This should not be going on in a country with this much wealth. It's just shameful. From Democracy Now--As Baucus Unveils Health Plan Absent of Public Option, New Study Finds 45,000 Uninsured Die Every Year.
A long-awaited healthcare bill from Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus includes no public option and would require almost all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. This comes as a new study finds that nearly 45,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance. We speak with the study’s co-author, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, primary care physician, and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Nearly 45,000 Americans die every year—that’s 122 deaths a day—due to lack of health insurance. That’s the startling finding of a new study that appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health.
The figure is about two-and-a-half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine in 2002. The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease.
News of the study comes as the drive for healthcare reform is entering a new phase on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, Montana Senator Max Baucus, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, released his long-awaited healthcare reform proposal. The Finance Committee is the last of five congressional panels to produce legislation.
AMY GOODMAN: Despite months of talks to find a bipartisan compromise, Baucus’s plan had no Republican co-sponsors. The $856 billion proposal would require almost all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty and drops a mandate that all employers offer health coverage. The bill does not include a government-backed public option to compete with private insurers, instead proposes funds to set up nonprofit cooperatives.
For more on the proposal, we’re joined by Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, professor of medicine at Harvard University, primary care physician in Cambridge, also co-director of the Harvard Medical School General Internal Medicine Fellowship program. She’s co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program and co-authored the American Journal of Public Health study called “Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults,” joining us from Watertown, Massachusetts.
Professor Woolhandler, Dr. Woolhandler, thanks so much for being with us. Assess Baucus’s plan.
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Baucus’s plan is a complete sellout to the insurance industry. The counsel on the Finance Committee that oversaw the development of the bill is a former vice president of WellPoint, a major insurer. And the insurance companies’ interests are protected in the bill, but the interests of the American people really aren’t.
At best, this bill is going to cover—is going to leave 25 million Americans with no health insurance. And our study indicates that about 25,000 will die annually as a result. Really, what Baucus is doing is protecting the profits of the private health insurance industry and sacrificing American lives.
JUAN GONZALEZ: What about the affordability issue that’s been raised by some critics or began to be raised as soon as the announcement came out?
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Well, the way to afford universal healthcare is to go to Medicare for all, also known as single payer, also known as nonprofit national health insurance. That’s the way every other developed nation achieved universal healthcare. They spend less than we do. In fact, the average for other developed nations is about half the per capita cost of healthcare that we have. People in Canada and western Europe live longer. They don’t have to worry about having medical bankruptcies because their health insurance didn’t pay for things.
So the nonprofit, Medicare-for-all approach is the only affordable way to cover all Americans. Of course, the insurance industry hates it, and when you put an insurance industry vice president in charge of writing a bill, you shouldn’t be surprised to see that the insurance industry profits are protected, but American lives are sacrificed.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you mean by insurance industry vice president.
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Well, there’s a woman named Liz Fowler, who is the senior counsel for the Judiciary Committee, and her charge was to lead the effort to design this bill. But it’s not just her; it’s the millions of dollars in donations that Baucus and other politicians have accepted, the millions of dollars in donations from the insurance industry to President Obama. It’s President Obama’s decision from the get-go to play ball with the insurance industry, to get—to compromise with the insurance industry, to involve them in the process. And, of course, you give them an inch, they take a mile. And what’s left of this bill is a dream for the insurance industry.
The individual mandate creates millions of mandatory new customers. Uninsured people are being told, “You’re the problem. We’re going to fine you up to $3,800. We’re going to give you a fine, a penalty, because you’re uninsured and you don’t have health insurance.” The individual mandate is a complete misunderstanding where the responsibility for this is. This problem is not caused by the uninsured themselves; it’s caused by the health insurance industry. And our Congress and Senate needs to confront the health insurance industry, say we’re going with Medicare for all. There’s absolutely no reason to have a private health insurance industry. They add no value. They add a lot of costs, and those costs are so high that it means we cannot get to universal coverage with the insurance industry in the middle of things.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, you have an individual mandate there in Massachusetts under the Massachusetts plan. How has that worked?
