Among the handful of Democratic senators who have threatened to support a Republican filibuster, Lincoln is alone in facing reelection next year. Her weakness in recent polls, which suggest that well under half of her home state’s voters approve of her performance, has clearly frightened her and emboldened nearly a dozen Republican candidates who want to run against her. Despite careful pandering to right-wing opinion, she has inevitably become a prime target of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which has vowed to punish her for voting with her party on healthcare.

But as that fateful tally approaches, Lincoln is at last feeling serious pressure from Democrats as well. The man who brought the free clinic to Little Rock — along with “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann — is Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, who could be encouraged to enter a primary against her should she uphold the Republican filibuster. A former Clinton administration official and Rhodes scholar, Halter raised his profile by establishing a popular statewide lottery, with proceeds dedicated to education.

When Halter was asked on “Countdown” whether he might run for Lincoln’s seat, he didn’t say no. No doubt he knows that the activists who belong to Moveon.org and Democrats for America have vowed to raise millions of dollars to support a primary opponent for Lincoln unless she votes for cloture.

Lincoln’s position is especially perilous at the moment because no matter what she says or does, her ratings seem to decline. Back in July, she wrote an Op-Ed essay on healthcare reform for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the state’s largest daily newspaper, indicating that she supported “real” reform, including either “a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals as those of a public plan.” In that same essay she went on to berate “the opponents of reform, who have no real plan for improving health care,” for reviving the “tired arguments of the past,” with their warnings about “a Washington takeover of health care which will raise your taxes, get between you and your doctor, and eliminate private insurance.” She warned Arkansans not to be misled by those who would use such “misinformation” to stimulate fear and block change.

But as her poll numbers plummeted and her position shifted sharply to the right, Lincoln herself quickly became a purveyor of misinformation, particularly concerning the public option. In a September speech at the University of Arkansas medical school, the senator described a bill that does not exist. “For some in my caucus, when they talk about a public option they’re talking about another entitlement program, and we can’t afford that right now as a nation,” she said. “I’m not going to vote for a bill that’s not deficit-neutral, and I’m not going to vote for a bill that doesn’t do something about curbing the cost in the out years, because it would be pointless … I would not support a solely government-funded public option.”

As Lincoln certainly knows by now, because she claims to have read every page of the pending bills, the public option is neither an entitlement nor solely government-funded, but is to be financed with premiums from its beneficiaries. As for the cost of reform, she also knows that the Senate bill saves hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades, according to Congressional Budget Office scoring.

Running away from reform, Lincoln looked weak rather than thoughtful, and cowardly rather than centrist. Her numbers have not improved, and the Republicans are mocking her as a flip-flopper. The damage to her standing among Democrats could make the difference on Election Day, because many voters who pulled the lever for her in 2004 will simply fail to show up. A Democratic state senator who has supported Lincoln in the past told me that she recently sent a message to Lincoln’s office: Healthcare is a “line in the sand,” not just another issue.

It was Bill Clinton who uttered the most pungent criticism of Lincoln in recent days, however, although he didn’t mention her by name. Speaking at a luncheon to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the opening of his presidential library in Little Rock on Wednesday afternoon, he berated the opponents of reform for preserving a system that spends far more than other developed countries for worse care — at least $900 billion annually, according to his back-of-the-envelope calculations.

Clinton asked his audience, which included hundreds of Democratic donors and activists, to imagine a scenario in which he could somehow run for a third term as president (which drew enthusiastic applause). Then he asked them to consider what would happen if he offered the following campaign promise:

“If you elect me again, the first thing I’m going to do is put a $900 billion tax on you … I’m going to have the government print the money, and put it on elevated flatbeds, and display it along the national mall. And we’re going to broadcast this ceremony on national television. And then I’m going to motor myself from one end of that $900 billion to the other, sprinkling Kerosene on it, and then I’m going to set it afire and watch it burn.

