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

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

Health Care Insurance, Health Thyself!

As if overcrowded emergency rooms, closing hospitals, service cuts, exploding health care costs, and charity strains aren’t enough to illustrate the need for some form of universal health care coverage in America, the nonpartisan health care advocacy group Families USA released a study late in late last month that provides yet another compelling reason why universal health care coverage is long overdue(http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/05/28/am_health_care_reform/).
In the report, the organization noted what amounts to a “Hidden Health Tax” on those families fortunate enough to have health insurance. This “tax” as it's called, are the charges that “doctors and hospitals charge insured patients to make up for the care that doesn’t get reimbursed.”
Oppponents of universal health care or (at least) a retooling of the current system that would allow for universal affordability often malign any policy which promotes such policy change propositions as "rationed health care." This seems to prove that the costs for health care insurance are already rationed via this tax. For those of the mindset that the Free Market can and does remedy the inequities of the health care industry, it would seem that they are correct. Unfortunately, the “remedy” is “an extra $1,000 a year that the average family pays to subsidize the uninsured.” Clearly, a new model of affordable health care coverage for all tax paying Americans is in order, one that doesn't (on one hand) unfairly penalize those who are fortunate enough to have and are able to afford coverage, and (on the other hand) doesn't provide a level of access and service that is inferior to those who can pay.

To read all the findings of the report in its entirety, click on the following link.
http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/hidden-health-tax.pdf

Issue Addendum - June 4, 2009

According to a survey performed by a joint team of researchers consisting of authorities from Harvard's Law and Medical Schools, and from Ohio State University, medical bills accounted for over 60% of personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. over a period of 6 years.
In a report published in the the American Journal of Medicine, "62.1 percent of all bankruptcies (using a conservative estimate) in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," this despite being well-educated and fully-entrenched in the Middle Class.
According to one of the researchers, Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard University,
"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," and "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."
Those who would defend the system we have in place, where American families and individuals must struggle to pay for medical care under an unforgiving Root-Hog-or-Die dynamic, and where employers—many of whom are laying off and cutting back on the number employees in the current economy—are required to provide health care (notice the lack of the word "affordable" is this requirement) need to seriously reevaluate their stance. The market economy cannot reasonably provide a remedy under a system of ballooning health care costs and hedonistic lifestyles which both contribute to the unaffordability of health care for every American. In order to create a system of either universal affordability or universal coverage, its going to take everyone involved. Government, organizations, establishments, as well as individuals have to pull up their sleeves and get busy; a no one absolved from being part of the solution.

If you have, or know of others who have a need for medicine, but have an issue with its affordability, please click on the following link for assistance.
http://www.needymeds.org/

Finally, to sign the online petition for those wishing to have a voice in the creation of a system of affordable health care in America, please click on the link below.
http://www.petitiononline.com/040609/petition.html

Read More

Affordable Health Insurance & Politics - Separating The Ideological BS From Reality!

Regular readers to Beyond The Political Spectrum know that I am a rabid proponent of universally affordable health care coverage for all Americans. After all, if America is truly to be “the land of opportunity,” then there is nothing more basic to [the] equality of opportunity than having the good health (or access to) to be able to work hard, and to have the strength to work toward better opportunities for oneself…infant-level common sense to be sure.
However, as I watched the Tea Party-sponsored Republican debate which aired on CNN last week, I came away with a clearer understanding of why America has become so politically, socially, and ethnically polarized in recent times. The short answer is that our leadership (and their individual supporters) is tainted by too many competing ideological beliefs, driven by self-serving politicians seeking to hold on to their jobs rather than working on behalf of the interests of Americans (e.g., too many politicians, and not enough statesmen), and too much special interests money which beneficiaries call an extension of “Free Speech.”
With regard to universally affordable health care, just mentioning the contentious issue conjures up catcalls of “socialism” by the politically opportunistic, the narrow-minded, and the ideologically short-sighted. And thoughts of the government should/can pay for everyone by the fiscally unrealistic and irresponsible. As an example, I cite the case of Republican Party presidential nominee candidate Ron Paul, who I—despite his staunch libertarian views—thought was more of a reasonable sort prior to last week’s debate (I even alluded to him as such in a prior posting. )
During a particular moment of the debates, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Paul:

BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just -- you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --

BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

(Multiple shouts of “Yes!” from audience)

PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.

