How the American Health Care System Got That Way

by: Jeremy Brecher, Tim Costello and Brendan Smith, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

How the American Health Care System Got That Way
Activists protest Wal-Mart's health care coverage. More and more workers are struggling with inadequate employer-based coverage. (Photo: Scott Olson / Getty Images)

    As Americans respond to President-elect Obama's call for town hall meetings on reform of the American health care system, an understanding of how that system came to be the way it is can be crucial for figuring out how to fix it. The American health care system is unique because, for most of us, it is tied to our jobs rather than to our government. For many Americans, the system seems natural, but few know that it originated not as a well-thought-out plan to provide for Americans' health, but as a way to circumvent a quirk in wartime wage regulations that had nothing to do with health.

    As far back as the 1920's, a few big employers had offered health insurance plans to some of their workers. But only a few: By 1935, only about two million people were covered by private health insurance, and on the eve of World War II, there were only 48 job-based health plans in the entire country.

    The rise of unions in the 1930's and 1940's led to the first great expansion of health care for Americans. But ironically, it did not produce a national plan providing health care to all, like those in virtually all other developed countries. Instead, the special conditions of World War II produced the system of job-based health benefits we know today.

    In 1942, the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering "fringe benefits" - notably, health insurance. The fringe benefits created a huge tax subsidy; they were treated as tax-deductible expenses for corporations, but not as taxable income for workers.

    The result was revolutionary. Companies and unions quickly negotiated new health insurance plans. Some were run by Blue Cross, Blue Shield and private insurance companies. Others were "Taft-Hartley funds," run jointly by management and unions. By 1950, half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another. By 1965, nearly three-quarters of the population were covered by some kind of private health insurance.

    This private, job-based insurance covered millions of workers, who had never had health care insurance before. But this victory also set patterns that are responsible for many of the problems the health care system faces today.

    Because this private system was tied to employment, it did not provide health insurance for all. Millions of people outside the workforce were without coverage. Those most likely to be covered were salaried or unionized white men in northern industrial states. Two-thirds of those with incomes under $2,000 a year were not covered, nor were nearly half of nonwhites and those over 65.

    Employer-based plans tied workers to their jobs - something that benefited employers, but not workers or the economy as a whole. The quality of the coverage was spotty - some plans were excellent, others completely inadequate. Doctors accepted this revolution because it didn't challenge their power; but, as a result, the system provided no public control over medical costs.

    This revolution had a subtle political effect as well. By giving much of the workforce health benefits, it reduced the incentive for them to pursue a system of universal care. And it gave unions a stake in the private, employer-based health care system. As one opponent of publicly financed health care put it, "the greatest bulwark" against "the socialization of medicine" was "furthering the progress already made by voluntary health insurance plans."

    Since then, many layers have been laid on top of employer-based health care. Medicare and Medicaid provided government-funded health insurance for the elderly and impoverished. The "managed care revolution" led to the takeover of 90 percent of employer-based health care by HMOs, most of them driven by profit rather than health concerns. But most people continue to get their health care through their employer.

    Many of the problems of American health care grow out of this history. The system is so complex that even experts - let alone ordinary people trying to find care for themselves and their loved ones - are unable to fully understand it. The system spends one-third of its cost on paperwork, waste and profit over and above the cost of actually providing health care. Yet, nearly one-third of Americans are without health insurance over the course of a year. In all other developed countries, more than 85 percent of citizens have health coverage under public programs. The American health care system is full of inequalities: People who work for one company may have high quality insurance, while those who work for a similar company have none.

    All of these problems are due at least in part to an employer-based system, the original intent of which was not to provide quality health care to all, but to circumvent wartime wage regulations. As we begin to debate how to reform health care, we should keep in mind that the American health care system was not created to express American values or to meet Americans' health care needs. And knowing that, we should not be afraid to change the system if we can come up with a better one.

