Health Care Bill Upheld! (...or, "Please Mommy, Hold Me...I'm Scared!")

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law! (Notice This Scrolls To The Left)

Today while at work, I was listening to the radio, awaiting word of the Supreme Court’s impending shredding of President Obama’s signature legislation piece, The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). Like almost every other person anticipating the same outcome of the attempt to reform the drawbacks inherent in current health insurance regime, I was stunned—after having my expectations validated briefly by premature reporting of the act having been struck down—when the Court upheld the law by narrowest of margins. And after learning that the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts had cast the deciding vote, I walked off my job…since it was predicted by opponents that I would probably lose it anyway thanks to the bill’s inevitable “job killing” effect. I walked outside and looked up, expecting to see daylight sky replaced with an eerie out-of-place starscape where the sky once stood.
Starting to immediately regret that I had walked off my job, I looked around for the dark-suited, dark-shaded agents of the government that I was told would be coming to take away my freedoms…or at worst, take me away to the concentration camps for those of us who have understand The Truth. I got into my car and immediately drove home, being careful not to drive even a single mile-an-hour over the speed limit…lest I call the authorities down on me and push my luck at having escaped the government’s notice. When I got home, I immediately went to the place where I kept my guns; they were still there. No one had taken them! I then called my insurance company (knowing that they wouldn’t have received word of my having walked off my job) and checked on the status of my policy; nothing changed. I was still covered by the plan I had chosen months ago.
No, this scenario didn’t really happen. It was imagination. And so were the many other doomsday scenarios predicted by those opposed to revamping the current health care system. You and I are just as free today as we were the day before President Obama took the Oath of Office. The Supreme Court’s decision in upholding the majority of the president’s health care reform act was a surprising example of what can happen when policy makers can set aside their ideological leanings and make decisions that people can actually benefit from.
Is the ACA a perfect plan? Of course not. It’s not capitalism, but its hardly the example of “socialism” that critics purport it to be. Insurance companies can expect to increase the number of policies, and by extension, profits because of the portion of the bill which mandates purchasing of coverage.
Yes, there is a mandate attached, but government mandates are hardly new; we live with the consequences of them daily, and the sky has yet to fall down. During the 1790s, the Militia Act, pushed by George Washington and James Madison, required citizens to purchase muskets and other military supplies (and it doesn’t matter which hairsplitting distinction one attempts to make, it was a mandate proposed and supported by two of the Founding Fathers, case-closed). Paying taxes, the education of our children, purchasing automobile insurance, even serving on jury duty are all mandates that we live with.
Arguments against the ACA were and continue to be mostly anecdotal and/or ideological, not actual or tangible projections experts. Our society already spends enormous resources on medical care for the uninsured. The annual cost of unpaid care (mostly among the under- or uninsured) is estimated to be about $100 billion per year. This largely gets picked up by local governments or passed along to paying patients in the form of higher hospital bills, or the insured in the form of higher premiums. As it stands, many of us are already paying to those without coverage. As a matter of reality, we already have “rationed” health care in the form of the spreading cost of services; there are already “free riders.” And as for employers who will “not be able to pay” the additional (expected) costs of covering their employees, I have yet to see many credible projections indicating that American businesses will fold en masse as a result of the bill’s requirements.
The bottom line is that none the anticipated (and exaggerated) doom-n-gloom scenarios have occurred since the bill was upheld. You don’t have to take my word for it…go outside and look up at the…chances are its still there. Chances are, you aren’t in chains, and you’re not reading this from a concentration (or re-education) camp. Please get a grip on your paranoia! If many of you are so scared of your “evil government,” then I invite you to take a trip to countries without government, like Somalia and see how bad things can really get!

