black people, African people are primitive and
> > monkeys?
>
> >Question:
> Why would an Ivy league educated black woman choose to
> > educate her black daughters about J.Crew, before she
> > educates them about legendary black designers like Mr.
> > Arthur McGee and Mr. Scott Barrie?
>
> > Black Artists Association NYC first presented these
> > questions to the fashion media and we were mis-quoted
> in a
> > WWD newspaper article written by Rosemary Feitelberg
> with silly quotes like "We are the world",
> "Kumbaya" and "It was our moment", and
> > threaten with DEATH and attacked on the streets of NYC
> for
> > asking "why America's first black first lady
> is not
> > wearing or supporting black designers?"
> No one in the black media/blogs fact checked the WWD story
> before attacking BAA or Amnau Eele.
>
> > After 232 all white American presidents, 232 all white
> > American first ladies and the 232 all white designers
> that
> > dressed those 232 all white American first ladies,
> > "CHANGE" came for everyone on JAN 20, 2009
> in
> > America, except the American black designer.
>
> > Black Artists Association look forward to presenting
> these
> > questions and the sad stories of the hatred on the black
> media/blogs that were directed BAA's way to the White
> House and the people of D.C. at our
> > first " Washington, D.C. Fashion forum" in
> April
> > 2009.
> > At this forum , BAA will announce the winning black
> designer
> > or black design student that will have a chance to
> dress one
> > of BAA's artists that is up for an Emmy nomination this
> year
> > in L.A. CA.
> > At Black Artists Association we hope to demonstrate
> the
> > TRUE definition of "CHANGE".
> >
> >
> > Thank You,
> > Black Artists Association

Anonymous said...

For real talk contact:
BAA
Amnau Eele
Office: 212-330-7137

Anonymous said...

To anonymous' rant about black designers where did you come up with the number of 232 American Presidents?