    ---------

     This piece is excerpted from "Doctor Wall Street: How the American Health Care System Got So Sick," from a popular pamphlet on the history of the American health care system available for free download at http://laborstrategies.blogs.com/DoctorWallStreet.pdf

    Tim Costello, Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith are the co-founders of Global Labor Strategies, a resource center providing research and analysis on globalization, trade and labor issues. GLS staff have published many previous reports on a variety of labor-related issues, including Outsource This! American Workers, the Jobs Deficit, and the Fair Globalization Solution, Contingent Workers Fight For Fairness, and Fight Where You Stand!: Why Globalization Matters in Your Community and Workplace. They have also written and produced the Emmy-nominated PBS documentary Global Village or Global Pillage? GLS has offices in New York, Boston, and Montevideo, Uruguay. For more on GLS visit: www.laborstrategies.blogs.com or email smithb28@gmail.com.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Jeanne Lambrew, who helped

Jeanne Lambrew, who helped Daschle write the book about health care reform, will serve as deputy director of the new White House health policy office. Lambrew has learned that our nation's health and economic problems can "be prevented by policy." She has also learned that the specter of socialized medicine should no longer be allowed to block comprehensive reform in the United States. Yet Jeanne Lambrew insists on continuing with and expanding our current inefficient, fragmented multi-payer system that can never achieve our goals of equitable, high-quality, comprehensive care for absolutely everyone. She is a brilliant individual who is more informed than most on the policy issues. She rejects the nonsense about the socialized medicine bogeyman. So why does she and the other Washington veterans continue to begin from a position that single payer is not feasible? The feasibility issue lies within the Senate, with Senator Chuck Grassley as the proxy. He certainly recognizes the problems. He understands the rationale of single payer. He doesn't accept the disastrous status quo. But feasibility? Is he really going to insist that we abandon important policy choices that would actually work? You don't need to answer that. Just look for higher costs, more mediocrity, continued inequity, and adoption of highly flawed, wish-they-would-work policies.


Profit-based "health scare"

Profit-based "health scare" is not limited to employers. Presently government agencies that are supposed to protect our health and environment are working exactly backward against alternatives such as NUTRITION!! LOWERING minimum daily requirements and making many ordinary health-giving vitamins and supplements ILLEGAL to purchase without prescription. With 60% of doctors admitting to taking kickbacks to push new (and often untested) drugs (which cure nothing) from big PHARMA corporations, this must be addressed in changing a SICK system.


A very good history. I

A very good history. I recall the advice of my parents and neighbors in the 50's and 60's to get a "good job with a big company" because they provided health benefits. Otherwise, I'd have none or have to pay a lot to get them. Later, when I had the good job and the health benefits, I remember feeling trapped, at times, over the desire to take another job or stick with the one I had. I knew at the time that the fringe benefits package was both a way of attracting and a way of retaining good employees. It's ironic in the current crisis that the employers want to dump the very tool they embraced. What I can't understand is why corporations and small businesses don't embrace a single-payer universal health program. They could cut their own expenses and get out of the hassle of negotiating with every employee and union over their company-chosen health care solution.


Our health care system is

Our health care system is broken like our education system, our economy our public transportation and our banking system--each are broken in the same way--we are in the middle of the more grave moral crisis in American History. Probably nothing since slavery has more greed and inequities built in to the fabric of our nation. We are in a moral crisis of epic proportion, people are hungry, 25,000,000 are hungry in THIS country daily. We bail-out billionaires -- but we look with disgust at a struggling low income family because they can not pick themselves up by their own boot straps...;.MORAL crisis is the center piece of every ill in our society today. The sin of greed more than any other has cast its serpent like spell on everything from Wall street to the wards in our hospitals. I know a young, dedicAted doctor who works for a local health clinic. His case load is 5000 patients. If you took off one zero it would be too hard to manage. We are a FOR PROFIT society. Our morality has been thought of in dollars and cents RATHER THAT IN VALUES AND SENSE.


Still another instance of

Still another instance of our congress pandering for votes instead of doing what is best for our country and citizens. And we still vote for the incumbents. Will we never learn?


It doesn't help that you

It doesn't help that you have such a leading light as Paul Krugman confusing universal health insurance with universal health care, and advocating an expansion of the former using mandates on employers and individuals. Prepare for years of not-so-bold yet persistent experimentation, as Democrats flounder around trying to "fix" the current system rather than replacing it. If you are an individual forced to do business with the insurance companies, you'll have access to "affordable" plans that are effectively useless in bettering your health. Good for saving hospital corporations and doctors from losses in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury. Not so good for you. One "bright" note: with unemployment zooming up and government budgets busting at all levels across the country it's only a matter of time before the present system collapses entirely. After all, add another 10 million to the 40 million now uninsured and you'll really see sparks fly. Overcrowded ERs and hospitals going broke trying to meet mandates to care for the uninsured with a shrinking amount of government aid to assist them. We need a Canadian style system. Half the per capita cost of our nonsense system, though with universal care.


