Web Letters: Healthcare vs. the Profit Principle

By Barbara Ehrenreich

July 12, 2007

Write a Web letter about this article.

What's a Web Letter?

Web Letters are continuously published e-mails from real people, signed with their real names. No registration is required. Each article page on The Nation includes a Web Letters link.

Read the best Web Letters on this page.

We're committed to publishing your comments as they are received. We place a red star () on the best submissions and may edit your e-mail for length or content. Your e-mail address will not be published or shared with any third party without your consent.

We look forward to hearing from you.

  • This article was so flawed... this is terrible. First of all, Ehrenreich says the only things we innovate are: "The deductible, the co-pay and the pre-existing condition." Has she ever taken a public policy class? Co-pays and deductibles are essential for any healthcare system to work. If we ever do get universal healthcare, it had better have a deductible and co-pay. Those prevent "moral hazard." If doctor visits are completely free, then everyone will go to the doctor at the slightest sniffle or sneeze or random ache. The deductible and co-pay are necessary to weed out the BS and prevent unnecessary usage of the healthcare system. Otherwise, total healthcare costs would go way up and doctors would be swamped with stupid shit.

    And I don't know what "innovations" she is expecting, but nearly all medical innovations come from the US. All the major drug and pharmaceutical companies are based here, and we pay much higher amounts for drugs than anyone else. We essentially subsidize these drugs for the rest of the world.

    She writes: "He dismisses as "an entitlement mentality" the idea that everyone should be getting the same high-quality healthcare." Well actually, America does have a pretty pathetic entitlement mentality. This is an America where 66 percent of the population is overweight and 33 percent are obese! We gorge on fast food and ignore regular exercise. No one seems to give a damn about taking care of their own health. When it comes to eating a cheeseburger or not, no one cares about their health. No one wants to waste the time or energy exercising for a healthier heart. But then, as soon as they develop heart disease, or lung cancer or any of the numerous very preventable yet very expensive diseases, then they all want free medicine and blame evil insurance companies and Republicans for their ills. Perhaps you should take care of yourself before you expect--nay, demand--that others take care of you.

    Tell me, Ms. Ehrenreich, what "innovations" are these socialized medicine systems in other countries making that we aren't? You fault us for not "innovating," yet you fail to provide any examples of what we should be innovating. All the world's drugs and medical tech originate here.

    And what you also can't grasp, is that medical care isn't actually free. That's why you need co-pays and deductibles, which you lambaste in your article. Co-pays and deductibles keep the total costs down by preventing unnecessary use of the health care system.

    You know, I am not even opposed to socialized medicine. I think if implemented properly it could work, who knows. But this article is pointless, provides no real arguments and is a general waste of time. Ehrenreich doesn't seem to understand the topic she is writing about, and seems more concerned with arguing against capitalism and Republicans than actually saying why socialized medicine is better.

    Stephen Campbell

    Newfields, NH

    07/19/2007 @ 09:34am


  • There sure seems to be a discrepancy between patient needs and healthcare industry profits. It would be great if all Americans could get the health coverage they need; possibly without the profit involved, the more healthier we would be. Unfortunately, those with even the slightest pre-existing conditions like that of a learning disability or high-functioning autism do tend to get turned down for coverage, just so that those particular healthcare industries can save money, which may eventually be in turn discriminating, and may eventually incriminate the health care providers for turning down individuals with such medical and psychological needs. All in all, it's ideal that health care coverage does what is best for the patients and not the industry by making huge profits. Thus, it is sad that we do not have the best healthcare system in the world. We are lagging far behind France, which does happen to have the best healthcare system in the world, according to the World Health Organization. Individually speaking, we take care of our bodies the best that we can, but if we are not so careful with our health, that shouldn't be a reason for healthcare industries to decline an individual. Hence, there need to be more rights for the patients lacking health coverage!

    Nick Rosen

    Great Falls, VA

    07/17/2007 @ 8:28pm


Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

House Passes Health Reform, But Without Reproductive Rights | Pelosi secures necessary votes, but only after allowing anti-choice Dems to bar access to abortion in new programs.
John Nichols
166 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Around The Nation | Obama, one year on. Plus: Jeremy Scahill takes your questions, and a new video series from The Nation.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
36 Comments

» The Notion

Injustice in Illinois | Prosecutors in Illinois should be more concerned with an innocent man behind bars than journalism students' grades.
Ari Berman
30 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Obama Fails in Middle East | Clinton delivers the ultimate diss to Abbas.
Robert Dreyfuss
164 Comments

» Act Now!

Equality Across America | This week, young LBGT activists are staging a National Week of Initiative.
Peter Rothberg
16 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Thursday | Dying laptops, recapping the election, the Dow, and the Yankees with the World Series.
Eric Alterman