A blog about politics.

The Health Care Morass

Washington, it is well known, was built on a swamp. In summer, it seems especially swampy. And it seems swampiest of all when it is locked in a major legislative struggle--and all of the above is going on right now. The amount of foolish, noxious complicated and misleading statements being tossed around right now (on all sides, by the way) seems to increase exponentially, by the day. Take this, today, from Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post:

The notion that the uninsured get little or no care is a myth: They now receive about 50 to 70 percent as much health care as the insured. If they become insured, they would use more health care, possibly as much as today's insured. That would increase both government and private health spending, depending on how the insurance is provided.

Except maybe not...because we simply don't know. The 50-70% coverage--I love the numbing, economic nincompoopery of that stat--that they get takes place mostly in emergency rooms, the most expensive health care delivery system imaginable. If those same people had regular primary care physicians, they could nip those emergencies in the bud through preventive care, especially the use of drugs. (Add: In his press conference last week...)The President used the familiar example of a diabetic who, absent preventive care, needs to have an amputation in his press conference last week. (Boy, do I need a vacation.)

In other words, the 30-50% of coverage that the uninsured are not getting might well lower the costs of the 50-70% of coverage that they are. But no one knows. That's one of the reasons why it is difficult for the Congressional Budget Office to "score" the cost of these bills. 

No doubt, Samuelson has a point. Cover everyone and it costs more--but we don't know how much more, and it may cost less than we think. It will certainly cost less in the areas economists can't quantify, but which have very real economic impacts: in the level of panic and uncertainty that exists in the society, the opportunity cost in entrepreneurial energy among people who might start a new business but are locked into their jobs because they need their health benefits--and a thousand other, non-fiscal benefits.

One of my favorite Springsteen lyrics is, "We've got to start saving up for the things that money can't buy." That's the best argument for a health care system that costs less in anxiety and unfairness. In the end, a conversation about universal health care can't just be about money. It has to also be about values, about what sort of society we want to be--and need to be in an era of economic volatility and uncertainty.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (105)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    But what if life-saving care is outside of that bizarre "50-70 percent" figure? Arguments against health care keep getting loonier and loonier...

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • 2

    Cenk Uygur once said, “There are some things we should not base on your salary, and whether you live or die is one of them.”
    Word.

  • 3

    So, if ye be maintainin' it be costin' more t' be coverin' ev'ryone, can ye be tellin me how every country tha' be havin' a single-payer system tha' be coverin' EV'RYONE, an' cov'rin EV'RYONE fer more services (medical, dental, vision, mental health, etc.) than we be providin', manage t' be doin' it wi' so much LESS o' their GDPs, an' fer so much BETTER outcomes?

    'Ow d' ye be explainin' tha'?

    Ye OUGHT t' be explainin' tha', instead o' offerin' unfounded guesses an' perpetuatin' th' corporate line!

    An' why don't no one in th' press be thinkin' t' be demandin' those makin' decisions t' be explainin' exact' WHY single-payer were taken off th' table fr'm th' beginnin', when it be appearin' single-payer be th' only option fer coverin' everyone, pr'vidin' better health care outcomes, AN' costin' less?

    Single-payer shouldn'a be off th' table until we be pr'vided a factual comparison wi' th' other options, an' until WE say it be off th' table! Ye ought t' be explainin' why th' press were rollin' o'er like such good dogs acceptin' th' removal wi'out so much as a whimper.

    Bu' then, ye'd 'ave t' be explainin' why th' press no' be doin' their jobs! Ye all be talkin' a lot 'bout process, bu' I don't s'ppose ye want t' be talkin' 'bout THA' process!

    YARR!

    • 3.1

      But Pirate Wench, paying twice as much and getting less is the only way we can maintain our precious freedoms!

  • 4

    One of the factors I don't see mentioned nearly often enough.

    If you go in for a procedure and are insured the hospital will accept $30,000 as settlement from the insurer to pay for the procedure. If, on the other hand, you have no coverage, the bill is actual on the order of $90-$120,000.

    As long as the actual costs of procedures are being padded to make up for delinquent patients and the actual cost of services are being buried under piles of self-dealing accounting, then anything anybody says about cost savings OR excessive cost is guaranteed to be wrong.

    The lies extend all the way down to the core of current practice.

  • 5

    . The amount of foolish, noxious complicated and misleading statements being tossed around right now (on all sides, by the way) seems to increase exponentially, by the day.

    Joe provides the insurance company parasites full cover by taking a false "everyone is equally bad" stance on lies and disinformation being spread on the issue of health care reform!