“How many people do you think would vote for me?” he demanded. “If you don’t want to reform healthcare, that is your position. That is what you are advocating.”

Lincoln wasn’t there, but she could have heard the roaring laughter all the way back in Washington.

Prof. McConnell’s essay includes some uncharacteristically sloppy statements, as Sam Bagenstos points out. But he asks a good question: Why didn’t the Democrats see this trouble coming?

I’m now working on a book on the constitutional objections to the Affordable Care Act, which will be published in the spring of 2013 by Oxford, and I’ve been researching this very question. What I’ve found may be surprising.

The constitutional limits that the bill supposedly disregarded could not have been anticipated because they did not exist while the bill was being written. They were invented only in the fall of 2009, quite late in the legislative process.

The first exploration of Congress’s authority to enact a mandate was a paper by Mark Hall, which he posted on SSRN in February, 2009. (I have not been able to find even a hint of the constitutional objection before Obama’s election, even though mandates have been proposed, mainly by Republicans, since the early 1990s.) He concluded that the mandate easily followed from existing commerce clause jurisprudence. His piece is extensively footnoted, but it cites no authority to the contrary. Republicans had no constitutional objections. Senator Charles Grassley said in June 2009, “I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.”  (He later changed his mind.)

The first published claim of unconstitutionality that I have been able to find is a July 10, 2009, Federalist Society paper by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith. They created the now notorious action/inaction distinction, declaring that “Congress would have to explain how not doing something – not buying insurance and not seeking health care services – implicated interstate commerce.” But they made only a modest effort to rebut the obvious response based on text and precedent, and their bottom line was that a mandate “might be susceptible to an ‘as applied’ challenge from individuals who (1) never access the health care system or (2) are able to pay for their health care without using insurance.” Not only does this not suggest a facial challenge of the kind that the Court is now considering — even they weren’t that bold — but the hypothetical individuals are fanciful.  No one who is not a multimillionaire can know for certain that they will be able to pay for all their future healthcare needs out of pocket.

On July 14, the House committees generated a unified healthcare bill, and the next day the bill passed the Senate Health Committee. On July 24, a Congressional Research Service memo, determinedly evenhanded, declared that the power of Congress to require the purchase of a good or service was “a novel issue.”  It, too, developed no substantive argument for unconstitutionality.

An August 17 blog post by Rob Natelson offered a litany of briefly stated constitutional objections, most of which were never heard from again. It was quoted sympathetically, but without elaboration, by David Kopel on the Volokh Conspiracy blog – the first post on that blog to suggest that there could be a constitutional issue. (The importance of the Volokh blog to the healthcare issue has already been noted, here.) On August 22, David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote a Washington Post op-ed declaring that “[t]he federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there.” There were some follow-up posts on Volokh Conspiracy by Jonathan Adler and Ilya Somin, both of whom reluctantly concluded that the bill was clearly authorized by current law. (Both later changed their minds and will now tell you that the mandate is obviously unconstitutional!)

On Sept. 18, Randy Barnett entered the fray for the first time, with a post on Politico and a follow-up on Volokh. Suddenly the meme went viral. On Sept. 21, CBS News reported that, “In the last few days, a new argument has emerged in the debate over Democratic healthcare proposals.” CBS observed that the O’Reilly Factor and Fox News had picked up on the story. Suddenly there was an outpouring of pieces, on Volokh and elsewhere, developing the constitutional objection. But even at this point it was a soundbite, not a legal argument.

The bill passed the Senate Finance Committee on October 13, and the full House of Representatives on November 7.

The first sustained legal argument was published by Barnett and two coauthors in a Heritage Foundation paper on Dec. 9, 2009. This was no casual blog post. It carefully engaged the cases and the literature and closely tracked the argument that eventually was brought before the Court. Barnett deserves the credit he has gotten: Like so much of his work, the argument was witty, sophisticated, creative and clever. There had been nothing like it before. But it had little basis in existing law, and its flaws came to light almost immediately. Rivkin and Casey made a similar argument (which didn’t add much, on the crucial commerce power issue, to their earlier op-ed) in a piece (undated) on the Pennsylvania Law Review’s web edition. Jack Balkin wrote a devastating reply, to which Barnett posted a link and response on Dec. 11.