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Well, it hasn’t worked very well. When the individual mandate was rolled out this past year, we saw no improvement in the number of uninsured in the state. We actually saw a deterioration in access to care. The previous year, they had rolled out a Medicaid expansion. That worked. That got some people covered. But when they rolled out the mandate this year, there was no improvement in the number of insured.
The Census Bureau just announced that only—that only half of the uninsured were covered by that Medicaid expansion. It also found that there were five-and-a-half percent of people in the state uninsured. That’s not universal coverage. And then, our private insurance industry just announced that they’re raising all of our premiums ten percent, and they’re saying that’s because of the cost of the reform.
So, in Massachusetts, we’ve spent a lot of money. We’ve managed to cover about half of the uninsured through Medicaid expansion and expansion of Medicaid-like programs. We’ve given the insurance industry absolutely everything they wanted. And what we’re getting is higher prices and still having uninsured people in the state.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Woolhandler, this report you just came out with, 45,000 people a year die from lack of health insurance. Where are these numbers coming from?
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Well, this was a federal study done by the CDC. They collected the data; of course, we analyzed it. They collected the data. They interviewed thousands of people and also had them examined by a physician and gave them lab tests. So we have very detailed information, not only about socioeconomic factors like education and income, but also their baseline health, how healthy were they at the beginning. Some were uninsured. And then the CDC followed these people for up to twelve years to see who lived and who died. So we were able to see what was the effect of lacking insurance on death rates and found that, in fact, people with no health insurance had a 40 percent higher death rate than similar people who had insurance.
So this—actually, when you do out the numbers, this implies that for every million people who remain uninsured in this country, about 1,000 deaths can be expected. So, perhaps Senator Baucus is happy with leaving 25 million Americans uninsured, but that translates into, predictably, predictably 25,000 American deaths each year due to the lack of health insurance. And that’s completely unacceptable to me as a physician, and it’s completely unacceptable to the other 17,000 physicians who’ve joined me in Physicians for a National Health Program to advocate for a Medicare-for-all, single-payer national health insurance.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Dr. Woolhandler, there have been numerous reports now about the enormous expenditures that are being made by the health insurance industry and by other businesses in America around health insurance, something like $260 million in the first six months of this year on lobbying, another $20 million in direct political contributions. I think the US Chamber of Commerce is in the lead, $26 million spent on lobbying in the first six months of this year. What’s been the impact of that on all of the various bills that are being shaped through the House and the Senate? And where are the public health advocates, in terms of being able to be at the table, as President Obama promised initially that everyone would be at the table?
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Well, I think—to quote Bob Dylan, money in politics “doesn’t talk, it swears.” And, in fact, the reason we’re getting such a bad bill, that’s expensive, that doesn’t cover people, is because of the insurance industry money and influence.
I have to add that the pharmaceutical industry is planning to spend $150 million advertising in support of this bill.
What we need is a single-payer approach that would save between $300 and $400 billion annually by administrative simplification, by getting rid of the billing paperwork. You save $300 to $400 billion annually, and you use that money to cover the uninsured, but also to plug the gaps in the coverage of people who now have insurance, usually private insurance, that’s full of gaps, like co-payments, deductibles, uncovered services, that mean you can be insured, you can have private insurance, and still, if you get a serious illness, find yourself facing bankruptcy. We need to get rid of the insurance industry, take that administrative savings, and use it in a Medicare-for-all plan that would cover all medically necessary services. And obviously, the insurance industry hates that. They have been quoted as saying, “We’re opposed to single-payer national health insurance. It’s a life-or-death struggle for us.”
But, you know, this is still a democracy, and we need to be holding our representatives’ feet to the fire on this. There’s lots of opportunities in the next month to take a stand for single payer, that for the first time in history, there are bills in the House and the Senate, the Sanders bill in the Senate, the Kucinich-Conyers bill in the House of Representatives. There’s two very important amendments. There’s a substitution amendment by New York Representative Anthony Weiner to substitute single-payer language for the entire House bill. Nancy Pelosi has promised him a vote. There’s also the Kucinich amendment, which would allow state opt-out. We think it’s extremely—a state opt-out and to try some single-payer plans.
