by BAR Managing Editor Bruce DixonAccording to a study released January 14 by the California Nurses Association, adoptiing a single payer system of universal health care in the US would create 2.6 million new jobs, as many as the Bush economy destroyed in 2006, and boost the revenues of private employers by an annual $317 billion. A single payer health care system would put more than $100 billion in the pockets of employees and add $44 billion to state, local and federal budgets in badly needed tax revenues.
The CNA study details the economic benefits of healthcare to the overall economy, showing how changes in direct healthcare delivery affect all other significant sectors touched by healthcare, and how sweeping healthcare reform can help drive the nation's economic recovery.
"These dramatic new findings document for the first time that a single-payer system could not only solve our healthcare crisis, but also substantially contribute to putting America back to work and assisting the economic recovery," said Geri Jenkins, RN, co-president of the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association, which sponsored the study.
The numbers of new jobs created by single payer health care alone dwarf anything yet proposed by the Obama administration or the “Buy America” add-ons to its stimulus bills, in addition to fulfilling the public expectation that Democrats enact a plan of universal and affordable health care for every American this year.
"Through direct and supplemental expenditures, healthcare is already a uniquely dominant force in the U.S. economy," said Don DeMoro, lead author of the study and director of the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, the NNOC/CNA research arm.
"However, so much more is possible. If we were to expand our present Medicare system to cover all Americans, the economic stimulus alone would create an immense engine that would help drive our national economy for decades to come," DeMoro said.
Amid the hue and cry around the bailouts of Wall Street and the unfolding economic meltdown, discussion of universal health care promised by Democrats in the election just past appears to have taken a back seat. But the study demonstrates that the adoption of Medicare-For-All in the US may be a far more potent economic stimulus at a lower price than bailing out the greedheads of Wall Street.
Right now, the US spends roughly $2.1 trillion in direct medical expenses, with one third of this total going to private insurance companies. These are the funds which finance their executive bonuses, bad investments, advertising, and a vast machinery of bookkeeping, red tape and litigation to deny the coverage that policy holders have paid for. By comparison, Canada's single payer health care system delivers adequate care to everybody from cradle to grave and spends less than 5% on bookkeeping and other non-medical expenses.
Adding a mere $63 billion to what the US already spends would amply finance a Medicare-For-All plan in the regime in which more than 95% of health care expenditures would for the first time be applied to actual health care. Under such an arrangement, all US citizens would be covered, and glaring disparities in health outcomes between black, brown, red, and white America would be immediately and substantially reduced or eliminated,at a fraction of the cost of the Wall Street bailouts. The $63 billion is one sixth the cost of CitiGroup's no-strings-attached welfare check, and less than half the federal bailout for AIG. Expanding Medicare alone to cover the 47 million uninsured Americans (as of 2006 data on which the study is based) could be accomplished for just $44 billion.
While nobody can credibly explain the precise voodoo-like mechanisms by which the Wall Street bailouts are supposed to create jobs, the California Nurses Association study demonstrates how health care expenditures have immediate and long term beneficial effects on the economic life of the nation.
Overall, every direct healthcare dollar creates nearly three additional dollars in the U.S. economy. In current form, healthcare:
-
Generates 45 million jobs, directly and in other industries.
-
Accounts for 10.5 percent of all U.S. jobs and 12.1 percent of all U.S. wages.
-
Totals 9.2 percent of the nation's Gross National Product.
-
Contributes about 25 percent of all federal tax revenues. Federal, state, and local taxes from the healthcare sector in 2006 added up to $824 billion.
All those numbers would rise dramatically through comprehensive healthcare reform. But a single-payer system would produce the biggest increase in jobs and wages. The reason, DeMoro said, is that "the broadest economic benefits directly accrue from the actual delivery and provision of healthcare, not the purchase of insurance."
Medicare for all has numerous other benefits, of course, noted Jenkins, from a streamlined system with tens of billions less in private insurance administrative waste, guaranteed choice of physician and hospital, no loss of coverage when unemployed, and no one denied coverage due to age or health status.
"Only a single-payer, expanded Medicare-for-all approach ends the current disgraceful practice of insurance companies refusing to pay for medical treatment or engaging in rampant price gouging that discourages patients from going to the doctor, seeing specialists, or getting diagnostic procedures in a timely manner," said Jenkins.