    • 5.1

      Who are you kidding? Joe is absolutely correct in asserting that Ds, Rs, and corporations are throwing around inaccurate information. Corporations and Republicans aren't all evil just because you claim they are.

      Excellent journalism Joe -- I enjoyed the lack of partisanship.

    • 5.2

      where are Ds throwing around the kind of toxic information that is coming from the GOP obstructionists, and the corporate parasites?

      It doesn't happen. The worst stuff you get from Ds is in their perpetuation of the fantasy that significant reform can be accomplished within the for-profit insurance company framework.... and that's a far cry from the fear-mongering of the GOP (funded by the parasites)

    • 5.3

      Its very hard to take you seriously when you use the word "parasites" in a political discussion.

      But let's talk about the irony of what you're saying. You're attacking corporations and at the same time defending Democrats when our Congress, run by a Democrat super-majority, is talking about spending over $1 trillion of our money on reform. After spending over $700 billion to bail out our economy. Again, with our money. Who are the real parasites?

  • 6

    "...They now receive about 50 to 70 percent as much health care as the insured."

    Okay, lets see where that takes us:

    Recent surveys indicate that 45% of insured are postpoining or avoiding care due to unaffordability.

    That leaves 55% of the insured who are getting care.

    55% of (50-70) works out to 27%-35% of care for uninsured.

    And that assumes that Samuelson's original assertion is valid.

    The real problem here though, is framing the discussion around health insurance. Insurance does not equal coverage and coverage does not equal care. We need a national healthcare policy, not a program to fatten insurance company profits.

  • 7

    "The amount of foolish, noxious complicated and misleading statements being tossed around right now (on all sides, by the way)"

    Joe: Please provide us with any disinformation that has been promoted by proponents of health care reform. I am not aware of any, and have seen a disproportionate amount of BS from the right-wing party. Otherwise, stop the false equivalence.

    • 7.1

      Come off it -- politicians are politicians, blue and red alike. Dems would promise us Christmas in July if it would get the bill through congress.

  • 8

    " .. foolish, noxious complicated and misleading"

    Look at all these bad Americans who want big government!
    Why, O Why, can't these bums be hard-working good players in our American system of free enterprise - just like Bill Gates and those CEOs of failed businesses who get millions as reward/severance for a hatchet job well done!

    And our USA is teeming with over 40 millions of such dastardly moochers! In capitalist USA!
    Heck! Socialist Europe can have them!

    ['Competition', 'Capitalism' and 'free enterprise' does NOT mean that American businesses have to compete freely with cheaper options even if the discerning cheapskates - the "We, the people" - in USA want them!]

    • 8.1

      Our capitalism - or rather, the rich elites who own the tools of propaganda - seems to embrace moochers at the high end of society.
      The mass of moochers struggling at the low-end are despised - even if over 70% of Americans, the gentler Americans, have compassion for them.

  • 9

    @ PW:

    I'm glad that single-payer is off the table, for several reasons.

    1. Gov't plans and programs of comparable scale (Medicare, social security, etc.) have historically been run poorly and unsustainably.

    2. A single gov't option would significantly reduce the luxury of choice we now enjoy.

    3. Taxes will likely go through the roof. I'd much rather decide what to do with my money than have the gov't decide for me.

    Regulation is a much better idea than a gov't run program. Regulation still allows competition to drive prices down and would (hopefully) increase transparency in an obviously opaque and broken system.

    As a side note -- your arguments are always clear and comments enjoyable to read, but translations would be nice :)

    • 9.1

      Do you favor a 100% private market HC system? If yes, how do you make it accessible to everyone?

    • 9.2

      Relatively simple concept, but realistically difficult to employ: mandate that insurance companies that offer basic packages only offer such packages, and offer them to everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Companies that want to offer "premium" packages can use other methods of determination in accepting customers.

      Corporations of the first group would be regulated, work at non-profit levels, and earn X% on top, and corporations in the second group would go about business as usual.

      The advantage of this is that we utilize business and human capital that is currently in place; we don't have to jump-start an enormous gov't program to cover everyone. And our ability to choose amongst insurers is not compromised.

    • 9.3

      Are you're parents and grandparents still alive?

      Do you think they could afford their own medical care were it not for Medicare? Would you be willing to impoverish yourself to ensure they did get adequate care?

      Because Medicare is a single payer system that works far better than anything the free market offers -- and your loved ones would probably be living off of dog food were it not for that particular "single payer" system -- because you obviously care more for your "luxury of choice" than you do about the rest of humanity.

    • 9.4

      " .. 2. A single gov't option would significantly reduce the luxury of choice we now enjoy. .."

