Money spent on war could be spent on health

By Orval Strong
Red Bluff Daily News
February 7, 2008

I mentioned earlier that we currently spend $275 million every day on this insane war on terror. It would be nice if we could take that money or at least a good chunk of it and put it to saving lives instead of taking them. We, as a nation should follow Dr. James B. Peake's example. Dr. Peake was formerly an Army infantry officer who was wounded twice in Vietnam. He changed his occupation from one of taking life (Armies are never sent to debate or negotiate with the enemy) to one of saving lives.

In case you don't know who Dr. Peake is, he is the new secretary of Veterans Affairs. As I mentioned before, Canada has a lower infant mortality rate then we do, so does Cuba, Portugal and even Slovenia. We rank 21st in life expectancy for men; in 1945, we were number 1. For women, we went from first place in 1945 to 20th today.

This country compares poorly to other industrialized nations in regard to health care in spite of having the best-trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation. Some argue that a universal health care system would be too costly, but right now we spend 40 percent more on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care. Massachusetts and Connecticut studies have shown that single-payer universal health care would save $1 billion to $2 billion per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

There is a myth that universal health care would deprive citizens of needed services. The truth is 30 percent of Americans today have problems accessing health care because of payment problems or access to care. In this country, people are denied care simply because they can't pay for it. A H.R. Merhoff wrote an excellent commentary on this very subject in the Jan. 25 issue of this newspaper. I recommend you take another look at it.

You may not agree, but, private for-profit corporations are the most inefficient deliverer systems of health care. They spend between 20 percent and 30 percent of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3 percent on administration cost. You say, yes, but I don't want to be stuck in the waiting room all day. Why do you think you would be? Do you actually believe everyone within 100 miles will want to see your doctor or come to the hospital emergency room every time you'll feel the need to have a professional look at you? Even if you do have to wait an hour or two, at least it won't cost you an arm and a leg, as a matter of fact, it won't cost you one cent.

There is a bill today in the House authored by Congressman Conyers of Michigan titled H.R. 676. This new health care system will spend $56 billion less each year then our present for-profit one, while covering all Americans with fully comprehensive medical benefits. Because, as a for-profit industry, the current private system wastes 31 percent of the $2.2 trillion spent each year on non-health care related costs such as, marketing/advertising, billing and paperwork, and corporate (what the fat cats can grab) profit.

H.R. 676 eliminates profit and is thus able to operate at a much more efficient 3 percent administration cost. H.R. 676 is not socialized medicine. It is a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system. This means the government is the sole provider of insurance, paying the healthcare providers. Under H.R. 676 you have free choice of healthcare providers. If Conyers' bill passes a majority of Americans benefits would increase dramatically, because this is fully comprehensive coverage including office visits, hospitalization, long-term care, all prescription medications, and even dental, vision and mental health services.

That all sounds good, but how will it be financed is what you really want to know, right? Well the extra monies needed will come from a combination of a 3.3 percent payroll tax, stock transfer tax of 25 percent, reduction of corporate welfare, a reversal of the 2001 and 2002 tax cuts, and a tax surcharge of 5 percent on the richest 5 percent of taxpayers and 10 percent on the richest 1 percent.

Yes, it'll tax the rich because they're the ones with most of the money. If this goes through, you won't need that medical on your car, home or any other insurance you might happen to have. Passage of H.R. 676 makes sound economical sense, reduces other insurance costs, it improves the health care of the vast majority, but most importantly, it will save precious lives.