So we think it’s extremely important for the viewers to get active right now, to be calling those senators and congressmen and telling them to vote for single payer, to vote for the Weiner amendment, to be signing on to the bills in the House and the Senate. People need to be writing to the newspaper, they need to be calling talk shows. This is the time to be saying that the American people deserve Medicare for all and that the Max Baucus bill and, frankly, the House bill, which would leave 17 million uninsured, those are just unacceptable, that we do need Medicare for all, not just to save the lives of the uninsured, but to make sure that people with insurance can afford healthcare when they get sick.
JUAN GONZALEZ: What about the issue of the public option? You’ve been critical of that as a strategy, but many people who favor single payer say that they’ve got to compromise to be able to get a bill passed and would see the public option as that compromise.
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: Let me be perfectly clear. The only reason the public option is even on the table is because of the work of single-payer supporters. And you don’t have to believe me on that. Ask the Congress. When I testified before Congress, they repeatedly say that, that they’re being deluged with calls from supporters of single payer, so they’re offering up a public option.
I personally don’t think a public option will work. It’s been tried in five states, in Tennessee, in Minnesota, in Maine, and it never worked. Now, you haven’t heard about the public option in these five states, because it was not a game changer. It didn’t get us to universal healthcare, and it didn’t control costs. The only public option that really makes sense is Medicare for all.
But it’s worth talking about what Baucus is doing, which is a puny, ridiculous kind of public option. To say that there’s going to be co-ops that are going to go out there and compete with Aetna is like sending the peewee football league in against the NFL. The co-ops are just going to be creamed. There’s no way they can compete, and there’s no way that they offer a real alternative for people who are unhappy with the present insurance system.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, I mean, you are the co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. How are you organizing right now? I mean, as of mid-August, there were six lobbyists trying to influence healthcare legislation for every single member of the House and Senate, according to Bloomberg News. That’s 3,300 lobbyists working on a single issue, three times the number of defense lobbyists, with nearly three new lobbyists joining the fray each day. What happens now? Baucus has put out his plan. What are you doing?
DR. STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER: OK. Well, we really need to make democracy work. And we need to be out there mobilizing the grassroots to tell the Congress and Senate that we need Medicare for all. Trust me, that’s the only reason we got public option on the table in the first place. That’s the reason we’ve managed to get people like me invited to testify. The people have been willing to lobby. People have actually gotten arrested. Doctors and nurses were arrested at the Baucus hearings. People are deluging the newspapers, Congress and Senate with their support for single payer. That’s the only way that we’re going to be able to fight back against this kind of lobbying clout.
And to be honest, it’s remarkable how much progress we’ve made. Given all the money that the other side has, we have been able to get these amendments and bills to the floor. This is the first time in history we’ve had these bills in both houses. We’ve gotten politicians acknowledging that single payer is popular. We have people like Nancy Pelosi and even Baucus saying, “Gee, I wish we could do single payer.” We have President Obama saying, “If we could start from scratch, I’d do single payer.” That’s not because—the lobbyists didn’t ask him to say that. That’s because of grassroots pressure has been put on. And it’s extremely important right now for people to use our democracy, to make that democracy work, to be talking, to be organizing, to be keeping the pressure on.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, I want to thank you for being with us, professor of medicine at Harvard University, co-director of the Harvard Medical School General Internal Medicine Fellowship program. She’s co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program and just came out with this report that says that 45,000 people die every year as a result of lack of health insurance. We will link to it at democracynow.org.



Not a big fan of the new low-fi news links on C & L.
God forbid they should post links to sites that have actual news on them.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
Well, since you've only been registered for 4 hours maybe you should stick around. I'm guessing in the next 4 hours or so they'll probably put up links that are more to your liking.
Thanks for your concern though!
See? congress doesn't give two shits about the hoi polloi. This is why smart pro single payer types are not allowed access to MSM shows. They make this point so painfully obvious that even the morons who are fascinated by Beck's 'Shiny Things' program would get it.
me-oww!
not only don't they give two shits about us, I think they might be working out a strategy to increase mortality for us in order to diminish our number (particularly those of us who are older and put more financial strain on the health care system).