      What do you have against "free enterprise" or "market forces" or "survival of the fittest" or "give the people choices and let the people decide" or any of the many catchphrases paraded by the conservatives in good times?

      Is a reduction in number of choices - which comes about as a result of the less competitive players exiting the market place - undesirable?
      What do you have against "capitalism"? Or don't you believe that "luxury of choices" must exclude some - the cheaper ones?
      Is your standard of "luxury" better than that of other Americans? Don't you trust that we, the people, have a capacity to choose what is best among competing options? [Here is where you insert your canned duplicitous retorts.]

    • 9.5

      I'll only be tellin' ye this one time - since ye appear t' be new -

      I don't be wastin' me time respondin' t' comments tha' be consistin' o' unsupported opinions, such as:

      1.

      2.

      3.

      fr'm yer most recent post.

      Thar be plenty o' objective information available tha' be contradictin' yer "arguments", so if ye expect t' be taken serious, ye'd best be pr'vidin' more evidence than just th' usual, already disproven talkin' points.

      Consider tha' yer warnin' bow shot, matey - ye'll no' be gettin' another!

      YARR!

    • 9.6

      kjata30, you do know that your conservative friends will disown you for suggesting MORE regulation of private industry ...

      In any case, as Joe says, this is not so much about health care as it is about what kind of people we are. And what you suggest, what we are right now, is a nation that views health care as a luxury, a benefit, available only to the elect who are either very wealthy or who are lucky enough to land a job with a good HC package.

      What progressives want is a society in which health care is a right. I

      t's a pretty fundamental difference, and it makes me uninterested in debating the details with conservatives like you or, for that matter, any Republicans or other health care opponents. You all see America as a different place than I do. You're never going to change your underlying belief that health care is a benefit, which, by definition, should be delivered as benefits always are, that is, only to certain people via the free-market, capitalist system that selects those certain people. And I'm never going to change my view of health care as a right for all Americans, which, like all of the rights we currently enjoy, is solely the responsibility of our government.

      It's because of this fundamental difference in views that I don't think any Republican or conservative will EVER vote for health care reform: It would mean helping the unwashed masses obtain something they consider a benefit only for the elite, and that goes against everything they believe in.

      It's also why Henry Waxman et al will have to steamroll this thing over the backs of the elitists, come hell or high water.

    • 9.7

      kj, you're right; we'd need a mandate. Denying claims / pre-existing conditions is a huge problem...for starters. It's ironic but necessary to have regulation aka govt. intrusion per RW talking points. I still think Big Insurance is practicing medicine sight unseen or without a license when they balk at treatments, etc. thus directly affecting patients...which should be illegal per state health boards.

      But still, some people simply have no money, period. Now what? To others, forgive my broken record (to pirated music downloaders, what's that?) but I'd still argue for a minimum public safety net since HC is a safety necessity like police and fire protection… in addition to a private system for those who can pay. Such as. (okay, am polite about disagreeing here instead of ranting, now feel I should atone for that.)

    • 9.8

      Lots of replies, little time.

      @plukasiak:

      Medicare, effective? You're out of your mind.

      @ PW:

      Ouch. Sorry. I'll do my homework from now on. Still, if you know the argument against my points, I'd rather hear it than fish around for it.

      @ JMQ:

      Yeah, my conservative friends probably would. But regulation is not necessarily a bad thing. De-regulation worked well with the nuclear industry, but was terrible for the financial market (obviously). Regulating the insurance industry could bring about the reform we want without implementing a far-reaching gov't program.

      You're right again in noting that a fundamental gap exists between people when it comes to health care: right, or privilege? I personally think with the way Americans live today, it is a right. Governors can't be flying jets to Brazil while the poor die because they can't get into a doctor's office. I just don't feel a gov't option is the best choice.

      @deconstructiva:

      Of the 47 million uninsured, less than half can't actually afford it. The others are misrepresented or choose not to partake. As it is, those without insurance can walk into an ER at any time and receive emergency care. Obviously this is not the right way to go about it, but neither is giving out hand-outs. This provides no incentive for those who cannot get insurance to ever reach a level where they can. The gov't should aid and educate those who cannot afford it, so that they may one day be able to.

      My biggest concerns with public insurance are costs and options. Simply put, I don't want to pay more taxes and I don't want to be limited to just one choice. I would rather pay higher premiums and select exactly the coverage I want.

      Phew. Sorry for the rant.

