After eight years in a Bush coma, Congress is busy "working" again and proving it doesn't work. The health care debate is a classic of evasions, non-sequiturs, empty rhetoric and lobbyist lies to patch together reform that will look like a Frankenstein monster with a Dr. Strangelove deception at the heart.
Despite public support for a government insurance plan, House and Senate members are going through contortions to craft something to look like one but guaranteed to fail.
Even Tom Daschle, the President's derailed first choice for health czar, has had an opinion transplant. Last year, he wrote a book arguing that a single-payer health care system would be fair, effective and save billions of dollars. Now he has joined has-been Republicans Bob Dole and Howard Baker to oppose a federal insurance plan.
"We've come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreement on one single issue," Daschle now says.
This recalls the classic response of a general in "Dr. Strangelove" who, being asked how a system designed to avoid nuclear devastation has allowed a failure that is about to blow up the world, "Well, I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir."
The military metaphor seems apt in the circumstances. As a nation, we don't outsource wartime safety of citizens to private contractors (with the exception of Blackwater, which proves the point). Why then has saving lives in peacetime become a for-profit enterprise that clearly isn't working for individuals and is endangering the whole economy to boot?
Is socialized medicine any more of a threat to the American way of life than a socialized Armed Forces?
Showing posts with label socialized medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialized medicine. Show all posts
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Friday, June 05, 2009
Ghosts of Harry and Louise
The Senate Republican leader is channeling a couple of GOP golden oldies to oppose a public option in the health care reform pending in Congress.
Unlike Harry and Louise in the 1993 TV commercials to torpedo the Clintons' initiative, Mitch McConnell's protagonists are real people--sort of--Bruce Hardy of England and Shona Holmes of Canada, who have been brought out to personify the horrors of "socialized medicine." But their stories have been as edited as a TV commercial to make the point.
Hardy had to pay for a new cancer drug for two months before it was approved. McConnell's take: “The government bureaucrats who run Britain’s health care system denied the treatment, saying the drug was too expensive...that Bruce Hardy’s life wasn’t worth it.”
About Holmes, who paid for her own surgery in the US as she could have in Canada, the GOP leader finds this lesson: "Here’s how Shona described her plight: ‘If I’d relied on my government, I’d be dead,’ Shona’s life was eventually saved because she came to the United States for the care she needed.”
This Harry-and-Louise flummery is part of a last-ditch effort to persuade Americans that the choice of a public plan to, in President Obama's words, "keep the insurance companies honest" is no less than a takeover of the entire industry.
As Paul Krugman notes, there are two lessons in the current debate: "(1) Don't trust the insurance industry. (2) Don't trust the insurance industry...The insurance industry will do everything it can to avoid being held accountable."
Including manufacturing a new generation of Harrys and Louises.
Unlike Harry and Louise in the 1993 TV commercials to torpedo the Clintons' initiative, Mitch McConnell's protagonists are real people--sort of--Bruce Hardy of England and Shona Holmes of Canada, who have been brought out to personify the horrors of "socialized medicine." But their stories have been as edited as a TV commercial to make the point.
Hardy had to pay for a new cancer drug for two months before it was approved. McConnell's take: “The government bureaucrats who run Britain’s health care system denied the treatment, saying the drug was too expensive...that Bruce Hardy’s life wasn’t worth it.”
About Holmes, who paid for her own surgery in the US as she could have in Canada, the GOP leader finds this lesson: "Here’s how Shona described her plight: ‘If I’d relied on my government, I’d be dead,’ Shona’s life was eventually saved because she came to the United States for the care she needed.”
This Harry-and-Louise flummery is part of a last-ditch effort to persuade Americans that the choice of a public plan to, in President Obama's words, "keep the insurance companies honest" is no less than a takeover of the entire industry.
As Paul Krugman notes, there are two lessons in the current debate: "(1) Don't trust the insurance industry. (2) Don't trust the insurance industry...The insurance industry will do everything it can to avoid being held accountable."
Including manufacturing a new generation of Harrys and Louises.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Health Care: You Bet Your Life
In offering solutions for medical insurance, politicians of all stripes keep reassuring voters about their right to be treated by "the doctor of your choice" rather than some faceless bureaucrat in a white coat under socialized medicine.
There are problems with this argument. Most Americans are now covered by HMOs, which present them with lists of "in-network" physicians either on their payroll or who have agreed to pre-set fees and, in many cases, face pressure to make life-and-death decisions on what's best for the insurers' bottom line.
In California, this divided loyalty recently came into focus with Blue Cross' attempt to enlist doctors in reporting patients who fail to disclose previously existing conditions.
"We're outraged, "the President of the California Medical Association responded, "that they are asking doctors to violate the sacred trust of patients to rat them out for medical information that patients would expect their doctors to handle with the utmost secrecy and confidentiality."