I
n light of the apparent backtracking on national health care by Democrats including House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) the study by the California Nurses Association is hugely important. It indicates that the choice between “solving” the nation's economic crisis and delivering a coherent, understandable, affordable and effective system of national health care may be a false choice after all. Those who urge us to take our eyes off the health care ball while they concentrate on “fixing” the economy may intend to do neither.
The California Nurses Association study goes a long way toward proving that universal single payer national health care may be the best medicine not only for our health care holes and disparities, but for the economy itself. Whether the politicians who ran just weeks ago promising a national health care plan will take the prescribed medicine depends on our insistence, our tenacity, and our refusal to be distracted. People deserve universal health care, and the 2.6 million jobs created by single payer health care are equal to the president's claims for the entire stimulus package. It's time to take the medicine.
Download, read, repost and pass along the full study here.
Bruce Dixon is based in Atlanta and can be reached at bruce.dixon@blackagendareport.com
Comments
"More Affordable"
That's Obama's stated goal for health insurance, as of today. In other words, he's gonna Clintonize us. There's an alternative spelling for Clintonize, of course: "f--k."
what a chump
Not only is Obama pandering to Repugnicans, who will cut him off at the knees, but fails to take any leadership on issues where he could use the bully pulpit to mobilize public support for a progressive agenda.
Single payer is the best way to do it. Tax cuts for rich pricks is a losing proposition.
Bi-partisanship is a code word for f**k the democrats and f**k the people.
I say let the demos and their progressive allies drive through progressive legislation and screw the republicans. Take the credit where it succeeds and the blame where it fails. Bi-partinsanship is a recipe to get nothing and then take the blame.
Idiots.
Of course, if the puposse is to have democrats fail, while shoveling money into the banks, and then having a Bush redux in 2012, I guess Obama is doing a great job.
Chump.
to cripes
Obama's not "pandering to" the GOP.
Obama IS the GOP. He is the GOP in a Donkey suit.
That's the whole point of the hard-rightward shift of the Donkey Party since Reagan... to cooperate behind the scenes to maintain control, while creating a superficial appearance of an adversarial Dem vs Repub pseudo-contest.
There is no evidence that Obama ever was a salt-of-the-earth common man who cares about average-to-poor folks. His ascendant trajectory has followed the strings of power, pulled by big money and big profiteering off the US Govt treasury's expenditures.
Obama is not bowing to the GOP. Obama is doing what Obama wants.
It may be hard to accept but that's the truth.
This is no time to be a partisan fool. The Donkey Party left you behind, cripes. It left you standing somewhere in the mild, non-committal Center where you think tribalist attacks on your hated "ReThuglicans" is the only thing required for active citizen participation.
It's time for you to actually investigate your heroic Obama, investigate him as if he were a hated "ReThuglican" and hold the same mean-spirited skepticism you use for the "RePuglican" enemies you so desperately love to hate.
When you do that, you'll see -- Obama/Biden is actually the Third Term of Bush/Cheney.
You are correct
Micah:
I have written for months on these comments that Obama is the new happy face for Imperialism, and you didn't see anywhere in my post that I consider him heroic. In fact, I call him a chump.
However, I think the point of the column is that single-payer--or any significant health care expansion-- the demorats will likely postpone with the excuse that the economic crisis takes priority--is a false proposition.
Considering the capitalist party duopoly has for decades derailed the peoples clear preference for single-payer, and the democrats use of that issue to propel their candidate into office, should we just abandon any effort to advocate single payer, employeee free choice, or reverse the detestable violations of constitutional and geneva convention rights?
If the peoples demands can be brought to bear, and the Dems are revealed to be the water-carriers for capital they are, I'm cool with that. Especially if it creates openings for alternative political participation, third parties etc.
Of course, the Obamabots can be fooled into another round of feeling sorry for their sorry-ass savior when the repubs wipe the floor with the new Carter. Or we can force issues to the front that he can't evade.
So, yeah, the bi-partisan charade is a crock, and I expect little from this fraudulent administration, but I do believe the interests of most people (and even the manufacturing sector, but not F.I.R.E.) are served by a real national health system--and should be doggedly pursued.