    • 9.9

      Let me tell you why you're wrong.
      The common argument is that business, in it's pursuit of the dollar, cuts out unnecessary cost, expenses not related to the product they produce.
      Conversely, government has no motivation to reduce administrative overhead, so they are "less efficient" and "more costly".
      The problem with that argument is that the product of an insurance company IS administration. That administration cost is much higher because that is in the interest of their bottom line.
      Think about that.
      While you're thinking about that, consider that the administrative costs for medicare is around 3% while private insurance companies have 9-15% administrative overhead.
      While you're making up an argument to invalidate my last point, consider that the insurance industry is saying that they can't compete against a government-run plan.
      To me that's a tacit admission that they are screwing you. The funny thing is, you don't want them to stop.

    • 9.10

      I disagree. The product of an insurance company is obviously not administration. This would be a by-product.

      I have doubts that a universal gov't plan would be more "efficient" than a regulated private insurance industry in the sense of product quality and administration. Insurance companies argue that they can't compete with a gov't option because the gov't plan will be artificially lower in upfront cost to the consumer due to subsidizing. However, we will make up the difference in taxes.

      And please, I'm not being hostile. I know this is a passionate subject for a lot of people, but I'm just looking for a discussion, not a fight.

  • 10

    "...a diabetic who, absent preventive care, needs to have an amputation in his press conference last week."

    What?!? How did I miss this? Did Obama do the amputation himself during the press conference, or was he the anesthesiologist? D@mn, Obama's good. Is there a video on YouTube?

  • 11

    kbanginmotown
    July 27, 2009
    at 1:51 pm

    LOL...

  • 12

    I wonder if Samuelson has ever had to get his care from a hospital emergency room...in Washington. Just kidding. Shorter Samuelson: I got a great plan; f@ck the rest of you.

    There will be lots of opportunities to address cost - in addition to getting people out of the ER and into primary care - but this is about covering everyone and providing the mechanism, particularly a public plan, to enact a wellness model for health care. It's the only thing that will save us.

    • 13.1

      Plain and simple, in the never-ending struggle against the oligarchy there came a time not too long ago when journalists simply switched sides:

      ” Many of the old-timers were the first in their families to go to college, or they were hired straight out of high school or the military and worked their way up the newsroom ranks. It's easier to see the stories of hard-working Americans and immigrants when they reflect the narratives of your own family, your own neighborhood.

      By the 1990s, the landscape in newsrooms across the country clearly was changing. Longtime reporters and editors retired, and increasingly were replaced by second- and even third-generation college graduates who had little in common with “the underdog,” that handy euphemism we employ for those who suffer in silence and anonymity until we step in.

      Some of us detected a growing resistance of newspapers to covering these stories."

      --Connie Schultz, Cleveland Plain Dealer

      Given the present circumstance, I think that makes columnists like Joe Klein, Krugman, Conason, etc. particularly praiseworthy.

  • 14

    Regulation still allows competition to drive prices down

    hahahahahahahahaha

    Please, tell the class how health insurance prices will ever go down given their present, capitalism-driven trajectory.

    • 14.1

      You obviously have no understanding of economics. Sorry.

    • 14.2

      @kjata30: Raven's challenge is still there. Please reconcile what is supposed to happen according to economic theory to what actually happens in the real world.

    • 14.3

      @ grape_crush

      Every response from you has been incendiary and provocative. Barring reconciliation, this will be the last time I respond to your posts.

      I did not imply that I could reconcile theory with reality, only that it was largely apparent that red knew nothing about economics. Claiming that competition does not generally drive down costs is incorrect.

    • 14.4

      @kjata30: Every response from you has been incendiary and provocative.

      Hardly, unless you consider disagreement 'incendiary and provocative'. I have asked you, simply, to put up or shut up...and here you are, avoiding the subject by getting vapors over the fact that I dispute much of what you have written here

      Barring reconciliation, this will be the last time I respond to your posts.

      Poor me. Whatever will I do without your precious insight?

      I did not imply that I could reconcile theory with reality, only that it was largely apparent that red knew nothing about economics.

      Or is it that you have a blind spot when it comes to reality? (that's provocation, by-the-way)

      Claiming that competition does not generally drive down costs is incorrect.

      Hmmm...in the health care system we have now, there's competition aplenty. Why, exactly, does it cost so much*?

      *rhetorical question, as I don't expect a response.

  • 15

    Damm!
    And may her majesty Olive Oyl, the PW, loose the " ' " and 'YARR!' keys on her keyboard!

    AHOY!

  • 16

    kjata30 -

    Alri' me hearty - ye were havin' yer chance, an' ye were failin' th' test!

    Ye be soundin' suspicious li' neoexile on one o' is' bad days when he be relyin' on twistin' an' contortin' th' facts an' obfuscatin' 'is own responses instead o' engagin in honest discussion!