Read More

National Heathcare - How Other Countries Do It

Anyone who's a regular to this blog knows that I am a huge proponent of universally affordable health care. It has nothing to do with conspiracy-level "Socialist agendas" or any such narrow thinking; its simply about something that the American people need. After all, health is more important than wealth. Even more so, its a ridiculous reality that in the most materially abundant nation (as well as the premiere economic powerhouse on earth) that the inability to pay soaring medical costs is the leading reason for personal bankruptcy filings in any given year.
Despite organized opposition to the Obama health care plan (and admittedly, the plan is far from perfect but at least its a starting effort that opponents didn't seem willing to make and/or to confront on the issue), many Americans, including those precariously entrenched within the Middle Class continue to struggle with being able to not only pay but simply afford medical coverage for themselves.
Back in 2008, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) aired a piece on its long-running documentary program, Frontline entitled "Sick Around The World: Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It" (Notice these countries were described as Capitalist, not Socialist in the title). In an effort to separate fact from fiction when it comes to whether or not other countries struggle with their attempts to bring health care affordability to their citizens, Beyond The Political Spectrum has opted to bring you that program in its entirety so that you can judge for yourself (and to potential critics of this particular post, yes...both the good and bad in these systems are chronicled).
I invite you to watch with an open mind.

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

Read More

For The Last Time, Affordable Health Care Is Not Leftist…It’s A Right!

It’s no secret that I am a huge proponent of affordable health care for all Americans. It’s a belief that I’ve held since I was a child, and no, it’s not an ideological stance; it’s a belief borne based on what is simply a pragmatic need for the nation and its people. So suffice it to say that I am—outside of the knowledge that the fight against universally affordable health care is really a conflict of power between opposing parties—left scratching my head as to why individuals would be so vehemently opposed to such a laudable goal.
Obamacare. Socialism. And now job killing. There are just a few of the politically-charged pejoratives that opponents of health care overhaul use to slander the notion that all Americans should be covered by the best health care system in the world.
Last week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care for America Act (House bill - H.R. 3962) with their own act, the
Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (H.R. 2). Without control of neither the Senate or White House, this act was a largely symbolic measure meant to play to those constituents who are on record as being vocally opposed to health care reform, and who supported last year’s Republican electoral trouncing of the Democrats as they swept into power in the House.
The sad part about this affair is that outside of ideology, the Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on. First, in order to have brought this endeavor to the floor of the one chamber of Congress they control, they had to ignore the findings of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Earlier this month the CBO, which calculates the projected cost of legislation, concluded that repealing the health care overhaul act would increase the federal budget deficit to the tune of some $230 billion dollars for the projected period between 2012 thru 2021 (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/cbo-health-care-repeal-797015.html). Needless to say, political foes against health care reform have taken a “figures-lie-and-liars-figure” stance in discrediting these numbers. In fact, Speaker of the House John Boehner told reporters, "I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit” (naturally, any figures which opposition uses to justify its/their arguments are somehow “more accurate”).
The truth of the matter is that most analysts agree that health care reform does not “kill job” as claimed by opponents. In fact, the opposite is proves to be in evidence even now (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/20/eric-cantor/health-care-law-job-killer-evidence-falls-short/). Just this month, Forbes magazine has published two articles which demonstrate how small businesses have already benefited from the health care reform act. Based on preliminary results, major insurance companies are reporting increases in small businesses offering health care to their employees due in part to tax cuts created by the new law What’s more, the fact that many private insurers are apparently increasing the number of clients they are serving, and that small businesses are taking advantage of the tax benefits in order to shore up the number of employees they offer health care to also kills the argument that the law is a slippery slope to the road to “socialism’ (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/06/more-small-businesses-offering-health-care-to-employees-thanks-to-obamacare/). This fear mongering slandering of health care reform is predicated on the argument by opponents that mandating that Americans purchase health care insurance “un-Constitutional.” History would disagree.
In 1798, the 5th Congress of the United States drafted and passed the Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen. Signed by non other than President John Adams—one of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution—the law created

the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up
(http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/).