The fact it is also a net gain to the economy and wages is a real opporutnity to jam it into the debate.
On the other hand, the whole thing might break apart into bankrupt regional satrapies before we can put it back together in a generation or two.
Aside from that, I agree with you.
a little more...
Micah:
I can see from other postings you have a tendency to criticize others as fools for Obama when they address policy issues and the prospect of pushing a more progressive (chose your own word) agenda with this, or any, administration.
Those posters have also pointed out that you misconstrue their reasoning in taking this tack.
In any event, I think the real issue is whether, and how, can we seek to push single-payer, or EFCA, given what we know about the mendacity of our politicians, including the current regime.
I think workers rights in the 1930's, and civil rights in the 1960's were valuable gains and resulted from popular movements that framed the political environment of the time, forcing concessions on the corporate-government complex. Right now, we can't even show as much progress as our more simple-minded forebears.
Anyway, maybe I worry that our justifiable distrust of the demo-repub propaganda machine will corral us in an irrevalent cul-de-sac where we are good only for harping on the corruption of the current regime, and incapable of influencing the debate, let alone the policy.
Until the current system implodes (it may not be long) or we erect a workers republic (that's not so imminent), will we be capable to advocate for peoples rights, or not?
I can't think of a more viable issue than national health care as a right, and single-payer is the way.
You?
because it won't work
no matter what label you give it ("progressive" or "liberal" or "new new deal" or the like), the question to me always remains the same -- will it work?
I would hope that anyone who is interested enough in American federal politics and social theory to comment here, he/she should be aware of what is the situation now, what we face.
The idea of seeking "progressive" or other meaningful change by "change from within" has been tried for the past 60 years. Has it worked, ever?
I can't think of a single achievement.
You can point to a single agenda item you'd like to pursue -- like single-payer healthcare -- but even if the Congress and the White House agree to do that by way of the "bread" part of Bread and Circus, it's not going to fix the fundamental problems we now have, the ones that have caused the economic crashing, the ones that have created our hugely corrupted political system.
Maybe you don't look at things at that level. That's where I look at them, for the long-term, for the whole of the system, for the whole of us people. What will work for us, for the long term, given our population, our resources?
As I see it, people can either start thinking that way now, and have a better chance of fixing our problems, than to wait for the Obama Admin (or his successor's Admin) to implement the full dictatorial control under a "National Emergency" gambit.
I think people need to accept that the current system is broken and needs full replacement -- not just mild tinkering to get a few more miles out of the old jalopy.
What do you propose, then
Micah:
I have referenced your idea (not yours exclusively) that the system is on the verge of collapse and can't be--shouldn't be--rescued.
Still, you have the frustrating tendency to impute beliefs to others not evident in their statements; "tinkering," "your heroic Obama," etc. Try to resist the urge to vent your understandable frustration with the status quo towards like-minded people.
No, my point is that we aren't likely to have much influence on politics as currently constituted, or in the event of a drastic alteration of the structure, if we aren't capable of articulating a vision and details of a peoples agenda.
Universal health care as a right of citizenship is a f**king cornerstone of the society I would like to see.
We could, to take your position to the extreme, say that provision of food, shelter and medical care to people is mere tinkering and prolongs the death throes of the collapsing capitalist system, so hey, let's abandon even trying.
However, they are fundamental to a humane society and we should find a way to make that principal central to any discussion, within--or without of--the "system."
Also, others note that every other industrialized country (and quite a few others) have acheived universal health care systems. The pitiful US is the exception.
I think, rather than believing a national health system would merely prop up the corrupt system we now live under (as you seem to suggest), it is arguable that success in that arena would prepare the population for continued changes in the direction of a more rational, and yes, socialist form of governing.
I can't know if the current system will have a cataclysmic collapse (but think that's possible), a slow decline, or what, but I'd like to be able to do more than stand among the ruins saying, "I told you so."
I also think the institution of the eight hour workday (under assault) minimum wage, social security, and medicare were real achievements, and the defeat of Bush II's attempt to throw social security retirement into the black hole of wall street counts.
