As I am writing this, Senator Ted Cruz is threatening to organize the defunding of America's new system of universal health care, even if it means shutting down the entire government--an extremely drastic step. It must be done now before "Americans become addicted to the sugar of subsidies." The cost of the new system will be extremely prohibitive, he tells us, necessitating the loss of many jobs and reducing many full-time positions to part-time work. His father, Rafael Cruz, insists that it will send the elderly to the poorhouse! Ted Cruz's view might be extreme--and it is--but it is a fact that just about every Republican opposes the new health care law. Oh, and you know the adage that the devil can prove anything with statistics. (I remember a table the Bush administration created at the time of his massive tax cuts: the table showed that, in a few years, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created each month because of the tax cuts. Well, we all know how that turned out.)
We are paying these guys to keep us informed! I would like to hear a sensible conservative and a sensible liberal view on every issue, not just the crazy conservative and sane liberal views we're getting now. The Republicans in Congress are getting a fat salary and perks and perks and perks--did we really hire them to vote down Obamacare forty times, when they know that each time their legislation had no chance of passing? It would be better if they concentrated even on dinky legislation, such as, say, requiring that seed in bird feeders meet Burpee standards--at least in this way some old birds will be preventing some young birds from getting sick.
Americans are woefully ignorant about health care; if they had more knowledge that would be laughing out loud every time Cruz opens his mouth. (I'm a doctor and I'm glad the public is better informed about health habits . If a so-called expert on TV informed them of the dangers of vegetables and the benefits of consuming at least a pound of butter a day, they would, thank goodness, change the channel!) The public is so misguided and ignorant--For instance, 62% of the population of Louisiana --a poor state which would benefit greatly from the new legislation, since there are many Louisianians without health care--opposes Obamacare.
Those who are ignorant and believe in witches will demand that witch hunters receive massive Congressional support..(Even less so than Christine O'Donnell, President Obama is not a witch.)
I am not a health care policy analyst, and do not intend to confuse both you and myself with self-serving statistics. I want to make just four points. If you oppose universal health care, or are unsure about it, I ask you to ignore Fox News for a while and consider these facts.
1. THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORD THAT LACKS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
In every country that can afford it, universal health care coverage is viewed as a right. Like the right to private property. Like the right to vote. Like the right to elect blithering idiots to Congress. That the richest country in the world has 40,000,000 people that lack health insurance is absolutely shocking to citizens of other countries. Poorer countries, like India and China, are doing their best to provide universal coverage, but can't afford it at present. Some poorer countries--Barzil, Chile, Argentina--provide it now.. Sure we could be right and the rest of the world could be wrong, but this is highly unlikely. If this were true, one would expect that one or two countries would try to opt out. Not a peep from any of them! The relatively poor health outcomes in the United States is a good indication that health care for all is, well, a healthy thing.
Our opposition to Obamacare is a little like saying "Child Labor, si!" while the rest of the world says "Child Labor, no!" Conservatives and liberals everywhere--except in the United States--agree that universal coverage is a must in all countries that can afford it--and we certainly can afford it.
2. UNIVERSAL COVERAGE HAS TO BE CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE'RE PAYING NOW
First point: Every advanced country has a system that provides universal health care coverage. Second point: Every one of them is significantly cheaper than the present American system. The United States spends approximately $8,000 per individual per year on health care expenses, by far the most costly system in the world. (And, as pointed out already, the health outcomes are, on the average, worse.) Other industrialized countries are paying about half that, $4,000 per individual. Remember, in the insurance-driven system we have now, health insurers are more interested in the price of their stock, more beholden to their stockholders than they are to the insured. Many insurance companies went as far as to hire staff to find ways to disenroll people once their sickness threatened profits; the companies would often refuse to pay for necessary treatment. Until the Affordable Care Act abolished this practice, insurers could refuse to insure those with "previous medical conditions." For instance, if you were known to have diabetes, an insurer would cover you--except for expenses related to diabetes! The insurance companies prospered, but not many who were sick. No, you can't have a decent health care system the based on profit! Blood is not Coca Cola!
Premiums have already come down in states that have introduced health care exchanges--that is, competition. Competition is a good thing, no? Why then are the Republicans--the representatives of competitive industry--so upset? After all, insurers will gain about 40 million new customers, which should offset the cost of having to insure those with preexisting conditions? That brings us to Point 3.
