A Brief History of Healthcare Legislation 1939-2013

The Congress (House and Senate) passed the 2010 Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare". Reference:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

FACT - elements in the 2010 ACA bill are based on the elements in the 1993 GOP Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act. This includes the individual mandate that so many people dislike.  I am not making this up.  Read it for yourself.  

Reference: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:S1770:  and for those who prefer, a summary is here.   It was the Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's proposed universal health care.  It was also the core of Massachusetts Health Care under Mitt Romney.  

FACT -  1993 GOP Health Equity and Access Reform Today is based on a 1989 document written by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank.  Again, read it for youself.    Reference:  http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans.  

By the way, on The Heritage Foundation web site at the very bottom, it  says 

"Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

This concept of national health care goes back even further.  

FACT - The Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill (1943)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1583057/pdf/canmedaj00587-0081.pdf

FACT - President Truman was strongly committed to a single universal comprehensive health insurance plan.  Reference: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm

FACT - The National Health Care Act of 1939, which gave general support for a national health program to be funded by federal grants to states and administered by states and localities. Reference:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2624243/pdf/jnma00746-0024.pdf

It isn't difficult to locate additional historic summaries of health care proposals for those interested.  Reference:  http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us

FACT - There has been over 70 years of debate on national healthcare at the federal level.  

Why Address Healthcare at the Federal Level?

Historically in our country, we have addressed major issues across society through federal legislation.  Example: giving women and blacks the right to vote had to be legislated because some states were unwilling to address the issue.  It was the right thing to do.

So, the question of the day is why do we need national health care?

- Because all people should have access to affordable quality healthcare and not have to decide between food and medicine.  

- Because an emergency room is not affordable quality healthcare.

- Because people with pre-existing conditions should not be denied health care.

- Because cancer (or anything requiring expensive treatment) is a major cause of bankruptcy.

Here is the reality.  When people are under-insured or have no insurance, they delay getting necessary health care and they don’t fill life-saving prescriptions due to cost. That leads to poor health outcomes. When people delay too long, the outcomes are catastrophic. For example, in just the state of Maine, someone dies every three days because of lack of health insurance (over 130 deaths per year). 

Another reality is that it's not just poor, lazy people who do not have health care.  

 - It's people working full-time for small companies who do not offer health benefits.  

 - It's adjunct professors at universities and colleges.  

 - It's people who work 2-3 part-time jobs while trying to land a better job after their well-paid software development job was out-sourced.  

 - It's widowed-moms or dads that have a child with serious health issues.

Opponents of universal care can argue that "socialized," "single-payer" systems -- both terms are often misused -- are inefficient and offer worse care than the American system. However, medical indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, wait times and cost do not lie. 

If people are living longer in countries like Japan, France, England, Germany, Cuba (yes, Cuba) and Taiwan, then maybe they are doing something better than us: providing very good health care to everyone.

If other countries can (and do) offer very good health care to everyone at a national level, why shouldn't we?

PICK ONE: Mother Earth vs. Keystone XL Pipeline

The picture above is what my mind sees when I talk about clean environment.
Then I read the news headlines and see this?

Most In U.S. Support Keystone XL Pipeline, Stricter Greenhouse Gas Limits

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/09/27/pew-most-in-u-s-support-keystone-xl-pipeline-stricter-greenhouse-gas-limits/

Say what?  
Are folks confused?  What part of this conflict did those surveyed miss?  If you want stricter greenhouse gas limits, then you do not want the Keystone XL Pipeline.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Keystone XL Pipeline will carry one of the world’s dirtiest fuels: tar sands oil. Along its route from Alberta to Texas, this pipeline will devastate ecosystems, pollute water sources and jeopardize public health. 

(1) GREENHOUSE GAS - During tar sands oil production, carbon dioxide emissions are three to four times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive extraction and refining processes.

(2) POLLUTION OF WATER SUPPLIES - 95% of the water used to extract the oil, which is about 2.4 million barrels per day, is so polluted that the water must be stored in large human-made pools. As the tarry bitumen from the water sinks to the bottom of these ponds, the toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, works its way into neighboring clean water supplies. We are already facing the risk of limited potable water globally in future generations.  You can't drink oil or money.

(3) SPILLS - TransCanada's first pipeline spilled a dozen times in less than a year of operation.  The probability of spills from this pipeline is more threatening than conventional spills, because tar sands oil sinks rather than floats, making clean ups more difficult and costly. 

A group called Friends of the Earth sued the State Department in federal court for failure to turn over records detailing the contacts between lobbyists for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and folks in the State Department.
.
I truly understand the GOP's typical pro-business/corporate support for the pipeline. Having said that, I also believe that Congressmen supporting the pipeline have sold their soul.

But I would have thought that the DEM party would stand firm to promote green America, ....  and apparently, I was wrong. Their souls are also for sale.  Read this.
http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-07-friends-of-the-earth-sues-state-dept-over-kxl-lobbying-records 

Folks, we have no friends in Washington.  Our only hope is for We the People of our country rise up en masse to say "NOT ON OUR WATCH".  

Mother Earth is ours to honor and protect, for the future of our children and grand-children.  Its a matter of health, safety, and even more, it's love for all mankind and nature.