None of these writings said much about the most powerful basis for Congress’s authority: its broad power under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which has been well established since 1819. Barnett’s paper was a work in progress. By the time he wrote his Supreme Court brief in February 2012, he implicitly acknowledged this unfinished business by struggling for more than 30 pages with the problem.

The bill passed the Senate on Dec. 24. The rest of the story is familiar: On January 19, 2010, Scott Brown surprisingly won the special Senate election in Massachusetts, depriving the Democrats of their filibuster-proof majority. It took some time for them to figure out how to respond, but the legislative obstacles were surmounted, and the bill was signed in March 2010.

The Democrats might, I suppose, have jettisoned the mandate. Certainly by early 2010 they knew that constitutional arguments were being made. McConnell suggests that “the drafters of the legislation should have stayed within the generous bounds of authority established by prior precedent.” But that’s just what they did do. As Balkin noted in July 2010, Barnett was trying to shift the boundaries of what counted as an off-the-wall argument.

Dropping the mandate also would have defeated one of the law’s primary purposes. A Congressional Budget Office report indicated that eliminating it would raise the uninsured population in 2019 by 16 million, with insurance rates rising by 15 to 20 percent for those who bought insurance individually. McConnell thinks that the Democrats have only themselves to blame, because they did not toss these people over the side as soon as there was a whisper of a constitutional issue. As the oral argument made clear, the case against the mandate requires a remarkable degree of callousness, obsessively focusing on the minor burden imposed by the mandate while determinedly ignoring the fact that the unavailability of insurance kills thousands of people annually. Now we are told that the Democrats were unreasonable because they did not immediately capitulate to their opponents’ newly crafted assumption that this callousness is written into the Constitution.

To say that the Democrats have only themselves to blame for not anticipating these newly minted constitutional claims is like saying John F. Kennedy had only himself to blame for not getting a second term as president because he should have anticipated Lee Harvey Oswald.

In 2009, the Democrats passed a series of insurance reforms misleadingly dubbed “healthcare reform.” Many of those reforms were valuable tweaks to our private insurance system, and while many Americans are wary about the law as a whole, when asked about the specifics, most of the specifics in the law are quite popular. But Congress didn’t reform the healthcare system in a way that would significantly “bend the cost curve,” and the new study – which uses insurance industry data that was made available to the public for the first time (other studies extrapolated from Medicare payment data) – shows that the costs of medical services continue to climb much faster than the rate at which either the economy or wages are growing.

Chapin White, a senior researcher at the Center for Studying Health System Change, told Kaiser Health News that the report shows that working people covered by their employers “are paying more and getting less” because hospitals and other medical providers “just seem to be able to raise prices faster than general inflation.”

In some areas – like ER visits, outpatient surgery and mental health services – prices have increased at five times the rate of inflation.

But the study also shows that the rate of increase in healthcare costs has slowed during the downturn compared to their staggering climbs during the decade prior. If our healthcare system were growing more efficient, that would be good news, but while there is some evidence that Obamacare is in fact beginning to reduce costs to some degree, the bigger story is that many Americans are simply foregoing services.

Because while healthcare costs – and insurance premiums – continue to climb, an ever-larger share of the burden of those costs has been shifted onto the backs of working people. A recent study found that half of those respondents who had been sick during the previous year thought that the “quality of care” they’d received was a problem, and three in four identified rising costs as a serious issue.

As economist Jared Bernstein notes, “We’ve got recession-induced falling incomes bumping into faster growing prices for health services. Add in increased cost-shifting from employers to workers and you’ve got a pretty good recipe for lower overall spending.”