3. SWITZERLAND ON THE POTOMAC
Switzerland is the most consumer-driven health care model of all industrial nations. It is also the most expensive, although cheaper than the present U.S. system. Everyone must be covered; the Swiss are free to choose their own insurance. The poor receive subsidies to cover the premiums. This has been the model for Obamacare. But there is a crucial difference: the Swiss health care industry is highly regulated. For instance, if one company is not paying out enough for services, it is suspected that it is because their members are healthier. If this is indeed the case, they are required to transfer some of their profits to insurers who are covering more sick people. None of the clever tricks of the U.S. system, such as one that permits HMOs to enroll healthier seniors and get even more reimbursement from the government, is allowed. Since Obamacare basically follows the Swiss model without a lot of the Swiss regulation, it might be more expensive than need be at first--though probably not as expensive as our system is now. It will therefore need to be reformed, which means regulation cutting into the health industry's profits. They will always be very profitable, but will not be able to make the killing--pun intended--that they do now. I think that's the source of the Republican opposition. After all, the idea for Obamacare came from a Republican think tank, the Heritage Foundation--yes, including the part requiring an individual mandate. It is not the present form of the Affordable Care Act that they're worried about, it is the fear of future--necessary--regulation.
4. WHAT IF IT IS EXPENSIVE AT FIRST?
Let me give an analogy. Slavery was a moral evil; we all agree on that. But the South defended slavery--why? Follow the money! They were economically invested in that evil system. Landowners were not about to give up free labor, on which their profits depended, without a fight--and that fight is now known as the Civil War. No one today would argue for the reintroduction of slavery as a way to boost profits, no matter how poor the economy is. Although having 40,000,000 people without health insurance is not as evil as enslaving and demeaning an entire race, it is certainly an evil. So how can we talk about expense when the alternative is morally offensive? Therefore, the scare tactic that would have us believe that universal health care is too expensive is not only false--see Point 3: in the long run it has to be cheaper--it is also wrong, since such coverage is a moral necessity.
The Affordable Care Act is not ideal, but it is a great improvement over the current system, and, being anything but a government takeover of the health care industry, was probably the best deal our President could have obtained. It will be improved with time, along with our health. In a few years, we will take it for granted and consider the old days without universal health care comparable to the days when there was no electricity, running water, Google, or smart phones. In the meantime, I hope the four points of this essay will help guide you past the Scylla of Ted Cruzes and the Charybdis of Paul Ryans--beyond them the sailing might not always be smooth, but with a sensible captain and a healthier crew, we will move on.
We are paying these guys to keep us informed! I would like to hear a sensible conservative and a sensible liberal view on every issue, not just the crazy conservative and sane liberal views we're getting now. The Republicans in Congress are getting a fat salary and perks and perks and perks--did we really hire them to vote down Obamacare forty times, when they know that each time their legislation had no chance of passing? It would be better if they concentrated even on dinky legislation, such as, say, requiring that seed in bird feeders meet Burpee standards--at least in this way some old birds will be preventing some young birds from getting sick.
Americans are woefully ignorant about health care; if they had more knowledge that would be laughing out loud every time Cruz opens his mouth. (I'm a doctor and I'm glad the public is better informed about health habits . If a so-called expert on TV informed them of the dangers of vegetables and the benefits of consuming at least a pound of butter a day, they would, thank goodness, change the channel!) The public is so misguided and ignorant--For instance, 62% of the population of Louisiana --a poor state which would benefit greatly from the new legislation, since there are many Louisianians without health care--opposes Obamacare.
Those who are ignorant and believe in witches will demand that witch hunters receive massive Congressional support..(Even less so than Christine O'Donnell, President Obama is not a witch.)
I am not a health care policy analyst, and do not intend to confuse both you and myself with self-serving statistics. I want to make just four points. If you oppose universal health care, or are unsure about it, I ask you to ignore Fox News for a while and consider these facts.
1. THE UNITED STATES IS THE ONLY DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORD THAT LACKS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
In every country that can afford it, universal health care coverage is viewed as a right. Like the right to private property. Like the right to vote. Like the right to elect blithering idiots to Congress. That the richest country in the world has 40,000,000 people that lack health insurance is absolutely shocking to citizens of other countries. Poorer countries, like India and China, are doing their best to provide universal coverage, but can't afford it at present. Some poorer countries--Barzil, Chile, Argentina--provide it now.. Sure we could be right and the rest of the world could be wrong, but this is highly unlikely. If this were true, one would expect that one or two countries would try to opt out. Not a peep from any of them! The relatively poor health outcomes in the United States is a good indication that health care for all is, well, a healthy thing.