There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.

(APPLAUSE)

Source: (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/September/13/transcript-gop-debate-health-care-issues.aspx and Beyond The Political Spectrum.blogspot).


To view this segment from last weeks debate in Tampa, Florida, click on the video.

That the debate was co-sponsored by the Tea Party was no surprise that such a response received such rousing (and heartless) support by the audience. In much the same way that extremists Muslims have co-opted mainstream Islam in areas of the Middle East, The Tea Party has hijacked the Republican Party (at the expense of reason and civility). Consequently, Republican candidates seeking the GOP’s nomination to challenge President Obama in 2012 have grown ever spineless, kow-towing to the Tea Party’s hard right-wing ideological views and political intransigence in much the same way that Obama has capitulated to the Republicans in Congress time and again.
The problem is that such beliefs (and the shameful support by those in the audience) are driven by beliefs, which in turn are driven by ideology (ies) that are active reasoning. I observed this phenomenon firsthand while preparing for this particular posting. For example, a common thread of thinking that I saw running through most posted online opposition to the notion of universally affordable health care reflected Ron Paul’s view; that people have the “choice” of whether or not to purchase health care in a free society.
It borders insanity to think that most of the uninsured in this country “choose” to go without health insurance. Speaking from personal as well as anecdotal experience—as well as the fact that most surveys and studies support this—most people who go without health insurance do so as a matter of economic pragmatism. Many must choose between paying crucial utilities, food, rent, or health care. Broken down by statistics:

The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005 was cost (more than 50%), lost job or a change in employment (24%), Medicaid benefits stopped (10%), ineligibility for family insurance coverage due to age or leaving school (8%). Source: National Center for Health Statistics (Source: “Health Care Statistics.” HealthPAConline.com)

And sadly, those who have been fortunate enough (especially in this economy) to afford health insurance—while opposing equal access for the rest of us—make the mistake of thinking that their good fortune or efforts are applicable to all Americans. To those, I say that life is not a one-size-fits-all experience. Extenuating circumstances vary from individual to individual, and should always be considered before making such black-and-white generalizations.
To further illustrate this point, consider the following article from USA Today, also from last week:

Amanda Hite says she felt "really healthy" when she applied recently for health insurance. But Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield denied her, because she had seen a chiropractor a few months earlier for a sore back and later had visited an emergency room because of back pain.

"I was surprised and let down," said Hite, 34, of Lexington, Ky., who didn't think her periodic back pain would be enough to keep her from buying health insurance.

Hite's case isn't unusual. Many of the plans offered by Anthem Blue Cross in Kentucky reject about one in five applicants, according to data provided by insurers to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Rival insurers in the state have even higher denial rates: Humana rejects 26% to 39% of applications in Kentucky, while UnitedHealthcare denies 38% to 43%.

Citing its own 2009 study, America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, says 87% of people who apply nationally for individual coverage are offered a policy. That figure, however, includes people who are turned down for one policy but offered another that may cost more or have fewer benefits.

The federal website contains denial rates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories, and is updated periodically. The most current information is for the first three months of 2011. The data show that denial rates routinely exceed 20% and often are much higher, according to a Kaiser Health News review of 20 of the most populous states and the District of Columbia. The data reflect applications that are turned down for any reason.

The information provides fresh evidence of the challenges facing people buying individual health insurance. It also shows the likelihood of whether consumers are approved for a policy depends on which state they live in and the insurer they choose.

Denial rates can vary widely within individual states. In Georgia, for example, Aetna's denial rate is 15% compared with 47% for Kaiser Permanente and 67% for John Alden Life Insurance.

Also, the same insurer can have vastly different denial rates in different states. For example, Kaiser Permanente denied 32% of applications in Maryland but 17% in Colorado. (Kaiser Health News is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

James Larreta-Moylan, director of individual and family plans for Oakland-based Kaiser Permanente, said the denial rates vary because of the different types of plans sold, and the age and health conditions of applicants in different markets. He said denial rates can be higher in some markets where sicker patients apply for plans with richer benefits. Medical underwriting, or reviewing an applicant's health status, "is an unfortunate reality of today's market," he said.