Compounding the madness is a push by the right – and some on the left – to roll back those insurance reforms passed after a year of bloody political combat. Forget for a moment about the lifetime and annual caps on out-of-pocket expenses, the requirement that preventive care be covered without co-pays (which should eventually result in some cost containment), the provision allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plans, or closing the “donut hole” that requires seniors to pay a big chunk of their prescription drug costs out-of-pocket. Just consider that 10 million low-income Americans – people largely priced out of the market at present — will be eligible for single-payer public healthcare as the threshold for Medicaid eligibility goes up by 50 percent. (According to one study, 75 percent of low-income workers lack health insurance.)

Conservatives want to do away with “Obamacare” because they’re ideologically predisposed to buy into demagoguery about “death panels,” “government take-overs” and the supposed perfidy of the public healthcare systems that produce better outcomes for less in most of the rest of the developed world.

Some progressives also want to do away with it because it’s built around an individual mandate to buy private health insurance – long the signature Republican proposal for healthcare reform. (The mandate has become almost universally unpopular, but it is linked to the highly popular requirement that insurers cover people suffering from pre-existing conditions.)

Their thinking appears to be that if we revert to the status quo ante, the system’s deep dysfunctions – with skyrocketing costs and tens of millions uninsured – will exert so much pressure on families and businesses that it will inevitably lead to an outcry for a single-payer system. But there are big problems with their logic and a much better solution, one that wouldn’t leave those who do enjoy good coverage worried about their futures: Open up Medicare for everyone who wants in. And if single-payer systems are superior, doing so should eventually lead us there.

It’s true that single-payer is the only scheme that will provide universal coverage while actually decreasing overall healthcare spending. But the reality is that a large share of the population is covered – retirees by Medicare, the very poor by Medicaid and a majority of us through our jobs — and even with rising out-of-pocket expenses, they don’t face the horrors of being uninsured. Many of those who aren’t covered – young people, the working poor, the self-employed – are infamously difficult to organize.

But say the system does eventually collapse under the weight of its own inequities. There was a 15-year period between the last attempt to reform health care under Clinton and the passage of Obamacare. If it takes another 10-15 years to get a better set of reforms, there remains a lot of room for shifting more costs onto working families, denying more people coverage and causing more Americans to suffer needlessly. It is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater – just remember those 10 million poor people who wouldn’t be covered under Medicaid, a single-payer public health program, if Obamacare were repealed.

It is also based on the ahistoric premise that once a big, new social program is enacted, that’s it – it’s locked in stone. That was hardly the case with Social Security or Medicare, both of which have been amended again and again since their original passages in 1935 and 1965, respectively.

Understanding this leads to a better approach. Instead of throwing away a decent set of insurance reforms and a new infrastructure for (almost) universal coverage, progressives should come together around a simple amendment: Open up the Medicare system to anyone – individuals and employers — who wants to buy into it. Kill the limited state-based exchanges for private insurance (or keep them) and retain the subsidies for households and small businesses that provide coverage, keep the Medicaid expansion intact, let kids stay on their parents’ plans until age 26, and maintain the caps on out-of-pocket expenses. Throw away the bathwater, but hang onto the baby.

This might fulfill the promise of the original “Hacker Plan” (PDF), with its “public option” that would pit a single-payer system against the private insurance industry in head-to-head competition. Those who believe – rightly – that a single-payer system is the only way to provide universal coverage while cutting overall health spending should have the courage of their convictions and embrace that competition. May the better system win.

It’s an approach that doesn’t alienate or frighten the millions who enjoy decent coverage from their employers. And while it might take the same 10-15 years to get to a critical mass of Americans opting into Medicare, which could later be financed entirely from tax revenues, in the interim, we’d maintain the positive insurance reforms passed in 2009.