The Blue Cross backed off, but the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is definitely showing symptoms of stress. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is suing UnitedHealth for operating "a defective and manipulated database that most major health insurance companies rely upon to set reimbursement rates for out-of-network medical expenses.”
Translation: If you see "the doctor of your choice," your insurer will stiff you on how much of his or her bill they will pay.
That aside, there is the question of how Americans pick their physicians when they can. From all evidence, most do so more casually and with less information than they gather before buying a car or trying a new restaurant.
There is no Zagat guide to medical services, and consulting the "best doctors" lists of regional magazines only leads to the discovery that most are not taking new patients. Too often, the decision is based on the casual advice of a friend or neighbor.
The US Department of Health & Human Services has a few rudimentary suggestions for getting information, but for the most part, finding the right doctor is no more fact-based than finding the right mate. You have to trust your instincts and hope for the best. No politician can help with that.
There are problems with this argument. Most Americans are now covered by HMOs, which present them with lists of "in-network" physicians either on their payroll or who have agreed to pre-set fees and, in many cases, face pressure to make life-and-death decisions on what's best for the insurers' bottom line.
In California, this divided loyalty recently came into focus with Blue Cross' attempt to enlist doctors in reporting patients who fail to disclose previously existing conditions.
"We're outraged, "the President of the California Medical Association responded, "that they are asking doctors to violate the sacred trust of patients to rat them out for medical information that patients would expect their doctors to handle with the utmost secrecy and confidentiality."
The Blue Cross backed off, but the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is definitely showing symptoms of stress. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is suing UnitedHealth for operating "a defective and manipulated database that most major health insurance companies rely upon to set reimbursement rates for out-of-network medical expenses.”
Translation: If you see "the doctor of your choice," your insurer will stiff you on how much of his or her bill they will pay.
That aside, there is the question of how Americans pick their physicians when they can. From all evidence, most do so more casually and with less information than they gather before buying a car or trying a new restaurant.
There is no Zagat guide to medical services, and consulting the "best doctors" lists of regional magazines only leads to the discovery that most are not taking new patients. Too often, the decision is based on the casual advice of a friend or neighbor.
The US Department of Health & Human Services has a few rudimentary suggestions for getting information, but for the most part, finding the right doctor is no more fact-based than finding the right mate. You have to trust your instincts and hope for the best. No politician can help with that.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
An American Patriot
In the debate before the House fell 13 votes short of overriding President Bush’s veto today, Rep. Steve King of Iowa charged that "S-CHIP stands for Socialized, Clinton-style Hillarycare for illegals and their parents."
Republicans must be reassured by the steadfastness of a patriot like Rep. King, whose major initiative in this session of Congress has been a bill to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which authorizes the income tax.
If he had his way, King would protect Americans not only from illegal immigrants, socialized medicine and Hillary Clinton but from everything the Federal government does, including subsidies for Iowa farmers, fighting the war in Iraq--and maybe even paying the salaries of moronic members of Congress.
Republicans must be reassured by the steadfastness of a patriot like Rep. King, whose major initiative in this session of Congress has been a bill to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which authorizes the income tax.
If he had his way, King would protect Americans not only from illegal immigrants, socialized medicine and Hillary Clinton but from everything the Federal government does, including subsidies for Iowa farmers, fighting the war in Iraq--and maybe even paying the salaries of moronic members of Congress.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Harry and Louise's Golden Years
In the early 1990s, they were on TV all the time, a middle-aged, middle-class American couple named Harry and Louise, sitting around the kitchen table, worrying that Hillary Clinton’s health care plan would get between them and their doctor.
Today, that Clinton woman will be back again with her radical ideas about insurance for everyone, but will Harry and Louise still be worrying about socialized medicine?
Not Harry. When his company went bankrupt a few years later, he and Louise lost their insurance and couldn’t get new coverage because of Harry’s asthma and coronary history.
They lost the family doctor they loved so much, too. He switched his practice to “concierge care,” but Harry and Louise couldn’t afford the $2000 annual dues to stay on his roster of patients.
Louise can’t be sure but, if Harry had been getting his annual checkups and follow-up visits, he might have avoided or survived the heart attack that killed him at the age of 60.
As a widow, Louise has now reached the age of being eligible for Medicare. She is still free to see any doctor she chooses, but it bothers her that the government is involved in her health care and she is waiting with some annoyance to see what mischief Hillary is up to now.
Today, that Clinton woman will be back again with her radical ideas about insurance for everyone, but will Harry and Louise still be worrying about socialized medicine?
Not Harry. When his company went bankrupt a few years later, he and Louise lost their insurance and couldn’t get new coverage because of Harry’s asthma and coronary history.
They lost the family doctor they loved so much, too. He switched his practice to “concierge care,” but Harry and Louise couldn’t afford the $2000 annual dues to stay on his roster of patients.
