Health Care Reform - How Bad Do We Want It?

[Pamela Lyn]

Many of my friends who live outside of the United States simply can't understand why it is so hard for our government to come up with a plan to provide quality health care for all of its citizens. They ask why there is so much resistance to something that would certainly benefit all Americans, I have tell them it's because we don't really want it.

It's easy to lay the blame for the lack of progress on providing universal health care at the feet of greedy insurance companies; a poor economy; bad-timing, whacked out neocons; racists who just want the first Black President to fail; or a combination of all of the above. But in my opinion, health care reform, or the lack thereof, comes down to the simple fact that it is not yet a priority for most Americans.

It's very popular to quote Abraham Lincoln these days so I'll share this one: "Determine that a thing can and shall be done, and then we shall find the way."

Or as Tim McGraw might say, "How Bad Do You Want It?"

As a nation we have yet to determine that quality health care for all shall be done. We want it, but not that bad. After all, most Americans have some form of coverage, don't they? We certainly can't cut the budgets for defense spending, space exploration, farm subsidies and building new prisons. Lord knows that no one wants to stop building new sports stadiums. Do we? And please don't mention the money spent on political campaigns and lobbying.

So the debate on health care reform gets clouded with misinformation, lies, racist comments, half-hearted efforts and fear-mongering, all in order to hide the ugly truth. We, as a nation, lack the will to make it happen.

Insurance corporations don't want to give up profits. Executives don't want to give up bonuses. Stock holders don't want to give up dividends. Politicians don't want to lose votes or campaign dollars. Bureaucrats don't want their budgets slashed. And NO ONE wants to pay more taxes.

Of course, I'm sure that Congress will eventually pass some form of health care reform in order to allow us all to pretend that America has taken one small step in the right direction. But to use a football analogy, driving 80 yards down the field means very little if you falter in the red zone and have to settle for a field goal.

I don't have much confidence that Washington.will pass real health care reform I hope that they will prove me wrong. I'll be happy to eat a little crow. For now I don't think that they know how to sell it and I don't think that they're willing to take the political risk to try. .And I'm not alone.

In her article, "Health Care Reform Needs An Action Hero", Amy Goodman writes:

"Imagine the scene. America 2009. Eighteen thousand people have died in one year, an average of almost 50 a day. Who’s taking them out? What’s killing them? To investigate, President Barack Obama might be tempted to call on Jack Bauer, the fictional rogue intelligence agent from the hit TV series “24,” who invariably employs torture and a host of other illegal tactics to help the president fight terrorism. But terrorism is not the culprit here:

It’s lack of adequate health care. So maybe the president’s solution isn’t Jack Bauer, but rather the actor who plays him.

The star of “24” is played by Kiefer Sutherland, whose family has very deep connections to health care reform—in Canada. Sutherland is the grandson of the late Tommy Douglas, the pioneering Canadian politician who is credited with creating the modern Canadian health care system."

. Noted columnist Eugene Robinson points out that you don't have to be a "nut job" to have serious questions about the proposed health care bill. In his article, "A Reason for all the Health Care Rage", he writes:

"We know that there are crazies in the town hall mobs—paranoid fantasists who imagine they hear the whop-whop-whop of the World Government black helicopters coming closer by the minute. We know that much of the action is being directed from the wings by cynical political operatives, following a script written by Washington lobbyists. But the nut jobs and carpetbaggers are outnumbered by confused and concerned Americans who seem genuinely convinced they’re not being told the whole truth about health care reform. And they have a point."

In the following video clip, respected professor George Lakoff points out what a pitiful job the Democrats are doing at trying to frame the health care reform debate.




And finally, Paul Krugman explains that many progressives are just as upset with the current health care debate as conservatives. In his op-ed, "Obama's Trust Problem", Krugman writes:

"On the issue of health care itself, the inspiring figure progressives thought they had elected comes across, far too often, as a dry technocrat who talks of “bending the curve” but has only recently begun to make the moral case for reform. Mr. Obama’s explanations of his plan have gotten clearer, but he still seems unable to settle on a simple, pithy formula; his speeches and op-eds still read as if they were written by a committee. Meanwhile, on such fraught questions as torture and indefinite detention, the president has dismayed progressives with his reluctance to challenge or change Bush administration policy.

And then there’s the matter of the banks.

I don’t know if administration officials realize just how much damage they’ve done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing. But I’ve had many conversations with people who voted for Mr. Obama, yet dismiss the stimulus as a total waste of money. When I press them, it turns out that they’re really angry about the bailouts rather than the stimulus — but that’s a distinction lost on most voters.

So there’s a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that’s why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar."