The denizens of Richistan only need a few of us around. Alas, those they deign to keep around to insure that the gears of the Capitalism machine remain well-oiled are the sheeple who have swallowed the wealth carrot meme (literally!) and believe they actually can achieve membership in that much vaunted, exclusive, borderless burg.
Maybe they think we have increasing numbers of the unemployed because we have too many people on the planet...
Always remember, these were the roto-rectum rooters who attacked a good fiscally responsible President, Bill Clinton, who also wanted to clean out the influence of the big pharma and "just say NO" insurers before Bush rode into Iraq like Hitler in Poland and broke our Treasury.
Obama should stop reaching across the aisle.
especially since he keeps drawing back a bloody stump...
Your money
orand your life.Fixed it.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Sadly, for Max 45,000 lives is but a small price to pay for the insurance companies' freedom to gouge every possible penny of profit from the American people. Their CEOs need new corporate jets and a multimillion dollar renovation of the executive suite you know.
Can't help but watch all this with utter fascination from north of the 49th parallel. What a difference a mere undefended border makes. Baucus represents a state adjacent to my province, Alberta, but he might as well be pimping for Alabama.
At the time of the last health reform go-round in the U.S., I recall flying to Great Falls, Mont. as a reporter on a campaign junket with one of the parties running for office in our provincial election. We visited a hospital there, with the candidate pointing to the U.S. system as a model NOT to adopt. The U.S. system was used as a Canadian (Alberta) political campaign prop. It was all rather Michael Moorish. We were met by American health care advocates who voiced cautionary tales. They were, of course, being ignored at the time and the Clinton reform efforts failed.
It gets worse, actually. Here in Montana, we are 19th in the nation in the percentage of uninsured (even after widespread adoption of sCHIP), with BC/BS controlling 75% of the market and one other company controlling an additional 10%. There is substantial support (a plurality) for the public plan statewide and an overwhelming mandate among Democrats (many of whom support single payer).
I have read that some 90,000 die each year from medical and pharmaceutical mistakes.
Which is why we absolutely must have tort reform to limit punitive awards immediately!
half the deaths w/o medical interference!
me-oww!
half of those 45,000 were illegal aliens and at least 75% of the rest would have died eventually anyway. Morans.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
100% of the rest would have died anyway. ... eventually.
This is hardly surprising. I would have been shocked if Baucus's plan HAD included a public option. These people simple DO NOT CARE how many they kill. They'd be happier if the death toll ran into the millions - they'd make a lot more money that way.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
whose cancer diagnosis was made in an ER, 2 years after I started having symptoms I could not afford to be investigated. I think it led to my treatment being exponentially higher, and disability, instead of cheap treatment and back to work.
Delay of diagnoses can be worse than death, sometimes. Definitely much more expensive. But NOT for the insurance companies, who were too expensive for me. For the taxpayers.
me-oww!
Have you seen the argument that if we go ahead and insure the 30-40 million who are uninsured in America, our lines to see our doctors will get longer?
This was a meme a few weeks ago but it seems to have gone away. (which was disputed by experts by the way.) I'm wondering if the argument the people who were protecting the Health Insurance profits were using went away was because of this homicidal aspect to the argument.
i.e. "Let those 45,000 people die, because it keeps my lines shorter."
Just a thought.
afterlife real estate.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
of all americans. that is just good cost management.
We just need health care.
Yes, President Obama, let's start from scratch.
need to address this to both parties. Health Insurance reform isn't necessary at all. If the US taxpayer can afford the bloated military budgets, endless invasions called wars, massive homeland security with overlapping jurisdictions, and bailing out of major financial crooks, then the US taxpayer can certainly afford to single pay the entire healthcare system and get rid of the insurance companies almost completely. Those who don't like that type of system would be allowed to toss their money at private insurance companies for extras, if they would like. The problem isn't being addressed at all by either party. It's the insurance companies that are the problem. Hello? Is anybody home in Washington??
in socialist countries like Can-a-da you are allowed to bolster your healthcare with private insurance plans. They just don't have final say on all major surgeries and life and death decisions.
and hiding behind the curtains with all the lights out, peering out occasionally to see if we're still lurking in the shadows--or begging them for some kind of response to our repeated ringing of the doorbell...