Mike Cantone, 27, of Orlando, was denied a health insurance policy last year by UnitedHealthcare, which considered him a risk because a doctor used a monitor to test his heart for a few days in 2007. No problems were detected, he said. "I was shocked and frustrated," said Cantone, a political director for a community organization. He is still uninsured.

Denial rates of 70% and 53%

Two companies consistently had the highest denial rates — John Alden Life Insurance and Time Insurance, both owned by Milwaukee-based Assurant Health. In nearly every market surveyed, their denial rates were at least twice the rate of competing insurers. For example, in Tennessee, John Alden turned down 70% of applicants and Time, one of the biggest individual insurers in the country, rejected 53%.

Assurant spokeswoman Heather McAvoy said her company offers alternative plans when applicants are rejected due to health status. These can include policies that require consumers to pay extra to cover a pre-existing medical condition. "Unfortunately, when consumers accept the alternative coverage — and are, in fact, insured with Assurant Health — they are classified as a 'denial' under the HHS criteria," she said.

AHIP, the trade group, says the federal data on coverage denials are misleading because they do not include people rejected for one plan but offered another. The data also include denials involving applicants who don't live in the plan's coverage area.

The Deartment of Health and Human Services acknowledged AHIP's arguments but said it was important for the data to reflect when people can't get the specific policies they apply for. The department said most of the denials are the result of medical underwriting.

Health care overhaul offers help

The difficulty of buying individual coverage was a big reason behind the 2010 federal health overhaul, which will ban insurers starting in 2014 from denying individual policies based on health status.

In the past, most consumers haven't been able to look up insurers' denial rates before sending in a check to apply for coverage. Maryland is the only state that requires insurers to report information on denial rates.

But as part of the federal health law, HHS last November started posting the coverage-denial rates, which can be searched by ZIP code at www.healthcare.gov.

Using the data from the website, a Government Accountability Office study of 459 insurers published earlier this year found an average of 19% of applicants nationally were denied coverage. But the study showed a wide range of denial rates. A quarter of insurers had denial rates of 15% or below and a quarter had rates of 40% or higher.

A House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation into four large for-profit insurers last year found that the denial rates have steadily increased from 11.9% in 2007 to 15.3% in 2009. The companies reviewed were Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealthcare and WellPoint.

The denial rates are an important tool for helping consumers select an insurer, said Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow with Mathematica, a non-partisan think tank. That's because the application process can take a month or more, and carriers typically require the first month's premium with the application.

Sara Collins, vice president of the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund, said the denial data underscore the need for the industry changes that will occur in 2014. "It's not surprising that denial rates are high, because insurers have an incentive to only enroll the healthy risks," she said. "If a person comes in with a health problem that will potentially cost (the insurer) money, they are probably not going to cover them" (Source: "Health Insurance Denial Rates Routinely 20% Data Shows," USAToday. September 12, 2011).

So aside from lack of any real choice, insurers routinely deny a percentage of Americans, some for questionable reasoning (or lack thereof). In the case of California, the high rejection rates of those residents seeking insurance coverage triggered an investigation, enjoined by the state’s attorney general in 2009 “HMO Claims-Rejection Rates Triggers State Investigation”).
For those opposed to the notion of universally affordable health care insurance/coverage, even in the face of such indisputable research which counters their claims, one can routinely expect to have sources questioned, anecdotal and personal experiences substituted for any real counter-evidence, and/or the employment of esoteric hair-splitting statistical analysis and numbers crunching (figures which usually are “solid” in the abstract, but have no real basis in reality). If all else fails, the Boogey Man of “socialism” is used as a trump card of sorts, as if maligning a policy/idea which one does not support or believe in makes is so.
In Ron Paul’s case, his obvious appeal to the Tea Party’s extremism carries with is a bit of real world conviction.

Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder
(pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations (Source: "Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured." Gawker. September 14, 2011).

