Monday, September 14, 2009

Health Care

I have some problems w/ the Universal Health Care proposal. Actually, its not w/ the actual proposals themselves, its w/ the rhetoric.

As a person who (I'd like to think) is somewhat educated, I've been trying to sift through all the plans to figure out what's what. Public option, no public option, a co-opt option, the Massachuesetts model, it can be quite dizzing and I'm actually TRYING to understand what's what. I can only imagine who confusing it is for someone who doesn't take the time to understand or leaves it for others to intrepret.

Until about a couple weeks ago, I hadn't put two & two together what the "public option" is referring to.

This begs the question in my mind. Why the hell doesn't the administration simply change the rhetoric...or at least the vocabulary. Let's assume that half of those still don't get what the public option is, because it is that complicated for them & are simply not making the Obama administration's intended connections.

Why not simply taut universal health care coverage as "expanding Medicare/Medicaid"? Everyone already knows what Medicaid/Medicare is. Instead of starting someone's knowledge base from scratch, it draws upon a known quantity. Its less time you have to spend building that foundation, just so to where you can even start explaining the nuisances.

Heck if it were phrased in that way, any Congressman/Senator would be begging to have their opposition hammer away at them whenever they were up for reelection. Just imagine the attack ads. Flashing pictures of overcrowded ER's. Picture of some mother (alla Dorthea Lange's) craddling her bundled up child. A baby coughing or crying in the background. Or another picture of ER workers at work attending to an accident victim. Then flash the words, "Senator So & So is in favor of the ordinary citizen getting sick." Maybe even have some C-Span snippet of him proudly proclaiming, "I'm against this bill." & then have some voiceover of "& he's against ordinary Americans being healthy while the fat cats line their pockets." Yes, its horriblely skewed but its not like attack ads are beacons of accuracy no matter what side its from.

This is different than auto insurance coverage (as a friend & I discussed today). Keep in mind, these are my analysis BUT driving a car is a priviledge. If I chose to drive my car, the states mandate by law that I have to have some form of auto insurance. If I disagree w/ paying auto insurance premiums, I forfeit that driving priviledge. However I can also CHOOSE to ride my bicycle or walk or ride public transportation or hitch a ride w/ a friend or pay for a cab.

Unlike my friend who viewed staying in good health a priviledge (still thinking along the auto insurance before I offered my counter-observations, I eventually pointed out his line of reasoning was contrary to the goverment's own actions, specifically citing the "Children's Health Insurance Program." In that case, they believe children should have a right to be in good health & have access to getting better if need be.

I still have a lot of questions about Universal Health Care. How're we going to pay for it, is one? How're we to speed up the beaurcracy because from personal experience, anything dealing w/ the government is mind-numbingly slow? How much of this is going to be horse-traded away & leaving us w/ what? I wonder how the President's pledge that any plan won't cover noncitizens squares w/ a doctor's ethical oath to "do no harm" as well as their standard operating procedure to treat the most critical paitent first regardless of what their background is. I also wonder how increased coverage is going to be balanced w/ the current shortage in health care professionals.

& for the record, it was extremely refreshing to talk to someone in a civil manner & understand their point of view even if I may or may not agree w/ them. In so many cases, the discourse is simply disappointing in that its like I can see the arguements coming a mile away & a person makes no attempt see another's point of view (even if they disagree w/ them). Hysteria may make for fabulous entertainment but as how Barney Frank expressed it, having a discussion w/ those kinds of people is like talking to ones dining room table.

---

Photobucket

The above is from my stay in Boston this summer. It was taken on one of the rare nice afternoons where it wasn't overcast nor rainy.

Feel free & comment away on any part of this entry. I'm an admitted feedback comment whore in that respect. LOL

1 comment:

Brian said...

"How're we going to pay for it, is one?"

Good question. The answer is the same way we pay for universal police coverage, universal military coverage, etc: taxes.

My income taxes would go up, but I would no longer have to pay premiums, deductibles or other medical expenses.

Corporate taxes would go up, but they would make up for that by not having to separately pay for their employees' health costs.

We are already paying 40 pct more per capita on health care than the Canadians even though we don't cover everyone like them. The money's already in the system. It's just not being spent efficiently.

We could cut per capita costs by slashing the administrative and bureaucratic costs and generally making things more efficient. Private insurance overhead/admin is over 30 pct. because of the profit motive. US Medicare is about 3 pct. Canadian Medicare is about 15 pct. Neither of the latter two have the profit motive.

Or we could keep the same level of spending per capita and offer more benefits.