    A' least we be aware 'e be capable o' th' latter, when 'e be in th' mood!

    Ye've no' demonstrated a whit o' th' same, so,

    This be me one an' only response t' ye:

    Go F yerself!

    I'll be wastin no more o' me time readin' nor respondin' t' ye - th' rest o' th; crew feel free t' 'ave at it - exceptin' on NF Thursdays, o' course!

    YARR!

    • 16.1

      I honestly marked you as one of the people I'd like to discuss with on here, I don't know why you're so offended.

      Just because my views are less liberal does not mean they should be thrown overboard, so to speak.

    • 16.2

      "Your views" are easily recognizable industry propaganda and right-wing talking points that are easily disproved. That, and the fact that you are so deluded as to not be able to critically examine your beliefs in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is why thinking people have no use for a discussion with you. For us it's just like having an argument with a child; occasionally amusing but seldom enlightening.

    • 16.3

      I can't believe how hostile of a reaction I am receiving from this blog.

      We gain nothing from disregarding views outright. If you disagree with my points, argue against them. I don't work for an insurance company or the Republicans, I'm just an interested reader.

      No one has addressed why the points I've made are wrong, only that they are foolish and easily disputable. So dispute them.

    • 16.4

      Our “hostile reaction” is to views such as these:

      ”I have doubts that a universal gov't plan would be more "efficient" than a regulated private insurance industry in the sense of product quality and administration. Insurance companies argue that they can't compete with a gov't option because the gov't plan will be artificially lower in upfront cost to the consumer due to subsidizing. However, we will make up the difference in taxes.”

      Most of the folks here spend considerable time and effort to inform themselves about the facts of things – such as the salient fact that the private insurance system costs two to five times as much as other public or public/private systems of every other industrialized nation yet we come out near the bottom on many health measures. People who come here to share their “doubts” and “sense” of things and what insurance companies argue don't last very long because we're not interested in the right-wing parlor game of debunking propaganda. Turn off Rush and go study the issues and when you've demonstrated any grasp of the facts or insights into the problems then we'll talk.

  • 17

    Lemme tell you a little story...
    Back in 2000 I lived in Cali. That was when the Enron guys were ganking the common citizen on their energy bills. (It's history. Look it up.) I lived in Sacramento, where I had two different utilities...one for gas (PG&E or Pacific Gas and Electric) and one for electricity (SMUD or the Sacramento Municipal Utility District). PG&E is a privately held company, while SMUD is a publicly held co-operative. During the "crisis" my gas bill was $200 a month, (A 2000% increase. I used gas only to heat water.) My elecricity bill was $150 a month--$25 more than a common month. I was using electricity for everything else. Mind you that this was in the summer, so the AC was going 80% of the time. I wonder why I got my power for so much less than the PG&E customers did...oh yeah...ENRON WAS SCREWING US!!! Again, this is history
    This illustrates something that the corporations don't want you to know...they're trying their hardest to bend you over and "treat you like a lady". Insurance companies are the worst. With one tongue they say "government is inefficient" and with the other they say, "We can't compete against a government-run plan". I know the second to be true. This is not some abstract principle...an idea to be debated. I have experienced the difference IN REAL LIFE. I wonder how many of you commenters have gone to your congesspersons website and made your opinion heard. DO IT NOW!
    They say that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it...that's not entirely true. I remember history but it looks like I'm going to be forced into repeating it.

    • 17.1

      I be b'lievin' me own representatives an me own president be so sick o' hearin' me opinion (SINGLE-PAYER!), an' havin' their staffs send me boilerplate responses t' me demands tha' they be explainin' t' me why SINGLE-PAYER be no' on th' table, tha' they don't even be botherin' t' read me notes 'r listen t' me phone messages no more!

      Why?

      Money = influence, me hearties, money = influence! Corporate health be havin' it all sewn up already - mark th' pirate's words! No single-payer, lots more money fer private insurance corporations, an' watered-down-t'-worthless 'r sacrificed fer "bipartisanship" public option! Tha's wha' we'll be gettin' when this be all over!

      An' no peep o' protest fr'm th' 4th estate, neither!

      YARR!

  • 18

    Looking at your conclusion, I fear that pretty much sums up what we have to look forward to m'lady, unfortunately.

    :(

  • 19

    Hey guys, lets have some good old American free competition in the market place.
    Availability of cheap options does not mean that the market place is less vibrant or that there is no place for high-priced goods and services for the society's parasitic snobs.

    For instance, the movie stars and oil tycoons go shopping on the famed Rodeo Blvd (Santa Barbara, California) and the high priced shops in Paris while PW - goes to the neighborhood hand-me-down Goodwill donation outlet for her fashion. [And she looks pretty cute.]