Louise can’t be sure but, if Harry had been getting his annual checkups and follow-up visits, he might have avoided or survived the heart attack that killed him at the age of 60.
As a widow, Louise has now reached the age of being eligible for Medicare. She is still free to see any doctor she chooses, but it bothers her that the government is involved in her health care and she is waiting with some annoyance to see what mischief Hillary is up to now.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Michael Moore's Ann Coulter
Today’s San Diego Union-Tribune carries a rebuke to the “Sicko” maker for extolling Britain’s National Health Service by Liz Mair, a writer and political consultant who “serves the needs of center-right political organizations, political leaders and candidates.”
Ms. Mair seems to have a thing for Mr. Moore. Her web site recently savaged him for attacking CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta phonetically by pronouncing his name “‘Dr. Saaanjay Guuuupta,’"laying incredible emphasis and vitriol on his foreign name. Without doubt, it was an oblique comment on the reporter-cum-doctor's ethnicity. What a crazy and unacceptable way to discredit a foe.”
A former resident of London, Ms. Mair wants us to know that “no matter how great socialized medicine may sound, the best that it achieves is dishing up very poor care for all, as opposed to good care for all, or even most.”
The main point of Ms. Mair’s indictment is health care for all at times involves longer waiting for services, which is presumably a horror not visited on U.S. patients since so many of the riff-raff have no coverage and are not clogging up the waiting rooms. They go to hospital emergency units.
While Ms. Mair keeps harpooning Michael Moore, elsewhere she has advice for Republican Presidential candidates. Attacking Mitt Romney for attempting universal coverage in Massachusetts, she suggests to the others: “Since excess regulation contributes greatly to skyrocketing costs--which in turn makes it tough to buy insurance if you're among the working poor--rather than proposing more regulation, Republicans might consider pursuing deregulation of the insurance market.”
While Ms. Mair keeps harpooning Michael Moore, she is busy trying to dismantle the pitiful controls that do exist on HMOs and private insurers. It makes one wonder if she consults for clients other than politicians. Or is she just idealistically wrong-headed?
Ms. Mair seems to have a thing for Mr. Moore. Her web site recently savaged him for attacking CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta phonetically by pronouncing his name “‘Dr. Saaanjay Guuuupta,’"laying incredible emphasis and vitriol on his foreign name. Without doubt, it was an oblique comment on the reporter-cum-doctor's ethnicity. What a crazy and unacceptable way to discredit a foe.”
A former resident of London, Ms. Mair wants us to know that “no matter how great socialized medicine may sound, the best that it achieves is dishing up very poor care for all, as opposed to good care for all, or even most.”
The main point of Ms. Mair’s indictment is health care for all at times involves longer waiting for services, which is presumably a horror not visited on U.S. patients since so many of the riff-raff have no coverage and are not clogging up the waiting rooms. They go to hospital emergency units.
While Ms. Mair keeps harpooning Michael Moore, elsewhere she has advice for Republican Presidential candidates. Attacking Mitt Romney for attempting universal coverage in Massachusetts, she suggests to the others: “Since excess regulation contributes greatly to skyrocketing costs--which in turn makes it tough to buy insurance if you're among the working poor--rather than proposing more regulation, Republicans might consider pursuing deregulation of the insurance market.”
While Ms. Mair keeps harpooning Michael Moore, she is busy trying to dismantle the pitiful controls that do exist on HMOs and private insurers. It makes one wonder if she consults for clients other than politicians. Or is she just idealistically wrong-headed?
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Health Care: Good vs. Evil
This should be just the kind of battle the President loves, right against wrong, no nasty little nuances to fog the mind, but here he is on the side of darkness, threatening to veto a bill passed by the House that would extend health insurance to five million more children of the working poor.
The proposal, according to the Washington Post, is backed by “Republican and Democratic governors, the American Medical Association, AARP, the March of Dimes, the Catholic Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and even cyclist Lance Armstrong. And the prospects are good in the Senate, where a key Republican, Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), said, ‘It's difficult for me to understand how anyone wouldn't want to do this.’"
George Bush doesn’t--on “philosophical” grounds. "When you expand eligibility,” he argues, “you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."
In his opposition, the President may be opening the wider debate on American health care and what some of his loyal supporters yesterday denounced as the first step toward “socialized medicine.”
If so, it would only be a baby step, but the discussion is long overdue. If “socialized medicine” is the only alternative to lining the pockets of HMOS and health insurance companies at the expense of sick kids, so be it. If “socialized” means humane rather than rapacious, what’s so scary about it? Socialized doesn’t mean Socialist.