This very similar to how truly socialized medicine operates in European countries today. Keep in mind that many member of that Congress were comprised of some of the drafters of the Constitution. Hence, the argument that “no where in the Constitution does it state that government has such authority” (or intention) is moot.
Such related arguments have been used by the dozen or so Republican state governors who have filed lawsuits in federal courts seeking to block enactment of the new law. These governors assert that the new federal health care mandate is an “unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals” and “on the sovereignty of the states.” So does that mean that if a state mandates that its citizens must have insurance that they are similarly “encroaching on the liberty of individuals?” What then is the difference between whether a state government or federal government makes such a mandate? Massachusetts Republican governor Mitt Romney apparently has no issues with government mandates, as he was the brainchild behind his state’s requiring nearly all of its citizens to purchase health care insurance in an effort to cover them. In the early 1990s, in an effort to counter the plan then-President Bill Clinton was proposing, Arizona Senator John McCain (yes, that John McCain) first proposed “individual mandates” with regards to federal health care coverage for every American. And more recently under Bush II, proposed mandates were not a problem when they were proposed by former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/23/1544321/individual-health-insurance-mandate.html)
However, if you want a real anecdotal example of how health care reform is more of a political ideological jockeying for power by opponents, you needn’t look any further than the Republican-controlled House itself. Late last year, newly-elected House Congressman Andy Harris (R-Maryland), an anesthesiologist who defeated his incumbent Democratic opponent by riding an anti-Obamacare platform into office made a small media wave. When informed that there would be a one month lag in time before his federally-mandated, tax-payer-funded medical healthcare insurance plan kicked into gear after his January 3rd swearing in, he questioned why it took so long for his insurance benefits to kick in. He then asked if he could “purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap.” According to reports, he was “incredulous” and stated that “this is the only employer I’ve ever worked for where you don’t get coverage the first day you are employed” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html). The eye-opening magic of Karma in action.

Maryland Republican Senator Andy Harris after his November election win

In much the same way that many laws are passed yearly, opponents of affordable universal health care coverage need to give the political opposition a rest. Under the old system of every-American-for-himself, the prior system was simply unsustainable on both cost and individual coverage levels. And lastly, the lack of any proposed alternatives only proves how politically self-serving repeal is for those trying to do so.
Granted, the new law is not perfect—no where near being so—it does provide benefits to both individuals and businesses which the old system failed to do. Small businesses benefit by way of tax credits (up to 35%) which help in the costs for providing coverage for their employees. Young adults can now stay on their parents’ policies until the age of 26. Children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be excluded from health care coverage. And seniors have benefited from having the “donut hole” in coverage for prescription drugs from the Bush-era prescription drug overhaul (2003) filled. Finally, insurance companies get to bring on 30 million more people to insure. It’s simply hard to understand how when so many can benefit from an overhaul in health care affordability why opposition remains. Even more puzzling, how political interests groups and opponents of health care reform can manage to mobilize so many Americans to think and vote against their own their own self-interests.
If opposition to health care reform is a stance meant to protect my “rights,” you can have it; I’d much rather prefer my good health and an ability to maintain it without going broke.

Read More

The New Health Care Bill...A Cautious Congratulations

In the last 2 weeks, 2 events of great personal interest occurred. First, I was fortunate enough to have finally qualified for health care insurance from my current employer after nearly a decade of going without it. Second, the likelihood that most currently uninsured Americans will soon share my good fortune in regards to access to affordable health care insurance has increased after the U.S House of Representatives passed the Senate’s version of President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act 2 Sundays ago; the president subsequently signed the bill into law the following Tuesday after its Congressional passing.
Because of my own experiences of having to go without healthcare coverage due to its inaffordability, the latter event marked a coming to pass of a policy which I have personally felt to be a societal necessity ever since I, as a 6th grader in the 1970s, remember asking one of my favorite teachers, “Why can’t poor people go to the hospital for free?”
While Americans—both poor and well-to-do alike—may not get free healthcare as a result of the bill, we will get the next best thing…the right (notice I didn’t say “opportunity”) to affordable healthcare, as well as holding traditional private insurance providers more accountable when they treat their policy holders like red-headed stepchildren. Among the heretofore unknown benefits of the new law include:

-Adult children of insured parents are now able to stay on their parents’ policies until they are 26 years of age, helping to reduce the number of college students without coverage.

-Insurance companies will now be prohibited from dropping (canceling your policy) if you become ill.