Maybe you can suggest "what will work," but it seems to me that universal health care is going to part of the package, in Cuba, or here.
to cripes--
incrementalism is a failed theory
I'm not disputing whether universal health care is needed. I'd simply prefer to see it meted out by a totally different government. whatever we get from the current government as "universal health care" will be honestly labelled only in its universality, and not in its quality of health care. it will be a gigantic giveaway to one or more of the following sectors of our failed capital- and consumerism-oriented economy:
1) HMOs/other "managed care" vehicles
2) Health insurers
3) Third-party Administrators
4) For-profit hospitals and group medical practices
5) Big Pharma
and there are probably other businesses who will get the best end of the bargain.
I'm sorry, but I won't be happy with simply some ghost of universal health care offered as a trinket to quiet the rabble, while the rest of the American "economy" continues to be run for a select few's profit at my expense, and at the expense of others who aren't benefiting in any way from what's generating those plutocratic profits.
I'm not even going to comment on the psychological profile stuff you're offering. it's pointless and it's weak ad-hominem distraction.
pot calling the kettle black
It was you that threw around ad-hominem distractions, writing that my hero is Obama, etc., etc., so you have no business getting all huffy when I call you on it. And you have a habit of doing it on other blogs. Google it.
I didn't say we should tinker, and I started to write, in my last post, that I don't favor imcrementalism, but space shouldn't be used for anticipated denials. What I said was we need to BE OUT FRONT ARTICULATING A PEOPLES AGENDA. Are you deaf?
When a phony universal health care is put forward, that's another opportunity to attack the status quo. What's your point, take your toys and go home?
While I share your criticism of the current regime, I still see nothing in your posts except defeatism. Are you going to deliver the new regime that everyone should wait at home sitting on their hands for, because you don't approve of ANY ACTION, since the regime is corrupted and the deck is stacked?
Isn't that actually a reason for activism?
I have acknowledged points of agreement, and you persist in your know-it-allism. You must be really popular. Since you are more interested in being smarter than everyone in the room than having any dialogue, so don't bother to reply. Smart and alone, dummy.
nice try, cripes
"pot-kettle-black"?
How, exactly?
You have to actually demonstrate hypocrisy, cripes. Merely accusing me of hypocrisy is more ad hominem attack.
Ad hominem attack is not debate. It is cheap-shotting, it is cheating.
for the last time
You repeatedly:
1. Ignore what I actually say
2. Attack me for things you assume I think, but don't
3. throw countless cheap shots: like mischaracterize--of just make shit up--like saying Obama is my "hero", that I advocate "tinkering" and "increwmentalism"
4. basically just straw-man your way through the whole thing to make yourself look--to yourself--like you really have something to say when you don't
5. make the pompous mistake of thinking you are here to "educate3" everyone else--as if you are the fiorst to recognize, for example, that health care expenses have been hijacked by insurance and Pharma
6. can't be botrhered to reply to a single point I've made, since you excel only at criticism, and have nothing to propose at all
That was a fine speech, but...
...thanks to its continuation of the same line of distraction, the problem you have now is even simpler.
You are under the impression that we have been debating -- but you haven't been debating me at any point, you've just called me names and accused me of hypocrisy.
I guess you need to vent your frustrations somehow.
Hopefully those who read this whole comments thread will be able to see that you have been engaged in a childish endeavor here, trying to pick a fight while pretending you're being rational, reasonable, logical, or rhetorically competent.
I haven't accused you of anything, not at any point. But be my guest, go ahead and make up things you imagine to be implied by my posts. You need that, somehow. Go ahead with it then.
You could be the white house press secretary, micah...
...because you're profoundly dishonest.
so. let's . make it. really. simple.
1. I say real national health care is worth struggling for. Um, so does Cynthia McKinney, whom we both voted for.
2. You say, in essense, the power structure will corrupt it, so it's not worth working in "the system."
3. Until micah pyre builds new hospitals, manufactures drugs, and trains doctors, genius, anything done is within "the system."
Christ, I can tell you're not worried about getting actual health care anytime soon.
What are you, a disinfo specialist peddling defeatism?
-------------
A single illiterate peasant squatting on a hectare of land is worth a hundred armchair typists whining that their sacrifice and courage won't liberate all the peasants.
Get the point?