Even doctors, the presumed victims, seem to be in favor of scrapping the current system. A recent survey by the Minnesota Medical Association found that “64% favored a single-payer system, 25% HSAs, and 12% managed care. The majority of physicians (86%) also agreed that it is the responsibility of society, through the government, to ensure that everyone has access to good medical care. Less than half (41%) said that the private insurance industry should continue to play a major role in financing health care.” (Source: Sustainable Middle Class blog.)
It’s time to talk frankly about what’s good and what’s evil in our health care system, and President Bush may just be leading the way.
The proposal, according to the Washington Post, is backed by “Republican and Democratic governors, the American Medical Association, AARP, the March of Dimes, the Catholic Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and even cyclist Lance Armstrong. And the prospects are good in the Senate, where a key Republican, Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), said, ‘It's difficult for me to understand how anyone wouldn't want to do this.’"
George Bush doesn’t--on “philosophical” grounds. "When you expand eligibility,” he argues, “you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."
In his opposition, the President may be opening the wider debate on American health care and what some of his loyal supporters yesterday denounced as the first step toward “socialized medicine.”
If so, it would only be a baby step, but the discussion is long overdue. If “socialized medicine” is the only alternative to lining the pockets of HMOS and health insurance companies at the expense of sick kids, so be it. If “socialized” means humane rather than rapacious, what’s so scary about it? Socialized doesn’t mean Socialist.
Even doctors, the presumed victims, seem to be in favor of scrapping the current system. A recent survey by the Minnesota Medical Association found that “64% favored a single-payer system, 25% HSAs, and 12% managed care. The majority of physicians (86%) also agreed that it is the responsibility of society, through the government, to ensure that everyone has access to good medical care. Less than half (41%) said that the private insurance industry should continue to play a major role in financing health care.” (Source: Sustainable Middle Class blog.)
It’s time to talk frankly about what’s good and what’s evil in our health care system, and President Bush may just be leading the way.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Health Care, Seriously
“Sicko” aside, health care is moving front and center as the domestic issue for Democrats while Republicans still maunder about keeping us safe from terrorists.
A Washington Post headline today sums up their approach: “For Democrats, Pragmatism On Universal Health Care”
It’s a little like saying, “There are burglars in the house, but let’s be cautious about getting them out.”
The burglars are private insurers who take almost one out of every three dollars we spend and give us the most expensive and some of the worst care in the world. But no one wants to get them out, lock the doors and start over.
Whenever good sense enters the debate, lobbyists for the thieves yell “socialized medicine” and politicians duck for cover. But when the rest of America complains about anti-social medicine, they turn deaf.
The situation is neatly summed up by Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who has become, according to the Post, “possibly the party's most influential health-care expert and a voice of realism in its internal debates.” But even the realist knows better.
"Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over," said Gruber, a consultant for the three leading Democrats. "It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's not to say that plans ripping it up wouldn't be better--I just think they're political non-starters."
The “non-starters” are variations of a single-payer system which, according to the more than 8,000 physicians who back it, would save $350 billion a year, “enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”
Opponents raise the terrible specter of a government bureaucracy that would replace the private one that spends so much time and effort finding ways to deny claims rather than facilitate them.
We get most of our mail through “a self-supporting postal corporation wholly owned by the federal government” while those who can afford it use FedEx and other private providers. Why not our medical care? We have the example of Medicare which is far from perfect but works reasonably well for older Americans.
As we gird ourselves for the headache-inducing health care plans of the Presidential candidates, someone should stand up for the “non-starter,” a potential cure that none of them has the courage to propose.
A Washington Post headline today sums up their approach: “For Democrats, Pragmatism On Universal Health Care”
It’s a little like saying, “There are burglars in the house, but let’s be cautious about getting them out.”
The burglars are private insurers who take almost one out of every three dollars we spend and give us the most expensive and some of the worst care in the world. But no one wants to get them out, lock the doors and start over.
Whenever good sense enters the debate, lobbyists for the thieves yell “socialized medicine” and politicians duck for cover. But when the rest of America complains about anti-social medicine, they turn deaf.
The situation is neatly summed up by Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who has become, according to the Post, “possibly the party's most influential health-care expert and a voice of realism in its internal debates.” But even the realist knows better.
"Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over," said Gruber, a consultant for the three leading Democrats. "It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's not to say that plans ripping it up wouldn't be better--I just think they're political non-starters."
The “non-starters” are variations of a single-payer system which, according to the more than 8,000 physicians who back it, would save $350 billion a year, “enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”
Opponents raise the terrible specter of a government bureaucracy that would replace the private one that spends so much time and effort finding ways to deny claims rather than facilitate them.
We get most of our mail through “a self-supporting postal corporation wholly owned by the federal government” while those who can afford it use FedEx and other private providers. Why not our medical care? We have the example of Medicare which is far from perfect but works reasonably well for older Americans.
As we gird ourselves for the headache-inducing health care plans of the Presidential candidates, someone should stand up for the “non-starter,” a potential cure that none of them has the courage to propose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)