As I pointed out in Health Care, Race and Treachery, the United States has undoubtedly  the most unsatisfactory record among any technological country in providing health care for its citizens. At times, opposition to reform in the United States takes the form of the worst of American society: racism and brutality.  However, in spite of this, here is what I found:

Over 40 million Americans have no health care insurance at all.

Those who have health care may lose it suddenly if they become unemployed through no fault of their own.

One may be denied health care coverage if a “pre-existing” condition exists.

Coverage may be suspended even while one is receiving treatment for a serious – life threatening – illness for something as simple as an administrative oversight.

There is no control of prices or premiums.  The Corporate Healthcare Monopoly can raise the cost of premiums at any time of its choosing without providing or needing a reason.

The lack of health insurance is the third leading cause of death in the United States; heart disease and cancer are the top two. Quality health care would save lives and money.

There are several factors that contribute to this shameful situation, the most important are the health insurance monopoly; health care providers, pharmaceutical companies and irresponsibility in state and federal government also play a role. Most importantly, it should be no surprise that the opponents of health care reform are members of a particular political party.   They could be called the Health Insurance Corporate Monopoly Party.

The Republican campaign against health care reform has rested in part on the traditional arguments, arguments that go back to the days when Ronald Reagan was trying to scare Americans into opposing Medicare — denunciations of “socialized medicine,” claims that universal health coverage is the road to tyranny, etc.  But in the closing rounds of the health care fight, the G.O.P. has focused more and more on an effort to demonize cost-control efforts. The Senate bill would impose “draconian cuts” on Medicare, says Senator John McCain, who proposed much deeper cuts just last year as part of his presidential campaign. “If you’re a senior and you’re on Medicare, you better be afraid of this bill,” says Senator Tom Coburn.  If these tactics work, and health reform fails, think of the message this would convey: It would signal that any effort to deal with the biggest budget problem we face will be successfully played by political opponents as an attack on older Americans. It would be a long time before anyone was willing to take on the challenge again; remember that after the failure of the Clinton effort, it was 16 years before the next try at health reform.

Again, no surprise at all, these people have been on the wrong side of history their entire lives.  The same ideological positions they are now taking on Health Care reform in 2009 are identical to the ideological stance they presented against Medicare in the 1960s and Social Security in the 1930s.   Some things never change.  See, for example,  The Republicans' Deaf Ear Is a Preexisting Condition  where Dana Milbank observed:

The Senate Finance Committee was barely an hour into its consideration of health-care reform on Tuesday morning, but Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) already knew where he stood. "I do not support a government takeover of the health-care system," he railed. The proposal "confiscates more money from the taxpayers," he went on. "It tramples on American freedom and liberties."  After this vigorous display of open-mindedness, Bunning was spent. About an hour later, spectators noticed that the senator, who had been resting his chin in his hand, had fallen fast asleep. As giggles rippled through the chamber, an aide shook Bunning, who woke with a start.

Now I want to discuss a topic which I am personally familiar with that illustrates corporate health care malfeasance.  I was employed in the IT Industry in large corporations for 27 years and during this time my wife and I had excellent health insurance provided by my employer.  It covered not only medical expenses, we had dental and vision coverage as well.  When I retired, we returned to our home in Oregon.  When our coverage under COBRA ran out, I was eligible for Medicare however my wife had no option other than to appliy for health insurance with Blue Cross of Oregon.  They didn’t check with her doctor or ask for any medical records but rejected her application summarily because of two medications she was taking:  Atenolol and Boniva for osteoporosis. 

Taking Boniva or something similar is recommended for a large percentage of middle-aged women.  The point is that her doctors never felt that she had "preexisting conditions" bit  Blue Cross Slue Shield of Oregon jumped to this conclusion based on the medication she said I was taking on the application. 

They said she had a “heart condition” and a “bone condition” and made their decision on nothing more that the prescription medication she was taking.  Again they never contacted her doctors or requested any medical records which would be required before making an accurate determination on the status of one's health. 

She was denied medical coverage because Blue Cross of Oregon said that she did have “preexisting” conditions – to reiterate they never contacted her doctors or requested copies of medical tests – and she was put into the Oregon Insurance Pool, which is also administered by Blue Cross of Oregon.    The Oregon Insurance Pool is something for those who can afford insurance but have a "preexisting" condition.

My monthly income is from my social security and from rent we are paid from the rental of business I inherited from my parents.  Our income totals $2197.00.  I pay for a Medicare supplement for $148.75 a month.  I also has prescription drug that he must take every month which total $94.28. 

So we are spending at least $704.03 every month on medical expenses. Another premium increase is something our current income cannot sustain.

As dire as our situation is, we are fortunate.  If we had social security alone, we would have to choose between medical needs and food.  However at the rate Blue Cross is raising its premiums, I don’t know how much longer that will be true and a difficult choice will have to be made.  It appears that this is just another example of life in Oregon and the United States. 

Anyway my wife couldn’t be denied coverage in the Oregon Insurance Pool - it is the place for those with pre-existing conditions.  Here is the record of her experience there:

When she started in the Oregon Insurance Pool on October 1 2008, her premium was $320.00.

On January 1, 2008 it was increased to $383.00.

On October 1, 2009 it was increased to $397.00.

On January 1, 2010 it will be increased to $461.00.

Her doctor says the expenses for medical care have not increased 30.5% since January 2, 2008 as her insurance premiums have.  From the examples of health care practice I originally stated, these seem to be most appropriate for my wife's experience:

One may be denied health care coverage if a “pre-existing” condition exists.

There is no control of prices or premiums.  The Corporate Healthcare Monopoly can raise the cost of premiums at any time of its choosing without providing or needing a reason.

One wonders, what exactly is the business case for increasing premiums $64.00 between October 1 2009 and January 2 2010?  You can find it in the fine print but what it really comes down to is greed.  To see how health care is provided in the other advanced technological countries, this Frontline Program provides documentation:  Sick Around the World. To compare how this works in the United States Sick Around America does that.  The conclusions are irrefutable.  And until Congress acts, they aren't likely to change.