Young Poor & Angry Press

While it is undeniable that America has by far the best, and most technologically advanced health care system in the World, no one challenges the need for reform. On both sides of the political spectrum politicians and pundits acknowledge that the status quo cannot stand. On the one hand we have the Democratic Party going away from their roots, trying to get a “public option” through congress instead of the usual attempts at imposing a single payer system. On the other, we have the Republican Party, not really coming out with a viable, popular solution to the problem. A few Republicans have come out with good solid reform plans, but no one in the party is paying any attention, because they are too focused on stopping the

Democrat’s plan, rather than presenting their own to the American people. The current Democratic proposal of a “public option” which has been endorsed by the President sounds great from a podium. The Democrat’s propaganda machine tells people what they want to hear, and frankly it sounds great. The problem lies in what they don’t say. The biggest problem with a “public option” is that it will make it impossible for private insurance companies to compete. Whether individuals purchase their own insurance, or whether it is employer provided, individuals will slowly be forced into this “public option”, giving the government a de-facto monopoly over the health insurance industry, therefore controlling healthcare in this country. When an entity is created to compete, it takes on the risk to fail. As we have found out with Social Security, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, the government does not allow its entities to fail. So if this program goes bankrupt, or runs out of voluntary contributors, it will result in consequent tax increases on a major sector of the population, thus creating a program much like Social Security, which would never survive were it not for forced contribution.

When the government seeks to promote competition by entering into a private market, it creates a competing entity with the unfair advantage of being subsidized by the tax-payer. This unfair financial advantage over the competition would make it extremely hard for the private sector to compete. Furthermore, the “public option” will not be able to survive on its own premiums, as the President claims, at least not while they keep the “hardship” clause in the program. This is going to create a system in which the non-contributor receives the same service as the “voluntary” contributor, which would cause any smart “voluntary” contributor to stop contributing. Another problem with trusting the “public option” in this case, is that many Democrats still claim that this is the first step in the path to a single payer system the likes of the England’s pathetically underfunded single payer system. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E)

The proponents of this “public option” announced that “the hospitals” have agreed to certain conditions, and claimed that this will save the government $150 billion, by having “the hospitals” take on this financial commitment. First does anyone think that these hospitals are going to take a financial loss? They cannot go to their shareholders and tell them that they are going to help the government and that for a while; they are going to give up $155 billion in profits. These hospitals will either raise their rates on the private policy holders, or they are going to make cuts, either on staff, or by rationing services. Now, does anyone really think that this money will actually be saved? When the government claims that it will save money, it really means that it will transfer it somewhere else. Whether they use it to increase Pell Grants, or increase funding to protect national parks, this money will not be saved, it will be transferred, from one federal department, to another. If the government were really saving that money, it would use it for the only purpose that the government should use any saved money: Pay down the sky rocketing national debt or decreasing the ever increasing budget deficit.

A conservative proposal would spark more competition in the market by allowing individuals to purchase their health insurance across state lines, thus breaking up state insurance monopolies, not by bringing in big brother as a player/coach in the insurance game. The government has never sparked competition, nor been successful, in any of its ventures into the private sector; just take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If social security became voluntary, and therefore a competitor in the retirement securities market, social security would die, instantly, because every contributor would opt out. Another way to help reform the healthcare system would be to enact tort reform. Today doctors pay anywhere from $4,000 to $55,000 a year for malpractice insurance, and if you think that reducing this cost would not reduce the cost of healthcare, well, you need to study economics. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) came out with his own Health care proposal which accomplishes all the goals that Democrats and Republicans agree must be accomplished and get’s the government back in the right track towards financial discipline. (http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=0db98529-0230-3564-0e4b-fe84bdb1971b).