This comes as no surprise, as a 2009 Harvard University medical study found that an estimated 45,000 Americans die a year from lack of health insurance ("Harvard Medical StudyLinks Lack Of Insurance To 45,000 Deaths A Year," September 17, 2009), up from the similarly estimated 18,000 a year back in 2002 ("18,000 Deaths Blamed On lack Of Insurance," USAToday. May 22, 2002).
Granted, Paul’s Tea Party pandering remarks were somewhat serendipitous with regards to the death of his former campaign chairman, it speaks to the levels to which our leaders’ (and their supporters) embrace ideology over reality, with the goal of attaining power for, and representing the interests of some Americans and not all.
I urge all Americans to speak up and speak out. Don't allow extremist elements to paint the impression that they represent the interests of every and all Americans. I urge politicians to adopt a spine and resist the false influence of those who perpetrate as though they represent all of us.
And I urge Americans who align their thinking with a narrow political and/or socioeconomic ideology to view their surroundings through a more reasoned basis.
Conservatism and Liberalism did not come into existence with the Big Bang or Creation. They are the products of mortal thinking, and no doubt individuals harboring ulterior motives and self-interests.

Read More

Obamacare & The Lack of Loyal (Or Smart) Opposition

I have been, and always will be a proponent of the idea that health care should not be a marketable commodity, but a basic right in the same vein as a compulsory public education. Opponents of this notion seem to be missing a clear view of the Big Picture. Sure, it would be nice if we could live in a society where people were allowed to “decide for themselves” to forgo necessary services like health care insurance without tangible repercussions—the ostensible argument made by universal health care opponents. But allowing individuals the “freedom” to make decisions that on the surface don’t seem capable of affecting others flies in the face of sound fiscal economics. For instance, allowing individuals the right to drop out of school will invariably cost society more in the long run. Study after study points to a lack of basic education (opportunities) tends to result increased chances of becoming reliant of welfare, fewer job prospects, and higher probabilities of being incarcerated—all of which have a burdensome economic impact on society as a whole.
The uninsured tend to cost everyone—insured and uninsured alike—more in the long run due to their propensity to allow minor health concerns to evolve into major health issues, their lack of engaging in preventative health care regimes, and the higher cost they incur for later attending of health care concerns—all of which resulting in higher costs for health-related services, insurance premiums, and percentage of government’s part subsidizing these increased costs.
President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) was the first major attempt in decades to provide a sizable chunk of uninsured Americans a modicum of health care coverage, and address this financially unsustainable health care regime. As radical an idea as it is, Obamacare is something of a compromise; it leverages aspects of the open market to attempt to increase coverage for more Americans while avoiding the stigma of “socialism” inherent in the European model of a single-payer plan—despite passing the initiative with a “supermajority” of Democrats in Congress. Naysayers' predictable doom and gloom for the ACA from the start. Supporters reluctantly embraced the hope that the ACA would be a welcome alternative to unaffordability and arbitrary rejection for those with preexisting conditions (which the ACA prohibited). But let’s just say it…Obamacare (as it had been dubbed) seems to be headed due south in the popularity department. And the issues regarding the government-sponsored online insurance sign-up registry hasn’t helped its likability.
And while I certainly don’t need the likes of Sarah Palin to inform me that Obamacare doesn’t seem to be finding its successful footing, the fact she manages to continue to secure airtime in her attempt to maintain political relevancy says a lot about why we in America cannot provide a serious application to revamp health care affordability. Sure, Palin and her ilk love to chant “get rid of Obamacare,” but when asked to provide an alternative to doing so, the crickets take over. We got a chance to witness this reality last week on NBC’s Today show when host Matt Lauer allowed Palin to once again-seemingly successfully I might add—hit the snooze button on her 15 minutes of fame. Predictably, Palin engaged in so many oppositional talking points that the “interview” (for want of a better term) seemed like two people in the same room having 2 different conversations at times (watch below).