    And a good time in the sun is had by all.

    True, there are more of us shopping at the Goodwills and Walmarts - because there are more of us.

    Do the Republicans and Blue Mutts want to shut all except the shops on Rodeo Blvd and Champs Elysées? These people are un-American, I say!

    • 19.1

      Sometimes free competition is NOT the best option...

      Why?

      Competition, especially for $ or £, is good at finding better, efficient and easier ways of earning more £ and $.

      Unfortunately, healthcare, as a whole, is NOT an area where that is the BEST way of doing things.

      Why?

      Because the best health-care is one that is rarely required, and therefore make and spend the least amount of £ and $, in the long-term.

      Industry, by it's very nature, CANNOT, and WILL NOT, (ever), offer that...

  • 20

    With respect to Mr. Klein's point. It is the same old story. At some point "everything" became for profit. Newsrooms, health care, mega churches, children's programming ..... everything. We have history books to tell us that no family, community, state or country can survive under that model, but we fell in love with it anyway.

    When that began and we didn't reject it on a societal level, this all became relatively inevitable. I'm not quite old enough to remember, but I kinda place that fork in the road time the Carter-Regan era. When Carter said the country needed to essentially become more frugal, and Regan said there are no limits because we are America. The country made a choice, and it has only magnified that attitude over time with our relative peace and prosperity.

    What is so crazy is that even in the face of things crumbling apart, and even from the "religious right", we've become so much a me society that any mention of turning away from such a selfish (and self destructive) trend is scorned heavily.

    The only question that remains in my mind is how much damage are we going to have to incur, by our own hands or otherwise, before we get our act together.

    • 20.1

      I agree that Americans need to change their lifestyles, but I think you take the argument a little too far.

      "For profit" enterprises do wonders for communities. Almost all of the commodities we take for granted would not be available to us if someone didn't stand to make a profit selling the things. I agree that some institutions shouldn't be "for profit" (churches, public utilities, etc.), but economic competition is largely beneficial.

      So to blame all of our woes on corporations is inaccurate at best. We just need to learn to live within our means.

    • 20.2

      But kj, is health care to some degree a public safety issue like police / fire, since without it we can die? Imagine cities run by insurance-run fire depts. or private police forces – movie “Robocop” is naively simplistic, but look at the subplot. When top brass choose to break the law, how does its own police force administer justice? Especially when the criminal mgr. (Dick Jones) works with criminal gang like Clarence's and manipulates the system? There's lots of room in HC for private business – generic vs. brand drugs and allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug cos. again – but to some degree we need a public safety net. We tacitly gave private HC cos. every chance to make accessibility work. They've failed. Millions of uninsured people prove it. And who pays for their ER visits?

    • 20.3

      I in no way intended to imply that "nothing" should be for profit. The point I intended to make is that currently "everything" is for profit. Even those things which we once held as untouchable. I listed examples such as news, churches, children, and health care.

      By all means the auto industry, video games, televisions, movies, and the majority of junk that fills our lives should be predicated on a profit driven system. What seems to have happened however is that we cannot get our priorities straight and have gone the easy route of letting greed be the driving force behind all aspects of our society.

      It seems almost counter culture too because we don't teach our children to be selfish as a primary value, but as adults we harness that attitude as the end all be all (so it seems). There should be some clear distinctions, and I don't really see any at the moment.

    • 20.4

      I'd also note that I never "blamed it on the corporations". In fact, I don't like those over arching titles we put on things. For purposes of articulating root causes of our condition, there is no such thing as "the government", "cooperations", "big business", etc.

      I say this because they are all just groupings of people. People who were born, went to school, have kids, and will die just like anyone else. Some of us here would be considered "the government", or "big business" depending on the context of the conversation and that's really not helpful.

      It is a way of shirking responsibility and apply gross generalizations that are no more accurate or appropriate than sighting a particular races and lumping in a behavior as if it belongs to all of them automatically. It is something we've grown accustomed to doing, but under any scientific or philosophical scrutiny, the labels hold little to no merit in both cases.

      If we must use a large looming generalization then the problem is "us". Obviously some of us are more prone to one view or another and individually we are as complex as anything in the universe. Yet, as a culture (at least the American culture) I still contend we have succumb to those characteristics I put in my first comment.

  • 21

    kjata30, I'm glad you believe in health care as a right. Of course your statement that we live that way now is entertaining if nothing else.

    And in order to preserve that right which we don't even yet enjoy, your faith in the free market and its fundamental fuel, greed, is touching.