So if you're not a "nut job", a racist, an obstructionist, or a GOP operative and you still have questions about the proposed health care reform, you're in good company.



originally post on Pam's Coffee Conversation

[Pamela Lyn]

Cindy,

Without a true public option, I can not assure you that all procedures would be covered by a private insurer. In that respect, the new plan would be no different than the way private insurance companies handle claims now. Private insurance companies currently restrict coverage based on the plan that your purchase (through an employer or individually) as well as whether you choose and in or out-of-network provider.

As I understand it. The proposed health care reform bill will not change a thing for people who already have coverage and are happy with what they have. However, it will provide options for the millions of Americans who are without coverage or whose current insurance plans deny their claims.

So if you are currently blessed to have health care insurance through a private insurer (i.e., Cigna, Aetna, etc.) and are happy with your coverage and your premiums, nothing should change.

If you have Medicare or Medicaid, nothing will change.

However, if you have no coverage at all, ( and there is no public option) you will have an option to buy into a plan with a private insurer. That private insurer will not be able to deny you coverage even if you have a pre-existing condition. However, they will probably limit the scope of their coverage in order to maximize their profit margin.

Sadly there has been a great deal of mis-information disseminated on this issue. I highly recommend that you visit Bill Moyers Journal Special Feature: Reforming Health Care.

target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/healthcare/index.html

I also recommend FactCheck.org

I believe that these two sites will offer you a fair assessment of the health care reform discussion without the fear-mongering and partisan rhetoric.

[Cindy Fallsen]

The talk of the new health care reform really scares me. I am concerned that we will not be able to get the kind of health care that we need. What if you have a blockage and are in need of Heart surgery. Will you be eligible for the procedure if you are 90? This stuff really scares me. I would welcome your feedback on how I can be assured that procedures will still be available.

[Pamela Lyn]

Cooper you raise excellent points. The insurance industry spends millions on lobbyists and PACs in order to influence Washington. They employ PR firms to discredit opposing voices like Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" for example. They contribute heavily to political campaigns. I also know, having worked for one, that they do their level best to influence how their employees vote on issues. They spare no expense and/or effort in protecting THEIR interest, not the American public.

It makes no sense at all that the insurance companies or the public should object to a health insurance option that covers the 47 million Americans that the insurance industry refuses to insure. However the health insurance industry knows that there are also millions and millions of the under-insured, people who pay excessive premiums for health coverage only to find out that their insurer repeatedly rejects their claims, who may also opt to pay for the public option. The insurance industry will not release these people from insurance bondage without a fight. Even if that fight means dividing this nation in a way that it has not seen since the Civil War.

[Michelle]

Health Care should be a "Right", not a privilege.

"Do Not" listen to the Party of No.

Of course, "they" are against Health Care Reform, their in Bed with the Lobbyists.

Join me, Michelle, support passing, "Health Care Reform" with The Public Option.

IT'S ABOUT TIME.

[cooper]

The insurance companies do not want competition. The reason for that is simple, it would decrease their profits.

Health care, as part of the free market, not beholden to anti-trust laws, and unregulated from a federal standpoint, is really unethical, especially as it has become coercive over the last 20 years. The free market ,when it becomes coercive is not what Adam Smith envisioned - the opposite as a matter of fact.


When treatment issue (sometimes life and death issues), are decided solely on stock holder profits, the system becomes unethical and coercive and does not serve those who purchase insurance . A sp government plan would not be held to stockholder profit, the profit would go back to treatment. Therefore economically it is more than possible.

I am confounded as to why people do not understand this. I am aware however, having several friends who work, or have worked, for the health insurance industry - either directly or for lobbyists, that he insurance industry can harm careers of congressman, that they did it during the Clinton years, and are full well wiling to do it again. This leads me to believe that our legislators do not all have our best interest in mind.

Thanks or the article I think the more written about this the better, though it is become more frustrating as time goes on.

[Pamela Lyn]

Thanks Bobbie. I don't understand the lack of support from the free-marketers either. They are acting as if they believe that offering a public option will drive for-profit insurers out of business. In my opinion, this further illustrates how the major health insurers act more like a cartel than competitive businesses.

I do hope to get back to blogging more but sometimes I just don't feel that I have anything fresh to add to the conversation. For now I'm really focusing on absorbing information. So many of the issues are so complex.

I hope that you're having a great summer. I look forward to reading more of your posts and your insights into economics and finance.

[Bobbie Wood]

Great article Pam. I am in the camp that is very disappointed that the single-payer option will likely be thrown out. I can't understand why free-marketers aren't embracing this since it increases competition. It would only be offered as one choice alongside all the existing private insurers. It seems like there really sin't a clear message!

p.s. Glad you're back. I have those crises in faith about blogging too. :)