So I ask the question, why is this plan not good enough for the President? Does it not grant enough control to the government? Does it put too much responsibility in the hands of the individual? The difference between Conservatives and Liberals on this issue is not the endgame. The great difference is the role of government in the endgame. It would be so simple to give the American individual more choice in healthcare without getting the government in the middle of it. It is so easy to reform the system and bring cost down. Why would we create yet another colossal and arcane federal social program, when there are three already out there that do not work, we cannot pay for, and are in dire need of reform?
There are many ways to reform the system. The real question is, how can the system be reformed in a way that is compatible with the American ideals of freedom and choice? A public option might give the illusion that it is simply adding one more choice to a market that needs more competition. However, what the market needs is not a choice that will cripple all the others, but an aggressive de-regulation effort in the part of the federal government, which will enable the already over-regulated healthcare industry to again become concerned with the needs of the consumer, and not the financially arduous trial lawyer mafia, or the subsidizing of Medicare, Medicaid, and millions of illegal immigrants.

There has been a lot of talk recently about the health care system in the United States. The talking heads at the major news outlets have given you their opinions and told you how it effects the baby boomers as well as the older generation - but what no one seems to be discussing is how it effects the young people in this country that are just getting out of college, and out from under their parent’s wing.

I talk to people every day that tell me, “Justin I’m really afraid to get sick, I can’t afford it.” One of our readers told me in confidence that he’s worried he won’t be able to go visit his folks (who are also sick) because of the cost of his inhaler for asthma, something he can’t live without. That’s a choice that none of us should have to face, especially as young as we are. The United States is currently the only industrialized nation that does not give its citizens a right to healthcare. Even Germany, as crazy as those guys can be sometimes has a health care system.

What’s on the table now is what’s called a “single-payer health care” system. That’s a simple way of saying that the money will come from one big source, instead of a bunch of little sources, to provide blanket coverage to every person, regardless of income. Meaning you will get the exact same health care that President Obama and members of Congress enjoy today.

The big argument against this system I keep hearing from my Republican friends (yes, I do have them, see below for Joel’s side of the story) is that America already has one of the best health care systems in the world, why would we want to change that? Because basically that argument is so full of holes that it would make the Star Wars prequels look like they had continuity. Out of 28 industrialized nations this is how we rank:

23rd in infant mortality

20th in life expectancy for women

21st in life expectancy for men

67th in immunizations for its citizens right behind Botswana

Currently 17% of our population is without health care.

Still think it’s a good system? Yeah, didn’t think so. Right now Americans are spending more and getting less for their health care dollar. How much more? Glad you asked, because right now we’re spending about 40% of what we take in. That’s right, you heard me correctly; we’re dropping big dollars on a health care system that’s obviously not working. A single payer system would mean a tax increase for people making over 350k dollars a year, not your parents or you (unless of course you’re making that much money, in which case, can you throw me a loan to pay for my insurance?)

Most only going when they deem the situation dire to the expensive of an average doctor visit. For instance, not long ago I needed to find a primary care physician which is a fancy way of say “your family doctor.” When I went in for my first visit, I was shocked when I saw the bill was more than ninety dollars. Now it so happens my doctor is awesome and spends a good deal of time with each patient. But, regardless, for ninety dollars I should have received a lap dance from the gorgeous brunette nurse who took my pulse (which she said was rather high, then again she was bending over me when she put the cuff on, so that’s probably the reason.) This has made me think twice about calling the doctor the next time I get a slight cough.

The problem with this rationale is simple. If I wait too long for that cough, it could get worst. That cough could turn into something drastic, which then would require needing to go to the emergency room. The ER, as most know, is expensive… more so than my doctor’s visit. However, since hypothetically I am very ill, it’s the only option. The bill then comes and I can’t pay, thus putting me deeper into the hole. I declare bankruptcy and then fall into poverty, where my health declines further. Starting to get the picture here?

