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.

GOP Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 vs DEM Affordable Health Care Act 2013

How would the current GOP react to their own Health Reform Plan from 1993? 
Not well, it would seem.

Take a look back 20 years. The year is 1993 and this is the GOP alternative to 'HillaryCare'.

Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

Senate Bill 1770 (sponsored by GOP)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:S1770:

The major provisions in the bill are:

• Universal access to health care insurance coverage, in part through premium assistance to low-income individuals who don't qualify for Medicaid
• A mandate on employers to provide health insurance plans to employees
• Requirements for qualified heath plans to meet standards of 
  • guaranteed eligibility, availability, and renewability of health insurance coverage
  • nondiscrimination based on health status (i.e. eliminating pre-existing conditions)
  • benefits offered  
  • insurer financial solvency
  • enrollment process
  • premium rating limitations (allowing variation in premiums based only on age and family)
  • risk adjustment
  • consumer protection
• The formation of individual and small employer purchasing groups
• Requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, establish standards for large employer plans similar to requirements applicable to small employer plans
• Formation of a Benefits Commission to develop a standard (minimum) benefits package that any qualified health benefits plan must offer
• Enumeration of state responsibilities in implementing state insurance market reforms
• An individual mandate requiring all citizens to be covered by a health plan
• Certain alterations to tax law, including an excise tax for excess contributions to medical care savings accounts
• Quality assurance programs, including the creation of a national health data system
• Medical liability reform, including a requirement that states adopt an alternative dispute resolution method for the resolution of health care malpractice claims
• Efforts to fight fraud and abuse in federal health programs

Does this sound at all familiar?  

Compare the content of this GOP plan to the content of 'Obamacare' and convince me that the current partisan bickering is anything other than smoke and mirrors.

And I was always heard that elephants had long memories.  
Apparently when people become politicians, they all turn into jackasses.

Recommended TED Talk - Rise of the new global super-rich

TED Talks:  Chrystia Freeland discusses the rise of the new global super-rich

Reference:  http://www.ted.com/talks/chrystia_freeland_the_rise_of_the_new_global_super_rich.html

Drawing comparisons with the nineteenth century Gilded Age when great wealth followed rapid industrialisation, Freeland argues that our second ‘gilded age’ of advancing technology has helped create a new class of phenomenally wealthy individuals - the 0.1 percent - who can exert significant influence over politics and policy. (The Telegraph, UK)

Folks, what we have now is called a dysfunctional Plutocracy.

"A mere 0.5% of the world's population owns an eye-popping 38.5% of its total." wealth. (Business Insider, Oct 2011)

But please, consider taking just 15 minutes to view the Ted Talk above.  

Finally someone looks at our current economic turmoil and gets the similarity to what occurred after the Industrial Revolution.  Furthermore, she sees the light at the end of the tunnel and realizes its not a train heading straight at us, but actually a future out there.  Like Chrystia, I also believe that future generations will benefit from globalization and the Technology Revolution that has also brought disastrous unemployment, crippled 401Ks, and high suicide rates to people caught in the transition. 

Having said this, I also believe that globalization should not have caused the pain and suffering that has occurred.  Seriously, how much money does an ultra-mega-rich person need to live even the most outrageous jet-set lifestyle?  Did you see how much money was donated and spent on the 2012 campaigns?  Surely I am not the only person who felt such spending was shameful when children are going hungry in our own country.

Would it be so terrible to 'share the wealth' with the workers who actually do the work that creates the high-level profits?  Were the unions bankrupting the large corporations who pay CEOs 100M/year?  Did we lose the concept of fairness and loyalty to our country and its people since globalization?

Would it have been so terrible to respect and honor the every-day-Joe (or Josephine) trying to feed his (her) family and maybe even afford dance or music lessons, or sports activities for his (her) children?  Did the ultra-mega-wealthy need to not only rise but basically stomp all over the 'lessers'?

The American dream used to include a mortgage payment, as well as food, medical care, and education, even college, for their family.  People made enough that they could even afford to be moderately generous to their local charities, to help those in need.  And since they were not working 2 or even 3 jobs, they had time to coach little league, perform in local theater, give time to Habitat for Humanity, deliver Meals on Wheels, etc.   People could retire based on age and years of service with a pension that had been well-managed by a professional, which employment opportunities.  It really seemed to work.   Or maybe it was just me that was dreaming and believing.

Just suppose that corporations cared more about employees and environment than dollars.  Suppose they invested in re-training long-term employees instead of outsourcing?  Have they not noticed that productivity has literally INCREASED in the US, despite lagging increases in salary/wages?  

It will all work out during the coming years, but historical transitions take time.  As in historical times, we have to pull together, remember to share when we can, and remember 'this too shall pass'.  

Oh yes ... and educate our children so that they can learn from this and find alternatives, rather than repeat the same mistakes.  It really didn't have to be this way.

Welfare of all kinds

Today, I am struggling with the fact that our modern Congress and Administrations, regardless of who is elected over the last 40 years, always want to review and cut social programs ahead of corporate welfare.  It bothers me because it shows preference for business over individual needs.  In my opinion, business, and especially corporations, should stand (or fail) on their own without taxpayer subsidy.

But let's go one step further.  When one reads our original constitution and the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Right, no spending is authorized for either corporate welfare or public welfare.  Or welfare for other countries.  Or funding federal agencies that have been created, such as NASA and the department of education.  And of course, no provision for federal income taxes.  

The fact is that our current federal budget has strayed greatly from the original intent of our constitution, and we the people have allowed it to happen.  We have not been actively involved and willing to take a strong stand, to communication openly and often with our elected representatives, to bond together in strength.  

Instead, we tend to be splintered and distracted, un-informed, and lazy.   Yes, I said the L word.  The truth is that if we want things to change for the better and progress, it is up to us, the citizens, not our government.  It means getting informed, getting active and getting a backbone.