Palin’s positions lacked substance, suggestions, or anything beyond the assertion that Obamacare was in fact an exercise “socialism” that was worthy of shutting down the government in an effort to repeal the new law. As Lauer struggled to get Palin to nail down a less ambiguous alternative to addressing the unaffordability of health care insurance, Palin responded with more talking points and counter policy ambiguities. It was like listening to a child explain why cooties are bad…totally unable to define what they are, but speak a great deal as to why they are “bad.” And this exchange is a testament as to why health insurance affordability and/or coverage will always be an issue that probably won’t be addressed substantively any time soon.—the lack of loyal opposition to what we have now.
What passes for opposition to the ACA currently is nothing more than vague references to “socialism,” and how bad it is. There are no alternatives coming from the opposition. The 1 or 2 there are involve nothing “tax credits” and “other suggestions offered by Republicans” that fail to address the issue at heart. Anything remotely tied to the old, outdated system of employer-based health insurance—when our service-based economy doesn’t pay the average worker enough to afford getting sick, yet alone paying for any hospitalization—isn’t going to work…tax credits notwithstanding. Allowing “job creators” to maintain the freedom to decide who they will cover and who they will not doesn’t allow for “spreading risks” needed to lower costs. And allowing self-serving dullards like Palin, who have nothing more to contribute to the discourse other than vagueness, ambiguities, and ideological talking points that don’t amount to anything more than ramblings of political opportunists who profess to “love America” doesn’t do anything other than continue to entrench our country in political fragmentation.

Read More

The Health Care Conundrum – A Personal Narrative

Note: I realize that Beyond The Political Spectrum has many readers from various European countries. And in acknowledge of this fact, I have taken the liberty of converting American dollar values to Euros in order to give this issue some contextual clarification.

There’s a young man with whom I work with—let’s call him “John”—who happens to share the same predicament which thousands, if not millions of Americans are forced to endure. Twenty-something year-old “John” has a wife and two young children. As the only current breadwinner in his family, John is looking to purchase health insurance coverage for his entire family. The problem “John” has is that he only earns $9.00 an hour (approximately €6.70), while the health insurance offered by his employer is prohibitively expensive.
How expensive? According to the prices listed on the copy of the Benefits (Plan) Selection I obtained, the cost to “John” to cover his family of four with the basic, no-frills plan (with a high deductable between $2,500 and $5,000/€3356 and €6712) is $420.76 (€318.63), deducted from his paycheck bi-weekly. Those of you with a firm grasp of math can immediately see the problem. Earning only $9.00 an hour, multiplied by 40 hours a week, “John” brings home approximately $720 bi-weekly (€536). That means that over half of his take home pay would go to pay for health care coverage for himself and his family. From what’s left over, he has to cover rent, utilities, and basics like food. Because the particular health care option—the only option—the employer offers is so expensive, “John” and other employees have opted to go without.

This personal anecdote came to mind as I took note of the recent vote in the House of Representatives in Congress. Two weeks ago, the Republican majority in Congress’ lower chamber voted for the 40-somethingth time to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act we know as “Obamacare.” Ignoring for the moment that the majority of these same opponents of the new health care law were shouting to the top of their collective lungs during last year’s presidential elections that the economy was the biggest concern of the American people, it’s pretty hard for anyone to rationally reconcile how trying to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act jives with fixing our broken economy. Among some Republican leadership, this dim reality had been acknowledged. Old School Republican and former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently chided the current Republican legislators in Congress when he reminded them that “congressional Republicans would have ‘zero answer’ for how to replace the president's health care overhaul when asked, despite their having voted repeatedly to repeal the measure” (See: “GOP Pushes Rising Stars Amid Calls For Solutions”).
Sure, there‘s a lot of rhetoric being bandied around about how Obamacare is a “job-killer” (and yes, there is some anecdotal instances that some jobs may be adversely affected by implementation of the new law), but the lack of any Republican-sponsored alternative to reforming the current economically unsustainable health care finance model indicates that simple economics is not at the heart of opposition to reform. It’s more likely that not allowing the president and his Democratic allies a policy victory is at the center of the opposition.
If in fact, reforming how we pay for health care in this country were an actual priority, then simply cutting government spending in expendable areas is the most obvious place to start. Both people and the leadership we elect have to consider making the hard choices when it comes to spending priorities. Do we want the ability to be able to pay for healthcare, or is funding programs like Head Start—a program whose overall effectiveness as a kick start to fostering positive childhood experiences in school (and in life) is still a matter of debate—more important? Do we take steps to eliminate the chief reason for Americans filing bankruptcy year-to-year—the inability to pay prohibitively costly medical bills—or do we continue to pay for wars on countries that aren’t an actual threat to our nation’s security and interests? Do we create an atmosphere whereby people like “John” can afford to cover his families with health insurance, or do we continue to give “job-generating” tax breaks to “job creators.” Job Creators…you know, those people who provide people like “John” with $9.00 an hour jobs that offer us health insurance options that we cannot afford to pay for?
As I think of “John” in the context of political opposition to health care affordability, it’s hard to ignore the irony that the officials we elect to craft policies such as health care affordability are comfortably covered by the government-sponsored insurance which “John’s” taxes pay for.