-Children (and by 2014, adults) will be prohibited from denying health care coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

-Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to cap coverage on expensive care due to long- lasting illnesses.



Watch CBS News Videos Online

(for more details on what policy changes are in the new health care bill, and how the new law may affect you, click on the following links):
1. “Health Care: How You Will Affected By Reform Changes” http://www.ajc.com/news/health-care/health-care-how-will-409705.html
2. “Ten Ways The New Healthcare Bill May Affect You.” http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/109178/10-ways-the-new-healthcare-bill-may-affect-you?mod=family-love_money
3. New Healthcare Bill Pro And Cons: It Expands Benefits Now, Cuts Them Later.” http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/Donald-Marron/2010/0322/New-healthcare-bill-pros-and-cons-It-expands-benefits-now-cuts-them-later


Aside from the immediate and tangible benefits of the new healthcare bill, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that the economic result of the new legislation will yield a reduction in the nation’s budget deficit to the tune of some $140 billion over the next 10 years.
But as is often in the world of politics and ideology, people will find a way to disagree with even the most well-meaning of policies. In the last few weeks, the offices of both Republican and Democratic Congressmen have been vandalized (even shot at), anti-tax-n-spend activists have been making waves using red-baiting and other rhetoric-based tactics, and media-savvy Free Market ideologues have attacked the new bill as the start of Americas decline into a socialist dictatorship. Those who supported the bill’s passing in Congress have been slandered with racial and homophobic epithets. Even before the bill became law, there were dozens of raucous public forums on the proposed policy, some resulting in arrests and innuendoes of threats by those who saw the bill as akin to a threat to personal liberties. The rest of the Free World must be scratching its collective heads trying to understand why such a laudable policy change, especially with so many people benefiting from it, would yield so much animus and animosity.
It’s hard to say. In a country where people believed (and many still do) in a conspiracy of an impending One-World-Government heralded by the arrival of a massive fleet of unmarked United Nations helicopters, people can justify just about any position, even as it relates to something as positive as universal affordability in health care coverage. Most of the rhetoric against the new bill is anecdotal and/or ideologically based…nothing substantive against the mechanics of the bill itself. Ostensibly, opponents of the policy like to cite the new law’s requirement that all Americans be mandated to purchase insurance as an intrusion on personal and/or civil liberties. But is this requirement any more of an “intrusion” than the policy in nearly all 50 states that people be mandated to purchase automobile insurance? Are we so trapped in a particular way of thinking that we cannot see that many of the unfounded fears about aspects of the new healthcare law have been a part of either state or federal law for decades? Well, the new law is here and still, America is the bastion of Free Market opportunity that it has always been; the sky has not fallen, and socialism is not the economic model for business.
Have we devolved so much as a society that we would rather focus on fear of the unknown rather than brave new frontiers in policy? People who are so fear-bound need to get over themselves. God does not tell anyone to hate President Obama for his sponsorship of the new law any more than He tells anyone that the new bill is work of the Devil (or a socialist-leaning cabal within the government). As I have often said before, Americans emote too much and reason too little, and that is something that has to change for the betterment of the country.

Read More

"Socialized Medicine"--Innovation By Any Other Name

As someone who would love to see every American covered by some form of substantive and affordable health care insurance--one that doesn't result in the majority of personal bankruptcies year-to-year--I often ask myself What good is having "the best health care system in the world," when its priced out of reach for most people?
We love telling ourselves that we Americans are the "best" at innovation. Yet, when it comes to innovating a new way to cover all Americans, it's in this area that we suddenly "recognize" our apparent limitations. All of a sudden, after years of irresponsible spending on senseless military actions, pork barrel-spending, and constituent-supported tax-cuts, we worry about paying for a program, one whose need cannot be challenged.
Its our American arrogance which leads us to believe that we can't learn anything else from other countries when it comes to addressing the issue of health care coverage. Back in March of this year, CBS's Sunday Morning presented an illustration of how the French (yes, those "French"...the country that often finds itself the butt of American television late night comedians and of patriotic sitcom leads) deal with the high cost of health care treatment.



Watch CBS Videos Online

The French penchant for choking at times of conflict notwithstanding, give them credit for having the bravery to at least try to implement a way of addressing the need for health care for its citizens. It's easy to oppose universal health care or universally affordable health insurance while spouting pro-Free Market patriotic rhetoric when one can afford to pay his or her medical bills. But given the choice between potential financial ruin, and embracing the ideological rhetoric of those opposed to any form of universal health care, I'll wager that many Americans who can't afford health care coverage would gladly opt for a system of "Socialized" medicine similar to that which the French use.
We're not going to get out of addressing the rising cost of health care, nor are we going avoid trying to provide coverage for all Americans without spending any money. We are going to pay to cover our fellow uninsured Americans, whether through higher premiums, higher taxes, or higher service fees, all to cover charity care for the uninsured. It's time we got real and stop falling back on baseless fears of a "Socialism" Boogey Man.

Read More

The Canadian Health Care System...Myth vs. Fact

During this current debate on health care reform, there are tons of aspersions, tidbits misinformation, and now television ads, both pro and con, being hurled to and fro in the politically-charged atmosphere. Probably the most commonly used comparison with regards to the health care debate is that of the current system in America to that of the Canadian health care system.
Well, finally one of the country’s news outlets—National Public Radio—decided to bypass the sound bites, rhetoric, industry spin, and political dogma to actually travel to Canada to look into the truth surrounding our northern neighbor’s health care system and how it’s administered.
In the search for clarification of how the Canadian system deals with the problems associated with providing health care for all if it’s citizens, NPR interviewed those who would know best…namely Canadian citizens, doctors, and political officials.
Click on the link to listen to the full report (aired: August 10, 2009)

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=111721651&m=111721665

Addendum (08/19/09):
National Public Radio looked into the British Health Care System--often cited as a reason by opponents of health reform in America not to fine-tune it's failing system of covering all its citizens--to explore its pros and cons. In addition, this piece also served to debuk the half-truths and myths put forward by this country's opponents of health care reform:

