Sen. Karen Keiser (D - Des Moines)
After in-depth discussions with a number of Washington state legislators, it's become apparent that health care ranks at or near the top of the priorities of most of them.
We spoke with Sen. Karen Keiser (D - Des Moines) in her district office last week. She said she has "a laser focus on health care reform." She also says "the current system is about to unravel."
Keiser recently traveled to Washington, D.C. and met with Senator Maria Cantwell (D - WA) and U.S. Rep Jay Inslee (D - WA) to discuss health care and other issues. She also met at the White House with Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama cabinet.
Clearly, Keiser is serious about the health care subject. She says it's her goal to "get health care reform done in Washington by the end of this year."
When asked about whether government involvement in health care could be termed a form of socialism, Keiser responded swiftly and with resolve.
"OK, then the postal service is socialism. The fire department is socialism. Medicare is socialism," said Keiser. "Did you know that prior to a hundred years ago, there weren't fire departments? Fire protection was handled by the insurance companies. If you had coverage, they'd come put your fire out; if you didn't, your house burned down."
Yesterday, in another interview, Rep. Roger Goodman (D - Woodinville) was asked about the same subject with respect to the "socialism" label.
"Well, Medicare is a very well run system, with very low operating costs," said Goodman. "But we need to forget about labels and just move forward."
This all comes at a time when many Republican lawmakers at the national level are indeed using the word "socialism" to describe efforts to reform health care. Recently, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp (R - Tenn.) appeared on MSNBC and termed health care as "a privilege, not a right." He also defined current efforts to reform health care "steps toward absolute socialism."
It would appear that the fight over health care reform comes down to a fairly simple choice which gets back to Sen. Keiser's point about fire departments. Should health care, like police and fire protection, be available to all citizens, or should it be available only to those who can afford it?
Comments
Let me help your Senator with a proper definition of "socialism": an economic system advocating collective or governmental ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. Now if the government "socializes" the nation's health care system, it would take over the hospitals, equipment, R&D, etc., of a major portion of our economy. Higher prices and rationing would inevitably follow. Doctors and other health care workers would be paid less, certain treatments would be denied and our pharmaceutical industry would migrate to India or some place else that respected the rule of law. In short, "socializing" our nation's health care system would be a disaster and cause the death and pain and suffering of anyone government bureaucrats in charge of rationing health care deemed too young, too old or too sick to treat. No thanks, I'll take my chances with what we have now.
I'm glad Keiser brought up the US Postal Service as an example. The USPS has a near monopoly yet is inefficient, constantly runs a deficit, constantly has to raise rates, and is known for long slow lines and mediocre service. If you have an important package that has to be delivered overnight, most choose FedEx or UPS. So yeah, the USPS is a prime example of what happens when the gov't is in charge.
Do I want USPS type service when it comes to my health? No thanks...I'll stick with the private industry...
Scott S.
As someone who handles shipping in my day job I can tell you that the difference in rates between the USPS and the private carriers you list is tremendous. As someone who has to live on what my day job pays, I am glad that I have the government option to allow me to send out my Christmas cards and gifts. With proper planning I am able to get them out and have them delivered in a timely and much less expensive manner.
Now if I could only have that option with the type of healthcare coverage I am able to purchase.
Kenneth, perhaps you have missed the debate. The issue is not whether the government runs the healthcare system. It is about helping the citizens afford access to the existing system of doctors and hospitals. Senator Keiser is aexactly right in her analogy. With the current system, if you can afford the premiums, you may have your cancer treatment, if not you die. It's that simple.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Seattle Progressive Examiner
Single payer as advocated by Physicians for Nat'l Health Program would not have the gov't running healthcare. It would only be the payer. Which would eliminate the overhead of insurers competing to get your $$. 30% of our healthcare dollars now go to admin rather than the 5-7% under medicare. no one i know wants to get rid of medicare. wise up.
As a socialist, I can tell you that single-payer health care would not exactly be a socialist system. Oddly enough the US government does operate a socialist health care system - it is called the Veteran's Administration. The Vet Admin has many positive features including a universal record-keeping system. If a vet moves from LA to NYC his records move with him through the Vet Admin computer base. The same is not true for the current private system where doctors and hospitals often use incompatible record-keeping systems. Google, Microsoft and Texas Instruments all market medical records systems - each purposely incompatible with the other. Single-payer would offer an integrated records systems as well universal coverage. Not socialism, but a damn bit better than today.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!