Leave us not forget also the

Leave us not forget also the role that Southern Democrats played in preventing universal health care after WWII. Their objection to "socialized medicine" was that African-Americans would be covered by it.


Capitalism is the problem.

Capitalism is the problem. Socialism is the answer.


Capitalism and socialism are

Capitalism and socialism are the opposing extremes of the pendulum swing. Neither are good and both cause big problems. The answer is to stop the swing and let the pendulum return to the middle. What America needs is a socially responsible democracy in which the rule of law applies to all.


The problems with health

The problems with health care in the U.S. are many, but the primary cancer is the insurance industry. There is the root of the problem. Health care should be just that, health care, not an industry and not a business. I have worked in the health care industry and it is a deeply mired critical mess that actually needs completely dismantled which, of course, will result in a lot of economic turmoil if the drug companies are made to expect normal profits, not huge ones and insurance companies are shut down, but that is what would have to happen. The system should either be like Canada's, or what the market itself can bear and I believe docs could still make a fine profit! The first step is to seriously educate the young about their bodies, health and prevention so people do not run to the doctor for antibiotics for colds, etc as well as overall taking better care of themselves. I also believe that triage needs to be seriously dealt with. If someone has caused their own disease, i.e., due to smoking or over-eating, etc., then they should pay more and be on the bottom of lists for things like surgery. If health education is given a high priority in school, then this could be accomplished. I wish President Obama good luck, becuase he is going to need it if he is going to try to fix anything in the overall backward thinking, head in the sand country.


I think there are three

I think there are three things that stand in the way of true reform of our health care system: Insurance Corporations, Pharmaceutical Corporations, and the American Medical Association. These are the forces that make politicians write off single payer and other real solutions as "unfeasible." If Obama really wants to stand for change and for the triumph of grassroots over the corporate lock on power, it is time to take on these three forces. Insurance corporations are fine for insuring cars and other optional possessions, but they definitely do not belong in the middle of the health care system where they create inefficiencies and detract from both the health care providers' ability to provide, and from the health care consumer's ability to get help and be healthy. Insurance-based health care is a burden on individuals, employers, and doctors. Pharmaceutical companies use the excuse of recouping R&D costs and lack of international patent protection for the exorbitant prices they charge in this country. The same drugs can be purchased at much lower prices in almost any other country. We need a new way to provide incentive to researchers to develop and test new drugs, without requiring those who are sick or dying to subsidize development. The American Medical Association controls the supply of doctors in this country while the demand grows with the population and with medical advances. Both Spain and Cuba have brought health care costs down and provided more than enough health care providers for their population by subsidizing medical education and increasing the number of medical schools. Do not believe that quality medical education depends on the ultra-competitive situation we have where very few of the qualified people who would like to be doctors can manage to find a place in a medical school. Then, the education is so expensive, with so few sources of financial aid, that new doctors are massively in debt by the time they start their careers, which encourages even the well-meaning to default to charging more. We need to break the hold of the AMA on medical education and produce more doctors and encourage them by providing college-loan forgiveness for those who work in clinics and in under-served areas. Also, I agree that corporations and small businesspeople should be natural allies in the fight to change the system. What a financial stimulus package it would be if employers no longer had to provide health care "benefits!"


Infrastructure. "The basic

Infrastructure. "The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons." (Dictionary.com) I would add that all energy, environment and health care be added to this definition. (And its notable that "prisons" is included, setting aside the odd priorities of this country and our military- intelligence- prison- industrial complex, because prisoners are required to have health care.) Infrastructure should refer to anything necessary to support and sustain human survival (including protecting the planet that sustains us). The word was hijacked during the industrial revolution to refer to public works. It's time to reclaim its fuller meaning and then attend to it fully.