    Myself, I simply don't trust Blue Cross/Blue Shield to protect any of my rights. Least of all health care.

    • 21.1

      The trick is funneling that greed to benefit the people.

      The current model seeks to "insure" as many as possible (i.e. extract premiums) but in reality cover as little as possible. Create a system, as I have described above, that gives incentive to companies to COVER as many as possible, not just "insure." At least then they will seek to pay our expenses as much as they can, rather than deny them as much as they can.

      Its not paying according to quality of care, which would be ideal, but its better than the status quo.

  • 22

    "Create a system, as I have described above, that gives incentive to companies to COVER as many as possible, not just "insure."

    Exactly what the currently proposed legislation does (sorry it's not via your own, undoubtedly more brilliant, design). Your completely indoctrinated, knee-jerk hostility to government is what prevents you from understanding even the simplest features of what's being debated.

    • 22.1

      You must get off by being so cynical towards views that aren't your own. Glad I've helped.

  • 23

    kjata30,
    You have the basic concept right, but it's always important to look at the particulars. Channeling greed to do good is indeed the basis of Capitalism and it works well at very many things. The things it doesn't work well at are also easy to identify and in the short form, 'taking care of people who don't have a lot of money' is pretty much top of the list.

    If you look at how poor people actually live you will see layer of layer of exploitation guaranteeing that they remain in a situation where they actually pay significantly MORE for services than mosy people.

    Payday-loan and Rent-to-own storwe are the easiest examples to cite but others abound. 'The Market' isn't magic. It works well, when its designed well. When it's not, it leads directly to making things worse for people and then taking advantage of the disparity.

    • 23.1

      Paul:

      The poor being poor, I'm not sure how they would pay more than most people for services, seeing as how they don't have the money to begin with.

      There are systems in place, as you have mentioned, that take advantage of people who are strapped for cash. I however don't know enough about them to form any kind of opinion about it.

      "The particulars" here involves forcing the insurance industry to change its business model from "min-max" to "max-max": get as high a premium from their customers as the market allows and provide as much actual coverage as possible, avoiding the currently huge problem of payment deferral. The gov't doesn't need to create a program to do this, they just need to create new regulatory policy.

    • 23.2

      kjata30 wrote 'The poor being poor, I'm not sure how they would pay more than most people for services, seeing as how they don't have the money to begin with.'.

      You seem to have lived a very sheltered life. Try going into a slum and check the grocery prices. You'll probably choose not to shop there -- but since you probably have a car and live in a nicer area, you can easily make that choice (unlike the poor -- who tend to travel by bus).

      Paul Dirks mentioned Payday Loans and Rent-to-Own furniture businesses. Since you appear to be unaware of either, I suggest that you try using 'the Google' to educate yourself about these parasites pray on the poor. You might learn something about how the Other America lives.

      Regarding health care, it's well known that without employer provided health care (which low income workers seldom receive), health insurance becomes very expensive and becomes less reliable. For a good description of what happens to people living on the margins, I suggest you read Karen Tumulty's article about her own brother: link

    • 23.3

      My only point was that by having very little money, there is very little money for businesses to extract out of them. I'm pretty sure I emphasized that I didn't know enough to form an opinion.

  • 24

    @KJ,

    I understand your positions but must say that if they are not wrong then they are at best incomplete.

    First, let's tackle inefficiencies as between government and private companies generally. I think when people say government healthcare is inefficient what they really mean is that the service isn't as good. They look at healthcare as a service and this brings in the OH No! I have to wait three weeks for my non-critical operation with government healthcare but my private insurer will do it tomorrow with a lovely hotel, I mean hospital, room with satellite tv. And that's fine, if people want that sort of health service they can pay for it. However, what the government, any functioning government really, is very good it is providing basic services across the board. In the US, i'm thinking of the roads, the postal service, homeland security, the police, firemen etc. People often cite the postal service as typical terrible governmental service. well actually it is amazingly good for the provision of the basic service of sending mail very cheaply. sure, if you want a guarantee that the letter will get there or you need it delivered at a certain time you'd use a private courier service.

    This then seques into your second point about single payer reducing competition. No it wouldn't - insurance companies would simply stop offering basic insurance services and would concentrate on more 'cadillac' type insurance policies, ie where government couldn't compete properly.