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=111976186&m=111976232

Read More

Health Care is Killing America, Conclusion

So what are America’s options to the current system, which is headed for a critical mass, along with—potentially—the nations itself? First, remove the negative rhetoric. Political and economic interests opposed to revamping a system that is clearly headed toward a meltdown can no longer be afforded the power to control the language of the issue. Contrary to popular opinion and patriotic tradition, “socialized medicine” is not a bad word or phrase. Whether people want to believe it or not, we already have mechanisms in place that, if are not socialized in function, and doing a damn good imitation of socialism. The federal and state governments have been directly involved with the medical care of soldiers, veterans, legislators, children, the aged, and handicapped for decades in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. The free market system cannot solve every problem, and it obviously can’t solve this particular problem…if it could, it wouldn't be a problem. A system of universal health care coverage is needed, and its time ideologues faced facts, both federal and state governments are not going to get out of spending something on it. Furthermore, there is no “perfect system” for administering this. Every valiant attempted system that currently exists in the world has some bugs, some issues that makes users less-than happy. Is this an endorsement of a socialist system-based solution, not at all. But one thing is for certain…what we in place have is not working, and it is imperative that a solution be not only found but implemented soon…no matter how ideological distasteful it may be. There is simply no reason for not having a system of affordable universal health care; most polls show that the people want it, many professionals in the health care system want it (an Internet search for organizations supporting universal health care will bring up a plethora of such organizations, both professional and grassroots), and the economy demands it.
Those opposed to any kind of universal health care in America that isn’t founded on solely free-market principles typically cite the long waits for service under “socialized medicine,” systems such as those in Canada and the United Kingdom. I’ve spent many hours in online chat rooms based in those countries, and the conversations would always invariably become political in nature. And since this issue has been a personal crusade for me, I would often ask individuals in those (and other) countries would they trade health care systems with America if given the chance…the answer was always an unequivocal “no!” To them, the inconvenience of a wait is a tolerable trade off for the surety and comfort of not having to struggle with illness, while at the same time trying to figure out how to pay for treatment without going into financial ruin. And it’s a safe bet that opponents of some kind of nationalized health care coverage haven’t ventured out of their ivory-tower or think-tank offices to hospitals in poor urban areas. For many, the emergency room is the personal-physician-of-last-resort where the uninsured go, often to receive treatment for chronic conditions that have progressed because of the hard choice of medical care or material necessity. Unless one of these unfortunates walk in with a bullet wound, a knife sticking out of their heads, or a severed limb hanging on by a single shard of loose skin, there is a wait for service!
We should also look into taking some of the socioeconomic glamour out of the medical profession, and bring a back-to-basics approach back to medicine. Restructuring of the medical profession in America is long overdue. Believe it or not, the medical field wasn’t a vocation where individuals were seeking the social prestige and relative financial security of being a doctor. It was one a purely humanitarian endeavor, staffed by those seeking to alleviate human suffering. If one is expand their outlook and chance stepping outside the limiting mindset of a “realist,” it seem almost unethical to profit from someone else’s misery. In the UK, doctors are civil servants, a position that still afford relative financial security, but without the detraction of social status, or the specter of possible blackballing due to instances of malpractice. It’s high time we think of making doctors government employees. It would weed out the intent of those seeking to become physicians for the purpose of helping others, as opposed to those looking to inflate their egos, as well as their pockets as the sole motivation. Additionally, the division of labor among medical practitioners can be divided along lines based on the severity of the affliction. A well-experienced nurse could just as easily diagnose a cold and prescribe bed rest as easily as well-practiced doctor. The same could be said for nursing assistants and others.
The linchpin in the health care crisis, the complex bird's nest of administration each insurer uses to process payments and patient information, could be reduced significantly. There could be a centralized database used by all health care providers, where each would input all of the information about their patients. All insurers in turn, would be required to access this database in order to acquire the information needed to process payment (and other necessary) information; this would be a huge step toward creating a uniform system of payouts.
In the area of drug prescription costs, we should consider eliminating drug patents. The idea is that with many drug companies competing for a market share of a universally produced drug, we wouldn’t have so few of them charging so much in an effort to recover the money invested in developing these drugs (a chief cost-booster in overall purchase price of prescription drugs). Also, advertising (except directly to medical professionals) and promoting drugs in questionable ways should be illegal. This would mean no perks or bonuses for doctors and/or medical centers willing to prescribe a certain drug manufacturers drugs exclusively to their patients. This would level the playing field of the market and lower prices via fair competition.
Legally, it is a given that the high numbers of malpractice suits must be curbed. Under a revamped system, the merit of all lawsuits could be subject to an evidentiary hearing, in much the same way as impending criminal proceedings. Those wishing to file a lawsuit would have to have them heard before either a judge or an impartial board of some kind so that people whose fingernails were chipped during the removal of a cuticle are summarily dismissed from taking such frivolity into a courtroom.
Finally, a person should be allowed to be relived from the discomfort of a slow, agonizing, and—if artificial means of keeping them alive are employed—costly death. The final choice a person can make should not be subject to the legislative whims of someone bringing their personal religious beliefs into the realm of government. Although I am not intimately familiar with the process of artificially maintaining the life of a person who is essentially beyond hopes of resuscitation or recovery, I have to imagine that it is a costly endeavor. And those brave souls willing to either spare themselves the dishonor of an ignominious passing or their families the burden of having to make the fateful decision to terminate treatment should be allowed to do so. This report is by no means meant to be the end-all-be-all of what can be done to halt the current crisis in the health care system. Nor should it be considered a comprehensive list of possible solutions. However, it should be taken as a template of ideas to bring attention to something that could stop health care’s killing of America.