See also: “Universal Healthcare - How Other Countries Do It” and “The Real Health Insurance Industry -- An Insider Look At The Industry”

Read More

What Happened To The Lessons of Childhood? (Or, “What the **** Is Wrong With People?”), Conclusion

Continued from Part 2 (http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/search/label/Religion).

With the Christian Church being the foundation for many of the life lessons that we learned as children, and given that it’s leadership and spiritual advisors are as every bit as susceptible to the insanity to which has infected all other aspect’s of America’s secular institutions, it’s should come as no surprise that it’s supposed adherents have come epitomize a distortion of its values. Take the current debate over health care reform.
As children, we are taught to help everyone who needs it—a central tenet of Christian as well as all religious doctrines. With respect to the between 40 and 45 million Americans who either have no health insurance coverage or who are underinsured, it’s astounding that many supposed men and women “of faith” can justify the current system of runaway health care cost, and near universal unaffordability—if not for employer-based coverage—for the sake of embracing their political allegiances and their associated dogmas. We all know the pitfalls of the current system of health care in America, one that culminates with it being the single greatest cause of bankruptcies year-to-year. However, despite both the reality and the need, opponents of health care reform resort to un-Christian-like tactics such as distortion of facts, fear mongering (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?no_interstitial - NYTimes article, "False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots," from 08/13/2009), willful ignorance (see link below), selective facts which support their political dogmas (http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981?GT1=43002 - Newsweek magazine's article "Seven Myths About Health Care," as sourced from Factcheck.org, from 08/14/2009 ), and a slew of other hypocritical acts. And all for what? Because they believe that any government-subsidized programs intended to provide universal health care coverage for all Americans would be “Socialist” in policy (forgetting that private business can successfully compete with similar government-adminstered endeavors; Fed-Ex, UPS, and other mail delivery services are doing far better than the U.S. Postal service, and the private security firm--the former Blackwater Group--is able to pay its employees better than the U.S, military). Apparently these individuals hold the idea of a Free Market America far more sacred than the tenets of their religious faiths, or the support of reason. And challenging opponents on this observation will only result in a weak defense comprised of twisted and secular logic. In one recent town hall protest in Raleigh, North Carolina, a reporter for a local television station illustrated that many of the protesters there had not even read any portion of President Obama’s health care reform proposal. In fact, one woman, when interviewed, said that she “didn’t have to read the proposal,” and that she relied on the “voice of the Holy Spirit to tell her it was wrong.” The logical effect of this sad dynamic is that while it’s apparently ok for a sick person to pray for a healing, but any government-backed effort to help pay for medical treatment is wrong based on her interpretation of Biblical principles. (http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/video/5794533/ Uninformed health care reform protesters in Raleigh, NC, from 08/14/2009 broadcast). It seems that many of those opposed to universal-backed health care in this country do so based on either ideological reasons, to gain political power for oneself and/or political affiliation (ultimately), or as a knee-jerk defense of Free Market principles; people should left up to their own devices when it comes to assistance. From a philosophical perspective, these reasons run against the very first Christian Commandment…Thou shall have no other God before me (and the principles He is said to stand for).
It’s ironic that people are opposed to such a laudable idea as universal affordability of health care coverage, when opposing runs counter their self-interests. Often citing the potential costs of implementing such a policy, many of these same individuals opposed to health care reform had no problem with supporting—at least by their lack of protest and quiet acquiescence—the increased defense budget spending and the costs of America’s unwarranted invasion of Iraq under the last administration’s tenure…one that has to date resulted in over 1,500 American military deaths, an untold number of Iraqi civilian deaths, a rising deficit, and the tarnishment of the country’s reputation in the global community.
What happens when politically dogmatic individual individuals and organizations prevents us from helping others by misrepresenting the goals and intentions other individuals or groups simply to make their ideas more favorable? While this is nothing new—more conservative individuals and groups have a history of labeling unionizers, women and minority suffrage campaigners, civil rights workers, and others they disagree with as “Socialists” “Communists”—this tendency has gained a more intense fervor over the past 20 or so years. On the flip side of coin, more liberal individuals and groups have been quick to slander individuals seeking to strengthen the traditional family unit—a laudable goal to be sure given the high divorce and single parent rates in this country—as “fascists.”
What are to do about parents who treat parenthood so casually…or even worse, those who micromanage their children’s every move, thought, or goal?
What’s the effect for society when the institutions meant to guide us and make our lives better—secular and spiritual—have become as dysfunctional as the individuals who comprise them? How are things supposed to get better for our society when our political machinations become nothing more than organizations staffed with opportunists and self-serving individuals looking to pad their pockets? Is there any wonder that people like myself are so cynical toward these institutions…that there is a recently revealed growing resurgence of anti-government militias (See the Associated Press article, "Officials See Rise in Militia Groups Across US." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iyMfoxDzPi3tRgwrutPFpd154C7QD9A13T3O0 and Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/ )
What hope is there for society when we are so quick to hurt one another for nothing more than simple personal of political advantage?
What are we supposed to do with the life lessons that we learned as children, but disregard as adults? How about disregard them for want of their effectiveness? Let’s teach our children that it’s ok that their parents embrace a selfishness attitude toward parenting. That it’s understandable that parents live their own lives vicariously through the live of their children. And let’s tell them that it’s ok to treat our children like gold, but other children like crap. It’s ok to drink and drive…even if it puts the lives of ourselves and others at risk.
Let’s teach our kids that it’s ok to ignore helping others in our society simply because we want to validate—in both our own minds and those we hope to convert—the particular dogmatic beliefs we chose to embrace. Let’s teach them that embracing socio-political beliefs are far more important than our own spiritual teachings about helping others and elevating our souls…that "socialism" (and other similar beliefs) is the worst idea humanity has ever conceived…more evil than genocide, serial killing, rape, or even war. Let’s teach our kids that the labels we attach to those who wish to see progressive change in the world mean more than their intentions.
Let’s teach our children that it’s wrong for two consenting adults to engage in sex, but that’s its ok for us to engage our children.
While we’re at it, lets tell them that solving disputes by fighting (especially if it’s on national television) is fine.
Let’s just throw out the life lessons we teach children; give reality a chance to catch up with the hypocrisy we engage in on a daily basis. At least then we can stop asking ourselves, what’s wrong with us?