Under a single payer system, no citizen gets left behind. There are enough doctors, staff, and medical equipment to go around. There would be no management of care under a single payer, unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer pre-approval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer. Not to mention costing a lot of people a lot of money to maintain the management system. One of the proposals as well is to remove paper from the equation and go to electronic filing. From working in a hospital in administrative capacity, I can tell you that the cost of paper and printing is astronomical. The printer in the office’s cartridges were $300 a piece, and that printer held three of them. That’s $900 dollars we can free up right there. Keep going down the line, and we can cut enough costs to afford enough health care for all of our United States citizens.

Think all of this sounds good? Then pick up your phone and call your state’s representative. Tell them you’re all for single payer and you are a member of the voting public. Let them hear your voice, and encourage your family and friends to call as well. Together we can actually change the system like President Obama talked about during the election.

(AP)The nation can’t afford to wait for the economy to recover before tackling out-of-control medical costs, President Barack Obama is telling some of the most powerful players in the health care reform debate.

“If we want to create jobs and rebuild our economy, then we must address the crushing cost of health care this year, in this administration,” Obama says in remarks prepared for delivery to a White House forum on the issue Thursday. Excerpts were released by the White House.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

“Making investments in reform now, investments that will dramatically lower costs, won’t add to our budget deficits in the long term _ rather, it is one of the best ways to reduce them,” Obama said.

Obama has invited to the forum more than 120 people who hold a wide range of views on how to fix the world’s costliest health care system, one that still leaves an estimated 48 million people uninsured. Doctors, patients, business owners, insurers and drug industry representatives were to gather in hopes of building support for big changes. Republicans are invited, and they’re expected to speak up.

“The president wants to engage with Congress in a transparent and bipartisan fashion,” said Melody Barnes, who heads White House domestic policy.

Barnes later added that the White House plans to hold other health care events in places around the country, including rural areas, to get people involved in shaping the reform plan. She deferred to Obama in announcing the details, which he was expected to do later in the day.

Among the invitees are some who helped kill the Clinton administration’s health care overhaul in the 1990s. Everyone is supposed to be on his best behavior, but will that last?

“This is a different day,” said Chip Kahn, a hospital lobbyist who opposed President Bill Clinton’s plan and was to attend Thursday’s gathering. “I think among most of the stakeholders, everyone wants to see this work. There is a tremendous feeling that it’s time.”

Now president of the Federation of American Hospitals, Kahn worked for the insurance industry in the Clinton years.

The difference this time, Obama says, is that health care costs have become unsustainable, particularly in a sinking economy. The U.S. spends $2.4 trillion a year on health care. Obama’s goal is health coverage for everyone.

Barnes said Obama is determined to pass health care legislation this year, and while he wants it to be bipartisan, he will not be deterred by obstruction from interest groups or ideological partisans.

“The president will make clear this has to be a bipartisan effort,” Barnes said. “As for people who are there to set up hurdles, from his perspective that isn’t tolerable. It’s crucial to families, businesses and our nation’s budget that we address the issue of exploding costs.”

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky released a letter to Obama, saying his party is ready to work with the administration on health care, but warning that reforms should not lead to a government-run system, and must balance coverage expansions with curbs on costs.

Barnes said Obama “walks into this conversation being pragmatic, being open. He knows that the American people are hurting” and are seeing their premiums rise.

But Barnes, interviewed Thursday on NBC’s”Today” show, also said that “we have to be transparent about it. … We will also hear the voices of the American people … to make sure that health care reform gets before the president for his signature before the end of the year.”

In support of Obama’s efforts, liberal activists have mobilized to keep the pressure on Congress to pass legislation this year.

“It would be a mistake to dismiss this as a gabfest,” Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said about Obama’s meeting. “It’s an effort to keep the momentum going. The details are not going to be worked in two or three hours at a White House summit.”

There were concerns Wednesday about some of those details.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., who will play a leading role in writing health care legislation, raised questions about the proposed $634 billion “down payment” for expanded coverage that Obama included in the 2010 budget he released last week.

___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/health_care/

Read the rest of this entry »