Read More

Health Care is Killing America, Part 1

Let’s forget for the moment that most Americans simply lack restraint when it comes to our self-indulgent lifestyles; we simply won’t stop overworking, sunbathing, eating processed foods, or drinking and smoking in excess. Not only is this bit of reality a given, but so is the knowledge that our way of life creates a laundry list of accompanying health problems. After all, it’s been said that the aging process is only 20% chronological, but 80% environmental…more of a product of what we do to ourselves than who we are. Ask anyone you know with a particular self-destructive vice why, at the risk of inflicting bad health, do they indulge in such irrational behavior and you will more than likely receive the usual cop-out; “Everything causes cancer!” “I just like it,” and the always justifiable, “You gotta die of something, right?”
Even if such BS were rationally sustainable, it still flies in the face of the human proclivity for trying to remedy a problem after the fact. We have a health care system in America that, for the most part, is based on fixing our individual medical boo-boo’s only after we have abused ourselves with fast living, fast foods, fast driving, and “need” for fast fun. And in much the same way that we have rationalized our counter-productive behavior with fatalism, we have done the same with our lack of resolve in having some kind of universal health care insurance covering all of America’s citizens. Given the current precarious position of the average American’s financial stability, as well as America’s vulnerability in a globally integrated economy, we have to conclude that the current health care system is killing America.
So how is the current state of health care endangering America to the point of our potential decline as a nation? First off, too many people are too quick to adopt the patriotic rhetoric about how America “has the best health care system in the world.” This would be true if every American had access to that “best health care.” But as it stands, such defensive ideological-based rhetoric blinds us to the fact that not every American can afford to have “the best.” Consider the following experience, written by a medical professional:

…I find peace of mind in knowing that if someone runs into my car and tears a fender off I can stand the expense. My insurance company will pay the bill. The same thing is true of fire. If my house burns down I am guaranteed the funds with which to rebuild. If I should come to die I should have the satisfaction of knowing that my life insurance policies will at least keep the family from the poorhouse.
‘But if I or any member of my family should have another serious illness I doubt if I could ever be rid of the debts with which my life would be burdened. I cannot understand why society has not devised some method by which I and millions like me may be assured in advance that we can meet the costs of illness. After all, I am more likely to be sick than to suffer by fire or be robbed or lose my life. Why can I not be protected where protection is most likely to be needed?