    Re taxes, i'm sure they might go up, but if you didn't have to pay for healthcare through a single payer system (i'm assuming the single payer would be like my country's system, the NHS, ie free at point of service) you would ultimately be better off. I hear that insurance policies in the US can cost about $1000 a month? If that's right, there is absolutely no way your taxes will go up that much.

    on coverage it's a zero sum game. insurance company's profits are the difference in the amount of premiums they get vs. the payments out for medical care. their profits ARE BASED ON MINIMISING PAYMENTS for medical care.

    on the administrative costs, i bet the main difference between the figures is salary - essentially the largest part of any company's admin costs- private companies pay more, that's just a fact.

    So I think there can be no doubt that single payer is the way to go. Having said that, it seems to me that it's off the table not only because of the influence of insurance companies but also because it's just too alien for the US public as a whole to get behind - I may be wrong about that - but I think that the stepping stone of a public option will give the public confidence in governmental health care to take the next step to single payer some years down the line. Insurance companies can't be obliterated right now, they need to be squeezed to death.

    • 24.1

      homerhk:

      Thank you for considering my comment and replying with an intelligent rebuttal. It seems like a lot of commenters here just like to troll about.

      I agree with you that the gov't does provide useful public services, such as police and fire-fighters. And I haven't really thought of it that way, but yes, the postal service is good for what it does.

      My only gripes with creating a single-payer option is that it is likely that choice will be very limited within the public program and that honestly, creating a new gov't program is unneccessary. Why not just tap into the existing structure of the insurance industry? Rather than shinking the size of the private industry, why not just regulate the companies that are all ready in place?

      By regulating companies into providing either "basic" or "cadillac" coverages, the result ends up being the same as if a single-payer option is introduced -- except without another large gov't program. "Basic" providers would work at non-profit levels and receive their profit from the gov't and "cadillac" providers would conduct business as usual. This seems reasonable in lieu of a gov't plan.

      Another talking point that single-payer proponents seem to ignore: we have all been crying out against payment deferral on the part of insurance companies, but would single-payer really help? As you have said, countries with single-payer tend to have private insurance companies that offer "cadillac" coverage, and operated using the same "min-max" business model our private insurers do: charge the most you can get with premiums, cover as little as possible. Along with the likely rationing of care given through the gov't options, how is single-payer really going to fix that problem?

      Taxes will certainly go up. Health care is health care, and someone has to pay for it in some way. If we move to public health insurance, the cost we pay now in premiums and copays will just get transfered to taxes. The juice the insurance companies will just be transfered to pay wages of gov't employees and to maintain the administrative bureaucracy. You're probably right about salaries, but the gov't has a nice way of eating through its peoples' cash.

      Sorry to rant, this post got really long, really fast.

  • 25

    I'm going in the hospital for a hip replacement operation tomorrow so I will get to test the system in an up close and personal way. Since I am on Medicare with a supplemental plan, the payment should be relatively painless - the way it should be for everyone.

    • 25.1

      Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Ivy_B.

      I wonder how many of us are working to hang on to our various failing "parts" until we can qualify for the government-run plan.

    • 25.2

      Hope ye come thru' wi' flyin' colors...an' lots o' pain medicine - sacredh be able t' be recommendin' some good varieties, I be thinkin ;) !

      Wishin' ye a speedy recovery!

      Arrgh!

    • 25.3

      Best wishes, Ivy. Hopefully everything will be as painless as possible.

    • 25.4

      Ivy I wish the best of luck and hope everything goes well.

    • 25.5

      Good luck to you, Ivy_B.

      I've got a friend who injured a knee and while at the therapy clinic, we saw that hip replacement recipients did pretty well and breezed through it much more easily than those that had repairs to ligaments, etc.

      I hope you have as smooth a ride!

    • 25.6

      Best Wishes, Ivy_B.
      In a dog-eat-dog world (in which millions of Iraqis may be wantonly killed or dislocated and their country destroyed - for their crude oil), one does not feel for the other guy.
      Shouldn't.
      But, indulge us for a moment, Ivy_B: Consider an alternate universe where you have no Medicare with a supplemental plan .... A world in which the government keeps off anything that can possibly make a buck for someone - and neglects the plight of its poor.

      Oh, yeah! The Republicans and Blue Mutts would jump for joy!

    • 25.7

      Somehow Republicans and Blue Mutts are not loudly calling for the government to scrape socialist programs like MEDICARE ...
      Some have called FEEBLY for the government to close down its involvement in programs such as the food stamps, farm subsidies, export assistance, SBA, ...
      How about the government's involvement in uncompetitive defense contracting - with billions of tax-payers' money wasted? Dick Cheney is not complaining.

      We love to parade our duplicity, dont we?

    • 25.8

      Let's hope the super-reasonable kjata30 is wrong when she so sweetly said, "Medicare, effective? You're out of your mind."

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Swampland Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's Swampland in your inbox and never miss a day.