In other words, we need to keep moving the ball forward. With Americans paying more to get less health care, the moment is ripe to open up Medicare to all comers. And talk of going backward is hard to understand.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of “The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy: And Everything Else the Right Doesn’t Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America.” Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.

“It’s one of the things that I think should continue to be the case,” Blunt said of the “dependent coverage” provision, explaining that “it’s a way to get a significant number of the uninsured into an insurance group without much cost,” because young people are generally healthy.

Blunt noted that he even introduced a bill when he was in the House that would do exactly what the provision of the Affordable Care Act does now, saying, “I was for it then, and I’d be for it now.” “You’re breaking some news,” host McGraw Milhaven quipped.

While Blunt said he still favors repealing most of the health law, he would want to preserve a few sections, including the dependent coverage provision and the creation of high-risk pools for patients with preexisting conditions.

Romney has repeatedly vowed to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act, though he hasn’t spoken out specifically on the dependent coverage provision and he enacted a similar provision as governor. The provision is hugely popular, even though the overall law is not. And while Republican leaders supported the extension of coverage to 26-year-olds as recently as 2009, when it was included in the GOP’s healthcare alternative proposal, the GOP’s message today is that they’re for a complete repeal of the law, including the minimum coverage provision.

This got Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in trouble after it was revealed that he takes advantage of Obamacare to make sure his daughter has insurance.

I’m holding myself back from saying “duh” here, but this still has to be reiterated at a time when abstinence-only education that doesn’t provide detailed information about contraceptive use, except occasionally to emphasize its limits, not only persists but recently got a federal stamp of approval. As an Advocates for Youth report on the impact of abstinence-only education noted, “Proponents of abstinence-only programs believe that providing information about the health benefits of condoms or contraception contradicts their message of abstinence-only and undermines its impact. As such, abstinence-only programs provide no information about contraception beyond failure rates.” That’s how you get terrifying statistics like this one from the Guttmacher report: In the survey, “60 percent underestimated the effectiveness of oral contraceptives and 40 percent held the fatalistic view that using birth control does not matter.” Overall, “more than half of young men and a quarter of young women received low scores on contraceptive knowledge.” It’s also how you get figures like the one from the CDC that found that 31.4 percent of pregnant teens didn’t use contraception because they “thought they could not get pregnant at the time.”

There are two reasons to be optimistic that some dent can be made in these depressing figures, and they both have to do with provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Much has been made of the mandate that insurance policies cover all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, but there’s another aspect that’s been relatively overlooked: the fact that the same provision includes free education and counseling about sex and contraception, at least for the insured. The second reason for optimism is that the mandate will make it far easier for women to get longer-acting and more effective forms of contraception like the IUD — which are also more expensive and which studies have shown women would be interested in if they could afford them. Incidentally, the recent Guttmacher study found that women who were using long-acting or regular hormonal contraception tended to score higher on overall knowledge.

It will be awhile before we know if these changes will move the needle on the nation’s unparalleled rate of unintended pregnancy. The women’s health provisions only go into effect for new plans in August 2012, and older plans will be initially grandfathered and eventually phased out. And of course, there’s another big fat if – whether the Supreme Court overturns all or part of the Affordable Care Act. The Obama campaign and its allies are keen to point out how such a move — or, perhaps, a legislative repeal down the line — will hurt women above all. The Center for American Progress recently released a report on “Women and Obamacare” (the campaign having officially embraced the derisively intended term). It declares Obamacare “the greatest legislative advancement for women’s health in a generation,” which may be true for reasons more depressing than inspiring: There have been very few advancements partly because there has been so much political defense played.

In addition to the reproductive health benefits, the report points to preventive care recommendations for which cost-sharing has already been cut: mammograms, pap smears, prenatal care and so on. According to the report, “close to 9 million women will gain coverage for maternity care in the individual market starting in 2014,” currently not covered in 78 percent of plans sold on the individual market. It notes that women are more frequent users of healthcare services than men, that they’re likelier to make the household decisions on healthcare and that they’re more vulnerable to losing coverage because they’re likelier to be listed as dependents on a partner’s plan. The Affordable Care Act also makes it illegal to engage in “gender rating” – charging women $1 billion more than men on the individual market – and bans states from discriminating on the basis of gender identity in their insurance exchanges.

The report does acknowledge two ways in which Obamacare falls short for women who were “left out of the law — undocumented and recent immigrant women and women who need abortion services.” It claims that “political compromises on abortion coverage were necessary to ensure passage of the Affordable Care Act” – still a bitter loss to reproductive rights groups, who memorably described women as having been “thrown under the bus” by Democrats – “but the work to obtain abortion coverage for all women continues.” The last part is particularly debatable, at least when it comes to any momentum on the funding issue from national Democrats, while Republicans in the states and federally have spent considerable energy trying to limit abortion coverage on even private insurance plans.

Still, if the Affordable Care Act is allowed to stand, the magnitude of having an actual, proactive reproductive health access policy shouldn’t be underplayed. Maybe we’ll get closer to a saner republic where hearing “birth control doesn’t matter” from people who don’t want to get pregnant is a quaint memory.

The healthcare industry makes up 16 percent of our economy. Yet even in these days of close to 10 percent unemployment, we do not invest enough money in our young people to train them for jobs in healthcare — an already understaffed industry that will have to serve an additional 32 million people once the provisions of the 2010 health-reform law take full effect. Instead, when faced with pressure from hospitals and nursing homes for more healthcare workers, the federal government grants visas to import nurses, physicians, pharmacists, physical therapists, and many other types of healthcare workers from countries that can ill afford to lose them.

In some U.S. industries, the outcome of globalization is positive or neutral. Take the sugar industry. Due to lower labor and land costs and better weather conditions, it’s far cheaper to grow sugar cane in the Caribbean than sugar beets in North Dakota. As import taxes fall, global transportation improves, and the number of sugar beet farms in the United States declines, more Americans are sweetening their cereal with sugar from Jamaican sugar cane. Americans save money buying cheaper sugar; the economy of the poorer sugar-growing countries improves, lifting thousands of people out of poverty; and the few displaced American sugar beet farmers generally find other work. But sugar is not a strategic commodity. If CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, were to halt sugar exports to the United States, we would experience no crisis. Sugar is not essential to our diet or life, and we have plenty of substitutes, from honey and corn syrup to NutraSweet. If necessary, within a year we could again be producing sugar in the United States.

The U.S. healthcare industry is 200 times larger than the U.S. tire-manufacturing industry, yet President Obama risked a trade war with China, our biggest trade partner, over tires. He was understandably trying to protect well-paying manufacturing jobs for American workers. Yet each year, we bring thousands of nurses from China to work in even better-paying jobs rather than train young people in this country to become nurses. The irony is that the economic costs of “insourcing” healthcare workers, including the loss of jobs no longer available to Americans, are far greater than the costs when we import Chinese tires. In 2003 the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS), a U.S.-based nongovernmental organization that administers the U.S. nursing licensing exam for foreign-trained nurses, opened a testing center in Beijing. The opening of this center initiated a “mushrooming” of new nursing schools in China and led to credible predictions that China will soon surpass the Philippines as the number one source of foreign-trained nurses imported to the United States.

Given the publicity and furor over the loss of manufacturing jobs, the lack of protest over healthcare-worker insourcing is surprising. Congress passed legislation and President George W. Bush signed a law in 2007 to protect the American sock industry from the rival Honduran sock industry. Yes, that’s right: socks. Protecting a few hundred $15-an-hour sock-manufacturing jobs based solely in the small town of Fort Payne, Ala., was worth acting on. Yet insourcing hundreds of thousands of $60-an-hour healthcare jobs has prompted no such similarly high-level response from our leaders.

Instead, on a regular basis, Congress approves and presidents from both political parties sign legislation to enable the legal entry of an ever-increasing number of foreign healthcare workers. Each year, about 20,000 new healthcare-specific visas are issued for these workers.

The United States has traditionally not allowed strategic industries to be outsourced. That’s why the U.S. steel industry and the U.S. car industry have received bailout after bailout. Access to enough steel and automobiles is essential to our economy; without a sufficient supply of each, our economy would be severely damaged. It’s time we acknowledged that the health of the population is just as important as steel and autos in keeping our economy strong. Healthcare is too important to risk continuing to insource it.

It’s not just a matter of protecting and expanding jobs for American workers. Every year, thousands of Americans die, and the health of thousands more is compromised, because of the shortage of healthcare workers in every one of the healthcare professions.

On the surface, insourcing may appear to be a harmless or even win-win solution to the country’s healthcare-worker shortage. The hospital receives a much-needed worker, and the worker escapes life in a struggling country for a better life here. But we should be training more people in this country to work in those professions, especially people from poor and minority communities. Rather than investing in our own people and communities, however, the U.S. government has decided to take the best and brightest workers from struggling countries.

Many foreign-trained healthcare workers, no matter how smart, are not adequately prepared for practice in the fast-paced, high-tech world of U.S. medicine. Whether in operating rooms, hospital wards, or nursing homes, inadequately qualified and poorly oriented foreign healthcare workers endanger the lives of their patients, as well as the lives and careers of their American-trained colleagues.

But the main reason for this country’s rise in unnecessary deaths and delayed care is understaffing — a result of the failure to train and place enough healthcare workers, especially in rural and underserved communities. Americans who live in rural areas make fewer visits to healthcare providers and are less likely to receive preventive care. The infant-mortality rate for African-Americans is twice that for the average American; Latinos are twice as likely as white Americans to die from diabetes. These health disparities are due in large part to a lack of healthcare workers, especially primary-care workers, in their communities. The quick fix has been importing foreign healthcare workers for these unfilled positions. Unfortunately, once these workers fulfill their initial contracts, most move to communities without healthcare-worker shortages; in fact, foreign-trained healthcare workers are more likely to practice in the well-served, major metropolitan areas than their American-trained counterparts.

Even if good foreign-trained healthcare workers were here in numbers adequate to meet our needs, the U.S. healthcare system is about encounter a tidal wave of demand as 78 million baby boomers approach their 60s. Older people make, on average, six visits to a healthcare provider a year, compared with two visits per year for people under 60. The healthcare workforce is aging, too: More than 50 percent of practicing healthcare workers are eligible to retire during the next 10 years, which will leave us with fewer workers to treat more and sicker patients.

In the eyes of employers, of course, insourcing healthcare workers appears to offer many benefits. Most doctors and nurses in developing countries earn a fraction of what American doctors and nurses earn: A Caribbean nurse makes around $1,000 a month; an Ethiopian physician, about $100 a month. Not only are many foreign-trained healthcare workers accustomed to lower salaries and quality of life, but they also carry little or no education debt, while their American-trained colleagues typically graduate with five- and six-figure debt burdens. With average student debt burdens of $155,00011 for newly graduated physicians and $30,375 for nurses, American-trained health workers require a higher salary just to help pay for their education. Trained in a much more hierarchical environment, foreign workers are much less likely to unionize, or even express dissatisfaction with their work. As the percentage of imported healthcare workers increases, their attitudes toward salary and terms of employment undermine the bargaining power of U.S. workers, and even affect the important feedback loop between employees and management.

Polls indicate that 70 to 80 percent of Americans want to reduce the rate of immigration into the United States. Yet the American public is not aware of our policy of using healthcare-worker-specific visas to solve the healthcare-worker shortage.

Some legislators who publicly support stabilizing immigration consistently vote to increase the number of healthcare-worker-specific visas granted each year. It’s not that American citizens don’t want to become healthcare workers and fill these jobs. This distinction is critical, because every industry that has brought in foreign workers has argued that American workers won’t do the work for the prevailing wage, or won’t do the work no matter how high the pay is. In the healthcare industry, this argument does not apply. U.S. citizens want the jobs. They just can’t access the training. The United States does not have enough positions in health-professional schools to meet industry demands.

The tens of thousands of qualified nursing school and medical school applicants who are denied entry to school each year permanently lose out on their chosen careers, work that is consistently ranked in the top tier of salaries, with excellent benefits and almost guaranteed job security. This loss of career opportunity is even greater for rural and minority young people, who are grossly underrepresented in the higher-level health professions, such as physicians and nurses, and overrepresented in the lower-level professions, such as technicians and home health assistants. Something is wrong when so many young Americans are forced to pursue other, lower-paying careers at a time when we desperately need more healthcare providers. In exchange we get foreign healthcare workers who are less well trained (they consistently score lower on licensing exams than U.S.-trained healthcare workers) and far less culturally competent than native-born Americans.

The most tragic and most preventable effect of our hiring so many healthcare workers from other countries is the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in developing countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year more than 10 million people die needlessly, from easily treatable maladies such as diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, tuberculosis, vaccine-preventable diseases, and complications of childbirth. The WHO Global Health Workforce Alliance estimates that there are a billion people alive today who will never see a health worker in their lives. In Ethiopia, one in 10 Ethiopian children will die before his or her fifth birthday — yet there are more Ethiopian physicians in the Chicago area than in all of Ethiopia, which, with 80 million people, is the second most populous country in Africa. As their most skilled nurses emigrate to work in U.S. nursing homes, middle-income countries such as Jamaica and Trinidad have nurse-vacancy rates of 60 percent or higher.

Throughout the developing world, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, and many other types of healthcare workers are being approached and offered 10 times their salaries to practice in modern U.S. healthcare facilities with state-of-the-art technologies. Even the most dedicated, socially conscious worker would be tempted by such an offer. A colleague of mine relayed a conversation he’d had with the head of the Nursing Council of Kenya, who told him about the damage the exodus of senior nurses was doing to her country’s healthcare system. In the next breath, she confessed that the next time he visited Kenya, she might not be there. She was thinking about emigrating herself.

Our unofficial policy of relying on the world’s poorest countries to pay for the training of workers whom we then entice and bring to this country is devastating healthcare systems around the world. The loss to a developing country when a single physician, representing what may be a significant portion of their total number of physicians, emigrates is far greater than our gain. Our failure to provide education for our own citizens and to better plan for healthcare staffing and distribution does not justify poaching nurses and physicians from the countries that can least afford to lose them. How many additional deaths, how much more needless disability and suffering, will we allow this misguided policy to cause?

And consider American competitiveness. Certain industries are vital to U.S. global leadership. Recognizing their importance, we protect those industries. We don’t allow them to move overseas and make the United States vulnerable to the actions of other countries. Poor farmers in the developing world can certainly grow food staples more cheaply than American farmers do. But because of the strategic importance of the U.S. food supply, we subsidize some basic food crops, such as corn and soybeans.

And yet we are overreliant on foreign healthcare workers to meet our most basic health needs. This is particularly dangerous because many countries, almost completely drained of healthcare workers and tired of subsidizing the U.S. healthcare system, are trying to slam the door shut for emigrating healthcare workers. Meantime, of the world’s wealthiest nations, the United States has the worst health outcomes, with lower life expectancies and higher rates of deaths from preventable causes. In infant mortality, for instance, we rank 27th, behind Poland and Hungary. Our disability levels are higher than in most former Soviet countries.

If the United States is to remain competitive in the global economy, we need a healthy workforce. In order to achieve that, we need a healthcare workforce made up of adequate numbers of properly trained physicians, nurses, pharmacists, community-health workers, and other healthcare providers.