Our opposition to Obamacare is a little like saying "Child Labor, si!" while the rest of the world says "Child Labor, no!" Conservatives and liberals everywhere--except in the United States--agree that universal coverage is a must in all countries that can afford it--and we certainly can afford it.
2. UNIVERSAL COVERAGE HAS TO BE CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE'RE PAYING NOW
First point: Every advanced country has a system that provides universal health care coverage. Second point: Every one of them is significantly cheaper than the present American system. The United States spends approximately $8,000 per individual per year on health care expenses, by far the most costly system in the world. (And, as pointed out already, the health outcomes are, on the average, worse.) Other industrialized countries are paying about half that, $4,000 per individual. Remember, in the insurance-driven system we have now, health insurers are more interested in the price of their stock, more beholden to their stockholders than they are to the insured. Many insurance companies went as far as to hire staff to find ways to disenroll people once their sickness threatened profits; the companies would often refuse to pay for necessary treatment. Until the Affordable Care Act abolished this practice, insurers could refuse to insure those with "previous medical conditions." For instance, if you were known to have diabetes, an insurer would cover you--except for expenses related to diabetes! The insurance companies prospered, but not many who were sick. No, you can't have a decent health care system the based on profit! Blood is not Coca Cola!
Premiums have already come down in states that have introduced health care exchanges--that is, competition. Competition is a good thing, no? Why then are the Republicans--the representatives of competitive industry--so upset? After all, insurers will gain about 40 million new customers, which should offset the cost of having to insure those with preexisting conditions? That brings us to Point 3.
3. SWITZERLAND ON THE POTOMAC
Switzerland is the most consumer-driven health care model of all industrial nations. It is also the most expensive, although cheaper than the present U.S. system. Everyone must be covered; the Swiss are free to choose their own insurance. The poor receive subsidies to cover the premiums. This has been the model for Obamacare. But there is a crucial difference: the Swiss health care industry is highly regulated. For instance, if one company is not paying out enough for services, it is suspected that it is because their members are healthier. If this is indeed the case, they are required to transfer some of their profits to insurers who are covering more sick people. None of the clever tricks of the U.S. system, such as one that permits HMOs to enroll healthier seniors and get even more reimbursement from the government, is allowed. Since Obamacare basically follows the Swiss model without a lot of the Swiss regulation, it might be more expensive than need be at first--though probably not as expensive as our system is now. It will therefore need to be reformed, which means regulation cutting into the health industry's profits. They will always be very profitable, but will not be able to make the killing--pun intended--that they do now. I think that's the source of the Republican opposition. After all, the idea for Obamacare came from a Republican think tank, the Heritage Foundation--yes, including the part requiring an individual mandate. It is not the present form of the Affordable Care Act that they're worried about, it is the fear of future--necessary--regulation.
4. WHAT IF IT IS EXPENSIVE AT FIRST?
Let me give an analogy. Slavery was a moral evil; we all agree on that. But the South defended slavery--why? Follow the money! They were economically invested in that evil system. Landowners were not about to give up free labor, on which their profits depended, without a fight--and that fight is now known as the Civil War. No one today would argue for the reintroduction of slavery as a way to boost profits, no matter how poor the economy is. Although having 40,000,000 people without health insurance is not as evil as enslaving and demeaning an entire race, it is certainly an evil. So how can we talk about expense when the alternative is morally offensive? Therefore, the scare tactic that would have us believe that universal health care is too expensive is not only false--see Point 3: in the long run it has to be cheaper--it is also wrong, since such coverage is a moral necessity.
The Affordable Care Act is not ideal, but it is a great improvement over the current system, and, being anything but a government takeover of the health care industry, was probably the best deal our President could have obtained. It will be improved with time, along with our health. In a few years, we will take it for granted and consider the old days without universal health care comparable to the days when there was no electricity, running water, Google, or smart phones. In the meantime, I hope the four points of this essay will help guide you past the Scylla of Ted Cruzes and the Charybdis of Paul Ryans--beyond them the sailing might not always be smooth, but with a sensible captain and a healthier crew, we will move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment