Health Care Overhaul, Charm Offensives, and Colbert [News Bits]

Stephen Colbert rocks! No question.

Don't forget subsidizing corn on that list. There's a reason processed foods are so cheap in this country - we subsidize their ingredients! And linkage to diabetes and other health problems is pretty much a slam dunk. Remember that you're drinking the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar (only worse for you) every time you drink a can of soda.

haha totally forgot about the corn. how could I? every item in the supermarket - the first ingredient? high fructose corn syrup!

To address the contention that our country has far too few resources to adequately cover the infinite demand that universal health coverage would present, I say that we'll have to offer incentives for young people to enter into those professions. We subsidize plenty of other industries. When you subsidize a thing, you get more of it. We need more medical doctors and specialists? Fine, let's roll out the college grants and really play up that profession to students entering college. We're already doing that with nurse practitioners, and in the past few years nursing schools are seeing an increase in enrollment. Oh, something else that's fantastic about nurse practitioners? They can see you for the minor bumps, scrapes, colds, checkups, and exams that don't necessarily require a medical doctor, but that in our current system you're pretty much required to go see a medical doctor to remedy. Talk about saving some cash for preventive health care!

It's okay to subsidize things in this country other than Oil and Pharmaceuticals.

This blog post from NYTimes is a nice insight to this issue in the healthcare debate, notably this paragraph speaking about a second case touted by the Republican minority:

The particulars seem to make it hard to tell how [this] situation differed from the countless Americans who battle their private insurers every day for access to the newest, most advanced and most expensive treatments.

[blockquote] “Medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients,” Mr. McConnell said on Thursday. “But once the government is in control, politicians and bureaucrats will be the ones telling people what kind of care they can have.” [/blockquote]

A statement like this makes me furious. I agree that medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients. But I argue that in our current system, bureaucrats from the health insurance companies tell people what kind of care they can have.

Wow. That post is well worth the read (For some reason, I couldn't access the page from your link, Luke, so here's the URL if anyone needs it: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/a-senator-offers-two-faces-in-health-care-debate).

This paragraph jumped out at me:

What [Senator Mitch] McConnell did not disclose was that [Shona] Holmes paid for her treatment, at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, on her own – an option that is available to patients with financial resources all over the world regardless of their nation’s health insurance system.

Shona Holmes didn't "almost die" because Canada has socialized medicine. She lived because she had money, education, and god knows what other resources. On the other hand, I have no doubt that she probably benefited massively over the years from having basic coverage for multitude of mundane health concerns that we all page, from flu shots to gynecological visits, to dental checkups.

This is a good example of how exceptions to the rule are twisted to incite fear; which leads to the paralysis of creativity and open dialogue...thus ensuring the status quo is maintained, benefiting insurance & drug companies to the detriment of millions who desperately need a solution to this crisis.

You might have a point, if there weren't so many "exceptions:"

Barbara, the paragraph you quoted is a flat-out lie. Shona Holmes did indeed pay for the treatment herself, and she could have done so in Canada, but she would have still been on a waiting list and not received the surgery she needed in time to save her vision or her life. The NYT is playing fast and loose with the facts by ignoring this point.

It is downright shameful to minimize her experience just because she had the ability to pay her own way. She was going to die otherwise. The fact that she HAD to pay her own way in order to remain alive ought to be proof enough that her government-funded health system failed.

P.S. -- I did answer your earlier question about hybrid systems, but for some reason I was told my reply has to be approved by a moderator.

It's difficult to find very much on Shona Holmes's situation that is not slanted from either the left or right, so I can't properly assess her story or anyone else's recounting of it for claims of "truthiness." However, I'm not sure what part of the paragraph can be considered dishonest, Caiwyn.

Here it is again:

What [Senator Mitch] McConnell did not disclose was that [Shona] Holmes paid for her treatment, at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, on her own – an option that is available to patients with financial resources all over the world regardless of their nation’s health insurance system.

Holmes did travel to another country for treatment at a prestigious medical center, she did pay for it out of her own pocket, and that option is available to anyone with financial means, regardless of country or predominant healthcare system. Unless I'm missing something, this paragraph looks factually solid. But perhaps you're seeing something I'm not.

Here's the point that seems most salient to me. Holmes had the money and the resources to seek another option. Many Americans do not. An uninsurable cancer survivor recovering from treatment aftereffects and still dealing with massive medical bills incurred within our current system quite possibly does not.

What does that person do if they are diagnosed with a recurrence--say, a brain metastasis? Where do they go for treatment? Further, how does providing a public care option for that person hurt your or my access to private-insurer-paid health care? In this context, a public-private hybrid seems worth considering.

Barbara, what's dishonest about the statement is that it implies that Shona could have received treatment in Canada. She could not, even if she had paid for it herself. To get treatment, she had to go outside Canada's publically-funded health care system entirely, and use OUR system: the very system that we are talking about dismantling.

Do you see the irony here? The NYT is telling you that everyone has the option to come to the U.S. for treatment under our private system... and that this somehow proves that there is no danger in dismantling that private system and replacing it with the sort of system that would force them to come here in the first place.

Again, I don't see what you are seeing. The paragraph does not imply that Holmes could have gotten her treatment in Canada. It states very simply that:

A) Holmes traveled to the U.S. to get her treatment more quickly, paying for the travel and the health care out of her own pocket.

B) It also notes that traveling to another country is an option available to anyone with a pocketbook big enough.

As a matter of fact people here in the U.S. regularly opt to travel to other countries for care not easily obtainable here, whether we're talking traveling to Mexico for an experimental cancer treatment or to Canada for medication. The difference is that they have the financial resources to handle that expense.

To get treatment, she had to go outside Canada's publically-funded health care system entirely, and use OUR system: the very system that we are talking about dismantling.

The White House and Democratic leaders have made clear there is no chance that Congress will adopt a single-payer approach -- named for the idea that a single government-backed insurance plan would pay for all Americans' medical costs -- because it is too radical a change.

The fact that 60% of personal bankruptcies in our country are the (direct or indirect) result of medical expenses, and the fact that for most catastrophic illnesses and injuries, even the most highly-insured patient will get dropped from coverage as soon as they become a liability to the insurance company, ought to be proof enough that the health model we currently employ is failing us. You may not have to sacrifice just so that I don't have to buy health insurance. You may get soundly abandoned by your insurer the first time you cough.

As for the public option being provided as an option alongside of private insurance -- I just don't know enough about it to make a call on it yet. I've heard debate that such a program would result in the Big Insurance companies dropping everyone except the healthiest from their rolls, thereby increasing the burden on an already strained system. It seems like if we continue to provide the private option, we're still in the same pickle, which is that private Health Insurance Companies are in their business to turn a profit. They'll keep at it, which will continue to keep the price of health care at the maximum. Now, profit in and of itself is not the enemy. But when the profit motive is in direct conflict with the health motive of the Customers, the business model just doesn't work.

Also, the public options being presented in Washington right now place the burden of paying squarely onto employers. It mandates health coverage for everyone, meaning that the small business owners who up until now have escaped having to pay their employees private insurance coverage, will be forced to pay into the public option. It just doesn't make sense - a HUGE part of our health coverage problem right now is that coverage is tied to employment.... often it is tied specifically to 40-hours-per-week employment. You work 39.5 hours/ week and no benefits for you.

Thanks for mending that broken link, Barbara!

p.s. everyone who is "at the table" in this health care discussion is either a representative of the for-profit health insurance industry, or is a bought-and-paid-for member of congress. Money buys access. All of our representatives are more beholden to the moneyed health insurance corporations than they are to the dirty sick masses who elected them.

What if Laugh-In or better yet, the Smothers Brothers, had gone to Vietnam? Maybe they did for all I know.

The Smothers Brothers never made it over to Vietnam, but they did manage to piss off Nixon (bless their little lefty hearts):

http://www.tvparty.com/smothers.html

If Obama and company insist on pursuing this lukewarm toothless version of health care "overhaul," their efforts will fall flat, vast amounts of money will be wasted, and credence will be given to all those who have argued to stick with the status quo. I am not surprised, because Obama received staggering sums in his campaign coffers, thanks to the for-profit health insurance lobbies. Single-payer is the ONLY answer to what ails our health care system.

You mean the same sort of single-payer system that almost killed Shona Holmes?

I'd rather pay for health care than be LEFT TO DIE by a monolithic government health care system that has to ration its resources in the face of infinite demand.

Because that is what is happening in the countries that have already implemented these insane systems -- people are dying, and they don't even have the option of using their own money to pay for the urgent treatment they need, because their governments have run all privately-run health providers out of business with their "free" system.