This is not a recent article written in a left-of-center leaning publication; it is an article published in the October 1930 issue of The Atlantic Monthly entitled “A Cure for Doctors’ Bills.” Even then, some could see the need to affordability in health care. You read right…1930! One has to wonder how and why such ideological rhetoric has blinded us to this crisis for so long.
At the risk of sounding like a 60s radical, the reason why ideology has so successfully repressed any attempt come up with a solution is that political and economic interests have mastered the art wordplay. More to the point, they have such a mastery over the control of any and all language associated with maintaining the current health care funding model, that it could best described as the “’P’ Phenomenon;” mixing Politics and Patriotism to create Propaganda which controls Policy or even Proposals. This is to say that those interests with a stake in the current model have successfully posed that the free-market is the only way to remedy both universal access to health care as well as control the rocketing costs that’s makes health care affordability prohibitive to begin with. Although there is no law that says that America has to adhere to a free-market solution to any policy, interests have managed over the years to successfully ingrain this notion into people’s thinking to such a degree that even proposed solutions by progressive-minded politicians adhere to this ethos. Anything that remotely smacks of government intervention or involvement in health care is maligned as “socialism,” and is avoided as if maintaining a solely free-market were the chief mandate of the Constitution, which it is not. The reality is that we already have vestiges of a socialist-like mechanism already in policy; the government provides health care to our soldiers and veterans, to our federal legislators, on a local level, states do the same with children and the aged. The more we adhere to secondary political ideologies that prevent us from opening our minds to new solutions for open and equal access to health care, the more we destroy—at least in a philosophical sense—the primary ideological foundation for why America exist in the first place…equal opportunity.
Aside philosophically dying, inaccessibility to health care for those who can’t afford comprehensive (or even partial) health insurance is killing American literally. Who can forget the article in May 2nd, 2002 edition of USA Today, which cited the conclusion of a study by the non-profit Institute of Medicine that blamed 18,000 deaths a year on a lack of health insurance? According to the report, 1 in 7 working-age Americans don’t have employer-provided insurance, and don’t qualify for government medical care; this doesn’t include the estimated 10 million children who go uninsured. According to the latest statistics, between 40 and 50 million Americans total lack health insurance of any kind. The bulk of those individuals who die do so needlessly, lacking coverage for life saving health screenings for diseases such as diabetes and cancer…so they simply go without. The report started talk on many a radio station on the subject of universal health care at the time of its publication. No one doubts—especially after the 3,000 deaths that occurred on Sept 11th—that if we had lost 18,000 of our fellow citizens in a single conventional or terrorist attack that we would have declared war and/or reacted almost instantly. One has to question the lack of an equal response to 18,000 deaths annually due to system of our own creation.
But it is in the realm of the economy where America stands to lose its current life. Since records have been kept, the cost of health care has only risen year after year. Currently, a minimum of between 10 and 20 cents of every dollar spent in America is spent on health care. In 2007, that was equivalent to 16% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or $2.3 trillion; by 2016 it’s expected that health care spending will reach approximately $4.2 trillion or 20 of the GDP, which includes government spending on Medicare and Medicaid. And with an already record-level budget deficit, the nation runs the risk of spending itself into penury. With the more traditionally higher paying jobs moving offshore and supplanted by lower paying service-based jobs, we obviously cannot maintain this level of consumer spending on this single but growing portion of the total economic output of the nation. Many familes already know the potential end result of doing so, as the majority of declared bankruptcies filed in any given year are due to the inability to pay medical bills. Under higher paying jobs, paying for health care was a strain; with the lower-paying positions that have replaced them, the choice simply comes down to—for many—paying for health care or paying a utility bill…in worse cases, it comes down to food or equally-needed prescription drugs. Health care in American has become unaffordable for both businesses and individuals.
The reasons for these soaring costs in health care include the high cost of prescription drugs (a crisis in itself), the high cost of medical technology, and the high administrative cost of the sophisticated multi-payer system that our system is based on. In addition, the high numbers of uninsured contribute to these high costs because chronic or developing conditions, which could be nipped in the bud by way of preventative care, often progress into the more expensive, often more life-threatening condition of whatever their silent or chronic symptoms may indicate. Furthermore, we pay hospitals and doctors in our country more than they’re paid in other countries, particularly medical specialists and specialty institutions, such as the Mayo Clinic and the like. These specialists in turn, tend to rely on the overuse of costly medical technologies and procedures…again in levels that far exceed both their use in other countries and their need in individual cases. And last, but not least, America’s litigious nature—suing for every possible reason as it relates to malpractice claims in particular and health care in general—drives up health care insurance premiums to beyond the reach of many to afford. America’s health care system is questionably the best in the world, but definitely by far and away the most expensive.
And while both the American consumer and employer struggles based in-part on the current health care scheme, our global competitors thrive without such burdens. China, our biggest economic competitor currently has a tiered system that is based on a patient’s location in the country. Under the 2005 implemented New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System, 80% of the country’s rural population is covered state-sponsored insurance, ranging from 60% to 80% coverage of general health claims (under their system, patients requiring specialists have to pay for most of those related services themselves). India, another up and coming economic power in competition with America for a share in the global market, has a system made up of local “government hospitals” which provide treatment as well as selected drug at taxpayer cost. Even though there are shortcomings in their systems, the two most populous nations on the globe—growing economic powers with a combined billion or so potential workers—see the ethical and practical need to cover the cost of health care for its citizens. More to the point, these powers-to-be are challenging America’s economic dominance, and they don’t have businesses in their countries locating abroad in an effort to lower health care-driven labor costs (for a recent in-depth focus on China's rise toward becoming the next preeminent global superpower, see the CBS newsfeed at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/17/sunday/printable4356248.shtml).
These businesses have the advantage of having government subsidized health care for their workers. Their need to fuel their economic growth as it relates to health care, is not stymied by bickering political ideologues, or business interests who seek to maintain the status quo for the sake of inflating their profits. Health care is killing America.

To Be Concluded

Read More