For an illustration of the desperate need for universal health care affordability, click on the following link:
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8309740 or watch the recent NBC Nightly News piece below.

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

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

The Personal Costs of Health Care Costs (or, "Tales From The Darkside!")

I have, am, and will always be a firm believer that medicine and access to affordable health care should be a humanitarian endeavor, not a marketable commodity. And if the only way that the enfeebled- and limited-minded can grasp such a concept is by linking it with some ideologically baited term like “socialism,” then so be it. The bottom line is that health care spending under our current sociopolitical regime eats up 17% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (See: “Health-Care Spending to Reach 20% of U.S. Economy by 2021").  Given that President Obama’s championed health care reforms have not fully kicked in—and whose economic effects can only be speculated about at this juncture—it’s hard not to imagine that total health care spending is as unsustainable a spending splurge as that of government spending adding to the national debt (by the way, has anyone noticed that deficit spending by the government only seems to matter when Democrats are in the White House?). But in considering how some Americans continue to demonize the suspected outcomes of the President Obama's signature legislative achievement, it came to my attention that in the midst of all of the red-baiting and diatribes about government infringement of civil liberties (by way of mandates), people were forgetting just why the discourse of reforming health care became an issue in the first place.
I came across a recent piece from NBC’s The Today Show spotlighting a video portrait of the effects the current health care system adversely affects those priced out of the current system.  If you're one of the few Americans who feel that you don't have a stake in reforming the current system of affordable health care affordability, I invite you to watch the following short piece and think again...

