Nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance. The cost of providing care to the uninsured gets passed on to those who do have coverage, which leads to higher insurance premiums, and eventually to even more uninsured.
This cycle has to stop. Accessible and affordable health care for all Americans should be a top priority for the next president and Congress. We must enact legislation that ensures that health care is available universally and at a reasonable cost. Lawmakers should consider new ideas that preserve the role of private health insurance in our health care system and support the role of the public sector in achieving universal coverage.
Today, the average American spends about one out of every six dollars of his or her income on health care - that's more than two-and-a-quarter trillion dollars we spend every year in this country. For employers, exorbitant health care costs can cripple competitiveness in the global economy. These costs also represent income that otherwise would have gone into an employee's paycheck. For many employers, particularly small businesses, the costs of insuring their workers can be prohibitive.
In addition to allowing employers to reduce costs, a solution to our national health care crisis will also stimulate the economy by giving people the flexibility they need to work in entrepreneurial ventures and small businesses without worrying about access to affordable health insurance.
Finally, but most importantly, we must make sure that every child has health insurance coverage. Virtually every American over 65 has coverage through Medicare. We must provide the same protection for our children, with the goal of insuring every child in America by the year 2014. The SCHIP program has covered almost seven million children over the last ten years, but that is not enough. President Bush was wrong to veto the expansion of that bill and Saxby Chambliss was wrong to vote with him and against uninsured children. We spend $400 billion annually on Medicare - we can and should spend $12 billion for an expanded SCHIP program.
Daniel
I believe Mr Martin is referring to the fact that regular family practice doctors won't see the uninsured forcing them to go to ER's to get care that could be provided in a doctor's office at a much lower cost. By subsidizng health insurance these same patients would have insurance and get better care for a lower cost. Care for the indigent at ER's is covered by a combination of government (ie. taxpayer) funds, donations, and higher charges to paying customers (also taxpayers who pay higher premiums so their insurance companies can pay the higher charges). Does this help?
Try a test - call your family doctor's office using a different name and try to get an appointment for something simple like an ear infection and give the answer 'I don't have insurance' when asked for your insurance. See what happens. I've done it calling multiple offices and despite offering to bring in several hundred in cash was refused an appointment.
Beth on September 13, 2008 4:23 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to ensure that Mr. Martin is aware of the failure of Massachusett's universal health care, and one of the reasons for it. I want to do this, because, if you are elected, I would hope that you are fully informed about some of the underlying factors that play a role in our nation's health care.
Massachusetts mandated universal health care. What people may not understand, however, is that there are not enough primary care doctors for everyone to be seen. Wait times are 2, 3, even 9 months in some places to see a family doctor. The state actually has the HIGHEST Emergency Department visitation rate, because everyone has insurance, but there's no place to go. This has increased the costs of health care in the state, and things are looking grim financially.
Only 2% of current medical school students go into primary care specializations (family, internal, and pediatrics). The reasons for this are primarily financial. The current health care system reimburses for procedures, and not time spent with patients. Therefore, a surgeon can receive $200 for the same amount of work that a family doctor receives $50. Couple this with the rising costs of doing business, declining reimbursement rates (particularly medicare), and rising costs of education, and many students decide that they don't want to be paying off their students loans at the age of 50.
Please be aware of these factors as you head to Washington, and try to inform your colleagues that want to slap a bandaid on a much larger problem.
Respectfully,
Michael Vaughan
MCG School of Medicine 2012
Michael on October 21, 2008 6:50 PM
I'm responding to Michael Vaughan.
I lived in Massachusetts for 8 years (I recently moved to Chicago), and I can say he's full of BS.
I never had to wait any longer than normal for any doctor's appointments: either general or specialists. No one I know there ever had to wait, there are plenty of doctors to go around.
No, for the interesting part. I'm considered un-insurable in every state besides Massachusetts, because I was diagnosed 7 years ago with a potential chronic disease. It doesn't matter that I haven't needed any medical care or doctors for my illness in the last 5 years; no insurance company will insure me.
I'm 32 years old with multiple graduate degrees and work full time, yet I can't get private insurance. My wife can't either. Nor can my mom. Nor my brother. Why? All because we have all had some health issues at some point or another in our lives.
We need universal healthcare now, we need Martin now!!
David G on October 28, 2008 10:54 PM
Isn't your logic on healthcare somewhat flawed. You start off by explaining that pumping tax payer dollars into healthcare raises premiums and causes more to be uninsured. So how is pumping more tax payer money into healthcare going to fix the problem? Essentially the system is going to learn to depend on more and more government money. If this is put in place, there will be no incentive by the doctor or the patient to lower medical costs. So the prices will go up, up, and away.
It looks like you're starting to get it... but you might need a little more guidance.
You're the first of the five democratic senate candidates I'm looking into today (before I vote) So there's still a chance you could have my vote, :)
Daniel Watson on July 15, 2008 10:27 AM