We have interstate highways, top-rate municipal drinking water and sewage systems. We have police, fire departments, public parks and compulsory education. No one would dare say that we should not have these luxuries, or that they should go only to the highest bidder. No. These luxuries are considered basic rights that we afford to all citizens because it enriches us as a society. These are all things that everyone has access to, regardless of their income level or ability to pay. I argue that access to health care should be included in this list.

We don't have to model our new system after any other country. In single-payer, our doctors will NOT become employees of the state; they will simply be free to practice their profession without being encumbered by the administrative task of trying to wrest a payment from a faceless bureaucrat in the for-profit health insurance company who has decided, without consulting patient or doctor, that a procedure or treatment is unnecessary and won't be covered. Fine, fine if you can pay for that treatment yourself. But I and too many of my friends can not. Many of my friends do not even have access to basic, routine physicals and preventive treatments. That is not in the best interest of citizens, and it is not in the best interest of society at large. And it's sick to think that only those who can pay for health care, can access it.

"We don't have to model our new system after any other country."

I will never understand how people can watch a concept fail time after time and think that somehow it would still work if we just had the right people, or the right system, etc.

It's not a matter of whether doctors would be employees of the state. It's a matter of whether or not the resources can meet demand. We already have a shortage of doctors in this country; imagine what the effect will be if nobody has to pay. One way or another, those resources have to be rationed, if not by cost then by government oversight.

You may think it cruel to say that treatment is available to those who are willing and able to sacrifice their hard-earned savings for it. But I think it would be far more cruel to force everyone into a system in which waiting lists and delays keep treatment from people who would die without it. That's what happens in Canada, the U.K., and elsewhere. That's what would have happened to Shona Holmes had she not crossed the border to receive the surgery she needed.

You are proposing to replace a system that costs money with one that costs lives. I am not willing to make that sort of sacrifice just so you don't have to buy health insurance.

Caiwyn, the current system costs lives as well as money. Money from those who have it, lives from those who do not.

Senator Kennedy's plan, as I understand it, will create a government-run option that cuts out the middleman (the bloodsucking insurance companies) and thus drives down the cost of coverage overall. If insurance companies skim less off the top, that will help solve the supply/demand problem you describe, allowing more patients to receive care and increasing the amount of money available to doctors and pharma companies.

I'm slightly leery of too much government involvement myself... but on the other hand, I personally cope with chronic, expensive health conditions and, in a previous job, spent a great deal of time talking to cancer patients struggling desperately to pay astronomical medical bills. (Many of these people could not purchase private insurance, especially post-treatment. Private insurers have absolutely no incentive to insure cancer survivors and they simply won't do it). So I'm torn.

But here's what I'm curious about. Would you, Caiwyn, consider a hybrid system of private insurance with a public option? After all, you refer to Shona Holmes, but it seems to me her difficulty wasn't Canada's public health system--it was Canada's prohibition of private insurance. In the end, she was able to afford a flight to America and treatment at the Mayo clinic. Sounds as though she was much better off than the type of person who would benefit most from a hybrid public-private healthcare system.

So... would you consider such a hybrid? If not, why not? Causal Observer, how about you?

Barbara, I'm not convinced that a hybrid system could really exist without people just dropping their private insurance and taking the public option. Hawaii tried to offer such a public option to uninsured children last year, but too many families dropped private health insurance for their kids and enrolled in the program, so it quickly went bankrupt and had to be scrapped just seven months later.

And how do you control the costs of a public system other than fixing the amount doctors can charge for their services? Many doctors are refusing new Medicare patients right now, because in many cases they can't even recoup the cost of treating a patient under Medicare. What happens if you can't get enough doctors to accept the public plan? Do you force them to accept publically-insured patients at government-set prices? If not, then what good is the public plan? If so, then how do you plan to entice new doctors into an unprofitable system? Sooner or later, even a hybrid plan would lead to a greater shortage of resources, and that means longer lines, waiting lists, and diminished care for everyone.

I'm not saying our current system is ideal, and I am not defending the insurance companies. I would much prefer to see people buy health insurance on an individual basis, the way they buy auto insurance or homeowners' insurance. If insurers were forced to compete on an individual basis rather than tying employers to group plans, they'd feel the pressure to not only lower the cost of insurance but to offer more options and better coverage as well. If that were to happen, more people could afford health insurance at a reasonable cost, and without clogging the system by fixing prices and limiting resources.

Can't decide whether it's comic or tragic for pro-life advocates to resort to killing people to achieve their political goals. I think I'll go w/"tragic."

Hypocritical maybe?