The review by Brecher et al

The review by Brecher et al of how we got to a predominately employer based health insurance situation is essential background knowledge, and needs to be required reading for all who would proffer an opinion on health care policy. It made some sense as a way around wage controls during WW II, but makes absolutely no sense now. There is no defensible reason to still have one's health care tied to his or her job. Yet even our newly elected and appointed representatives seem reluctant to recoginze this and to explain it to all the American people. To fail to do so is to fail to acknowledge that the naked emperor has no clothes. But there are a great many other things wrong with our current health care juggernaut, with funding being only one of them. As a physician for 35 years I have seen first hand the evolution of wonderful technology and pharmaceuticals; and I have witnessed their massive overuse, resulting in ever higher medical costs, no matter who is paying for them. There is no single reason for this overuse; there are many. Physicians, hospitals, health insurance companies,pharmaceutical companies, medical device makers and many others must share the blame. And so must all of us when we are patients (consumers). We need a Surgeon General or other leader, strongly supported by the President, to begin the process of educating all of us to not only lead a healthy lifestyle, but to have more reasonable expectations of how much care (expense) a system must provide. No other heath care system provides its patients with so much testing, imaging, prescribing, surgery and other technology. And their results are actually better for doing (spending) less. Thee are no easy solutions to the myriad ills affecting our health care system, but recognition of the above truths is a good starting point.


I recently lost my left foot

I recently lost my left foot in a job related incident and found that the State of Oregon had recently begun supporting Workers Comp insurance companies for fear of losing their required coverage. If I hadn't been covered by my employers health insurance I would now be homeless and crippled. If this were Canada, Britain, Switzerland, Germany, Japan or Taiwan I believe we wouldn't have to worry about ineffective WC coverage or fools who believe in health care as a privilege and not a right or national security issue. An American Universal Health system is needed now. Not having it will leave us a Third World power with our Friedmanist economy of deficit spending and Voodoo medical economics.


Linda Kenoyer blames the

Linda Kenoyer blames the insurance and pharmaceutical industries along with the AMA for blocking reform in the medical "system" in the US. However, her statement that, "The American Medical Association controls the supply of doctors in this country..." is incorrect. The AMA is simply an organization of physicians that at present counts only about half of the MDs in this country as members. The supply of med students is controlled in part by economic factors--the expense of building and operating a school (and the amount of governmental and private support it receives)--and in part by standards imposed by the American Council for Graduate Medical Education. Indeed, "the education is so expensive, with so few sources of financial aid, that new doctors are massively in debt by the time they start their careers, which encourages even the well-meaning to default to charging more." But this also has nothing to do with the AMA. There was a time, years ago, when the AMA was one of the most conservative organizations around. In the 1930s, they opposed Blue Cross as a socialist plan, for instance. Indeed, for a long time I refused to join it because of this outlook. That has changed radically since those days. I doubt that now the organization would oppose a single-payer system or free medical education if they should ever come to pass. Certainly the AMA would have no problem with increasing the supply of MDs. You have to look elsewhere for the sources of the problems.


The best way to get radical

The best way to get radical change (i.e., single payer universal medical coverage for all Americans who want it) is to first make sure that the health coverage the rich enjoy is not disturbed. Why should we care about THEM? Because if we ruffle their feathers in any way, their sense of entitlement kicks in and they'll oppose anything that's good for ORDINARY people. So let them continue to pay for their private plans, including those "boutique" medical practices that are springing up here in affluent parts of Long Island and elsewhere, and OPEN MEDICARE TO ALL persons who want to enroll. If they are too poor to pay the premiums, let's subsidize them with our tax money. Some of the worst fraud by doctors occurs in the Medicaid system; if we bring the poor into Medicare instead, we'll have far better oversight of that and save hundreds of millions of $$. And by making it OPTIONAL to join Medicare, people who are still enchanted with their HMOs (there must be at least 50 of them) can stick with what they've got -- except we won't subsidize any of their premiums or copays.


Given the war time origins

Given the war time origins of our health care system, it's worth noting that Henry J. Kaiser, famous for his involvement with building the Hoover Dam and the Grand Coulee Dam during the depression and Liberty ships during the war, moved into health care after the war. In 1945 he founded Kaiser Permanente, which went on to become the model for health maintenance organizations under Nixon.


Jeremy: As a health care

Jeremy: As a health care writer, I've known this for quite a while, but I'm so glad you've put the facts out here for everyone to see. Thank you.


wckNdzPLaQlm

3A3BD0 wvnvjnzdncar, [url=http://ozhqvxcpbqrv.com/]ozhqvxcpbqrv[/url], [link=http://lceagmfohalg.com/]lceagmfohalg[/link], http://ajpmozuccmhl.com/



ANiIJvdnzvRNyhCd

NS7FbJ gozffzxrszed, [url=http://htdpkhubgwum.com/]htdpkhubgwum[/url], [link=http://mfymmsbcpmry.com/]mfymmsbcpmry[/link], http://zugrqqvypbaj.com/