Mr. Speaker, the following is a copy of a speech given by me for insertion into the Congressional Record. Thank you for inviting me to the CBC Annual Meeting. I am honored to be here. I want to impress on you today that addressing our…
Mr. Speaker, the following is a copy of a speech given by me for insertion into the Congressional Record.
Thank you for inviting me to the CBC Annual Meeting. I am
honored to be here.
I want to impress on you today that addressing our national
health crisis is well within our reach. In fact, there is
only one truly sustainable solution and that's universal,
single payer, not for profit health care.
We have all heard the statistics. Almost 46 million are
uninsured. Only 5 percent of them are unemployed. 8.4 million
children were uninsured in 2003. Over a third of the poor and
more than a quarter of the near-poor lack coverage.
What does that mean for them? They are less healthy. They
don't get adequate preventative care. For example, uninsured
children are 70 percent more likely than insured children not
to receive medical care for common conditions like ear
infections. And an uninsured person has a 25 percent higher
risk of dying than an insured person. This translates to
18,000 deaths per year in the U.S. that are attributable to
lack of insurance coverage.
Being uninsured or even underinsured also takes a huge
financial toll. Medical bills are the number one cause of
personal bankruptcies. That will affect the ability to buy a
home or make other large purchases that help define the
American dream.
It's not hard to see why the U.S., when compared to other
developed countries, has the lowest indicators of health. We
have the lowest life expectancy and the worst continuity of
care. We have the highest infant mortality rate and maternal
mortality rate.
And yet our per capita health care spending is almost twice
the average of developed countries that have universal
coverage. That is largely because of gross inefficiency.
Private health insurance overhead ranges from 12-30 percent
while Medicare's is consistently about 2-3 percent.
In a nutshell, we're already paying for high quality,
universal health care--we're just not getting it.
Now we already have a system that is a model for where we
need to go. It's called Medicare. H.R. 676, which I am proud
to have developed with my friend and colleague, Mr. Conyers,
would simply expand and improve Medicare. Under this plan,
Medicare for All, every person in the country will receive
comprehensive health care and every person will pay less. It
doesn't cost any more than our nation currently spends on
health care. It simply reallocates the money to better uses.
Here's how it works. It would give everyone living in
America, including immigrants, a health care card. That card
would guarantee coverage at any hospital, any clinic, and any
doctor that a patient wants to use. Coverage would also be
guaranteed for the entire range of patient's medical needs,
from preventative care screening to prescription drugs to
dental care to long-term care.
The wasted and excessive funds in our current health care
system are so great that under Medicare for All, no patient
would ever pay a premium, a deductible, a co-payment, or even
see a bill for needed medical care. Cost would no longer be a
worry for families or a reason for bankruptcy.
Medicare for All would also address the quality of health
care. There are often no standards, or there are different
standards for different people. If you're black, or if you're
Hispanic, you know that the health care you receive is, too
often, not the same as other people receive.
There should be a single standard of care, determined by a
group of qualified medical professionals. Under Medicare for
All, a new National Board of Universal Quality and Access
would be established. The Board would include health care
professionals, nurses, representatives of institutional
providers of health care, health care advocacy groups, labor
unions and citizen patient advocates. This Board is critical
because it puts control of health care in the hands of
providers and health experts instead of insurance companies
and software writers.
The first priority of the Board would be to create a
universal, best quality standard of care. This standard would
determine appropriate staffing levels and appropriate medical
technology. This standard would also cover design and scope
of work in the health workplace. So, no matter what a patient
looks like or where in the country the patient is treated,
the health care standards are the same. Even if you already
have health insurance now, the medical care you would receive
under Medicare for All would be better.
Finally, Medicare for All would hold health care facilities
accountable to the universal, best quality standard of care.
Hospitals, clinics and other facilities would no longer be
able to keep internal data secret, such as staffing ratios,
medication errors, misdiagnoses or infection rates. As it
stands, patients cannot compare health care quality data from
hospital to hospital. Making that data public would ensure
accountability. It would help facilities learn what problems
need to be addressed. It would encourage them to do even
better to deliver the best patient care possible.
Who supports such a health care system? About two thirds of
Americans agree that the federal government should guarantee
medical care for Americans. 58 percent of medical students
and faculty favor a Medicare for All type of system. Multiple
Deans of Medical Schools, the former Editor of the New
England Journal of Medicine, about 40 percent of small
business owners have all expressed support. The three major
auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) in Canada
have all publicly endorsed Canada's health system
specifically because it lowers their costs so much that it
gives them a significant competitive advantage over their
U.S. counterparts in Detroit. This is an important point that
resonates with lawmakers.
I am excited to report that H.R. 676 now has over 50
cosponsors and the list is growing. It includes rank and file
as well as several ranking members with seniority; 15 members
of the CBC as well as the Hispanic Caucus, the Progressive
Caucus, the New Democrats; members that have cosponsored the
bill since it was first introduced in 2003 and members who
have heard about the growing movements in their states and
have signed on for the first time.
I want to close by saying that I think you'll find that
when you talk to people who follow health care policy closely
and ask them what they think about H.R. 676 you're highly
likely to get the same answer I usually get--Yes, it's the
best system out there and would solve many of our health care
problems, but it's just not politically feasible. That is not
a good enough reason to avoid one of the biggest issues of
our time. I usually just smile and tell them this: with
health care costs rising faster than inflation with no end in
sight and with the abject failure of managed care to contain
those costs; and with the number of uninsured growing
steadily; and with American companies losing their
competitive edge because they are paying so much more for
health care than other developed countries, the opposition
cannot prevail much longer. Universal, not for profit single
payer health care is not only feasible--it's inevitable.