...as though we should even HAVE to ask for adequate health care!!!!
Teh Stoopid runs strong in the Angry Group.
The only tears that the right wing will shed over this story, I'm willing to bet, will be ones of joy.
I'm sure any randomly selected Teabagger would be only too happy to explain why every one of those 45,000 people were losers who are better off dead anyway. ("Hell, most've 'em were probly illegal immigrants.")
And don't be too surprised if more than a few volunteer to go all second amendment on the uninsured by personally finishing them off with a legally purchased assault weapon.
What we need is a National Health Care Clock. One that would display a running total of Americans who:
* do not have health care.
* have gone bankrupt because of medical costs.
* have died because they could not afford to seek medical help.
The totals would extend back to 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt formed the Progressive Party with health care reform included in the platform.
The Democrats need to grow a collective spine and say to hell with bipartisanship. They need to draft a bill that simply states that anyone can buy into Medicare at cost. Force the Republicans to filibuster.
Copies of the clock would be displayed prominently across the nation, including in the House and in the Senate. The Health Care Clock in the Senate would be visible on camera behind whoever is speaking.
The Senate clock would also show how many Americans have died because of lack of health care, gone bankrupt, and lost their coverage during the filibuster.
He basically says that the politicians are looking at the problem
through the lens of trying to benefit the Insurance companies
as the priority. PCR contends this is absurd.
He may be on to something:
http://rense.com/general87/hlt.htm
"New Study Finds 45,000 Uninsured Die Every Year"
Someone point out to the Republican opposition that, in Teabagger Party World, that 45,000 number would be over ONE MILLION uninsured dying every year!
45000 = 9/11 every 24 days
numbers. Numbers of dead people. Apparently numbers of dead people are only 'relative' to many in the U.S.
45,000...yes, 9/11 every 24 days. I understand the trauma & injustice of 9/11...the whole world understood & stood by.
However, for the powers-that-be in the U.S. to blow off those who die (their own citizens) because they cannot get health coverage is not only shocking...it is criminal. What do they call it in war...collateral damage...can't think of any other reason this has been allowed to go on for so very long.
Priorities...how are the current ones working for the U.S. so far?
No mention of the growing number of US citizens who, despondent over their loss of gainful employment, opt to take their own lives...
I have been kicked to the curb by a Texas school district that now insists that I have "had two strikes" and that I'm among "30 other Gen 4-8 candidates without a job." In reality, I've had the scary experience of two inappropriate administrators--both deceitful and unprofessional (and I can't help but wonder how this district can bring in new candidates when they cannot or will not employ the ones they've already trained?!).
I mention this, because through words and actions my family seems to have decided that I am despondent (despite my ongoing efforts to align myself with a different program). Although they won't use the S word, clearly they're worried that I will contemplate or commit suicide in response to this unexpected bump in my certification road. I've spent a lot of the last month reassuring my frightened family that I am not rolling over for this district, nor am I going to allow them to deter me from getting my teaching certificate.
In the course of this pas de deux about 'what {I'm} going to do now,' I've come to realize that our citizenry has been here before, within the lifetimes of our parents, and that for far too many--whose livelihood has literally been taken from them--willful death has been a common theme. So, if I have this growing awareness, and my family has their persistent fears, how many others just like us find themselves in a similar situation? Among the now billions of us, I mean...
And how likely is it that the Corporate Megalomaniacs who have now achieved an iron grip on our economy (and plan to keep it that way) see this as a viable opportunity to decrease the labor pool?!?
What is it going to take for us to realize that swift and courageous action is essential?!? How much longer will we blog our frustrations and fears before we act in the manner that we MUST in order to throw off our oppressors?!?
Are we like Monsieur Manette, so accustomed to our imprisonment that we can no longer comprehend freedom, much less seek it?!?
By the way, my activism is yet another clue that I'm not despondent, but my family will not even acknowledge it. It's just not right, you realize, to question the authority of our electorate or the gifted industrialists who are working sooo hard to recover our economy...
Comments are closed on this entry