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

Guns & Fear, Part 2

Continued from Part 1 (http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/search/label/White%20Males)

Yes…I am still talking only to the white males.
With regard to the current health care reform debate and the fear of a loss of “civil liberties” associated with reform proposals, why do white males feel the need to display guns at otherwise “peaceful”—admittedly a loosely-used term given the often raucous nature of the debate—town hall meetings and rallies? It’s not as if health care reform is a rational slippery-slope toward a totalitarian regime reminiscent of America’s Cold War-era adversaries…or is it? Sadly, and not understandably, many of you who feel threatened by the prospect of the federal government getting involved in the business of providing affordable health care insurance for those lacking seems to evoke fears of an encroaching “Socialism” monster coming to, among other things, take both your guns and your civil liberties.
Historically, it’s not as if you have a leg to stand on. There is no historical instance of white males being interned in concentration camps within the borders of America since the end of the Civil War, not based on their identities such as what happened to Japanese-American citizens. There have been no laws created to curtail gun ownership of white males (again, based on identity) in conflict with the Second Amendment, such as black citizens have had to endure…well into the 20th century (see Part 1). With respect to what happened at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho during the 90s, those tragedies do not measure up to the wholesale violations of civil and individual rights of non-white citizens that have happened many times throughout both the recent and distance history of America. So why do you fear of a loss of civil liberties? What would make otherwise reasonable men fight so hard against potentially reforming a broken system in opposition to their own self interests? The answer is simple: belief.
Like religion, personal beliefs have no place in policy. Beliefs fuel ideological dogma, which in turn impedes the need to change what needs to be changed. In the case of health care reform, it is the irrational belief that “Socialism” will lead to many other negative government actions. Many opponents of health care reform believe that an increase in their taxes to help insure uninsured fellow Americans amounts to an erosion civil liberties. Needless to say, this is unsound reasoning given the fact that their taxes already fund “government-run” health care-related programs for the otherwise uninsured: Medicaid and Medicare. What this amounts to is, based on politically-inspired fear alone, Americans will cherry-pick which programs they support and are willing to allow their taxes to be used for, while ignoring the fact that by simply thinking or looking beyond the rhetoric, they could easily find many other unpopular programs—most with track records—that their taxes already pay for. So why should health care insurance and/or affordability be different?
Again, the fear of a Socialism Boogey Man is at the heart, most of it based on nothing more than ignorance. To illustrate, many these individuals often associate this fear of a socialist encroachment on their lives with the common practice among the former communist regimes of the Cold War era to suppress the various freedoms which we as Americans enjoy. Not only does this lack of knowledge ignores the distinctions between socialism and communism as economic policies, but assumes that a free market automatically equals personal freedom. Just look at modern-day China, an emerging capitalist juggernaut whose citizens dare not cross the boundaries of certain policies ambiguously codified by the state in regards to speech, assembly, religion, or even to have children. On the other hand, many of America’s traditional (and closest) allies may have certain economic policies that critics may slander as “socialist,” but that fact makes these countries no less democratic than ours; most European countries that opponents of health care reform enjoy all of the same rights and freedoms which we as Americans enjoy. In fact, one could argue that these “socialist” countries represent democracy far more readily than America, given their multi-party politics and parliamentary legislative structures. As a further example, in many European countries, the electorate and other special interests are forbidden from making contributions to political candidates for office; the government foots the cost for political campaigns, keeping Big Money out of the democratic process. And thankfully, these realities strongly challenge these over-patriotic Americans’ assertion that our example of democracy is the example of democracy. So again, I ask white males who feel free to intimidate the discourse regarding health care reform by displaying guns why?
Such a groundless, baseless, and uncivil choice of tactics is reminiscent of bloodthirsty and mindless mobs of days past who armed themselves, just before they gathered to lynch, burn, or otherwise do away with those who dared to think differently than they. Is that the message you want to send?

Addendum - (09/02/08)
WUNC, the local National Public Radio affiliate in Chapel Hill, North Carolina aired a segment on it's daily program, "The State of Things" about the word "socialism." It's an interesting look at how both the idea of socialism, and the usage of the word as a loaded term is typically not fully understood (outside of its negative connotation) by those who use it as a political tactic to derail questionable policy proposals. Open minds should give it a listen.

http://wunc.org/tsot/archive/sot0901abc09.mp3/view

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