The Healing Process

If you’re real quiet you may be able to hear the Palin bedtime stories interspersing death panel myths with warnings of the boogie man. You may also be able to hear the health care lies emanating from Betsy McCaughey’s hollow thoughts. Not even Søren Kierkegaard could handle all this absurdity. We may need a separate health care bill just to deal with the apparent pathological liar epidemic. Let’s try and hit the mute button on all the health care lies.

Our country’s healthcare system will continue to fail because its opponents are savvy. They didn’t like what was being said so they changed the conversation. Our healthcare system will continue to fail because its proponents are lost. And Obama hasn’t been able to get us back on track. A political red herring and a multitude of ad hominem attacks have left this administration scrambling.

My audacity is intact, but my hope is fleeting.

Republicans claim that a private enterprise could never compete against a government-run enterprise. Out of the other side of their mouth they claim that all government-run enterprises are far too inefficient to work and would fail so catastrophically that we would never be able to recover.

Well, that’s quite a conundrum, isn’t it?

Private companies will fail when in direct competition with the more effective government. But the government runs everything so poorly that they are never effective.

What happens when two and two don’t equal four?

My sympathy goes out to politicians that have to deal with these problems while raising children in this mixed-up world. They will have had to choose between public and private schools, all the way from kindergarten to college. Upon completion how will those children ever mail resumes or grad school applications? Will they use FedEx, UPS, or the USPS? How will they ever decide? What if some of those children choose to defend this great country instead of working a nine-to-five? Do they go the private Blackwater route, or the public socialist U.S. military route? How they are both even in existence is a mystery? There is no way they could work in tandem. When their children decide to buy a home they will probably opt for the FHA loans that have made normal bank loans so inconsequential. Wait a second—they may not even need a loan, why pony up the extra coin for a home in a private gated community when they could opt for Section 8 housing—Martha’s Vineyard in New England or Martha’s neighbor in Bed-Stuy? And who will their children choose to represent them in court when they default on that loan, Gloria Allred or a court-appointed lawyer? I hope those children are prepared for this lack of clarity, this uncertainty, the impossibility of private and public enterprise to coexist.

Allow me to further illuminate that light-bulb flickering above your head. The red herring is a mutually exclusive argument. Each piece of that argument is based more on fears and lies than reality.

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” ~ South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint

The Republicans view the healthcare debate as a war against Obama, while Obama views it as a war against insufficient health care.

“The person who doesn’t scatter the morning dew will not comb gray hairs.” ~ Hunter S. Thompson

Let’s scatter the dew; let’s ignore the Republican attempt to maintain quo’s status. Let’s perform the will of the people and let Democracy guide. America voted to give the Democrats control of everything, so Democratic ideals are the people’s will. The hope of change got you in, gave you the opportunity to execute that change. You made promises and were elected because of our hopes, because of our desire for that very change. So far we have nothing. You are swimming against the swell of support you earned. You are not doing what you promised, what we entrusted you to do, what we hoped you would do.

The audacity of hope: yeah, now I get it.

The Great Health Care Debate

Muaz Halees

We now have pretty good epidemiological evidence that the long-term health consequences of living under our deficient healthcare system are considerable.  There is something inherently American about catering to the “best” while giving much less attention to the average.  We excel at advancing the “best” but fail at moving the average from the middle closer to the front of the line.  The US healthcare system is a definitive “best” strategy.  This economic model of our healthcare system is demoralizing and divisive for what? To benefit the few.  Universal healthcare is the answer because privatized healthcare is obviously not.    

Nationalized healthcare would create a national database alleviating many of the wasteful inefficiencies doctors face during treatment and diagnosis.  Doctors would be able to avoid the insurance premiums, malpractice and liability insurance, insurance submissions, claims approval, and focus on their job—tending to the sick.  Doctors and patients could work hand-in-hand practicing preventative measures.  Patients avoid routine check-ups now because of the lack of coverage, and they pay with their lives later on and we pay as a society for our ignorance.

Many opponents of universal healthcare cite the massive price tag associated with providing it to the masses.  They claim that the only way it could work is through severe taxation or through compulsory coverage premiums. I am of the opinion that a small bump in my taxes is worth improving the lives of my fellow citizens, but I may be in the minority.  Let’s pacify these bottom-liners for a moment.  The Canadian system, which provides universal healthcare, spends 10.5% of its GDP on healthcare.  Juxtapose that with the whopping 16% the US spends on their embarrassing system.  Not to toot the Canadian horn too loudly, but their healthcare system actually outperforms the US system in the two most commonly used quality metrics, life expectancy and infant mortality rates.   

There is also a fear that US citizens may be forced to look elsewhere for medical assistance, à la the Canadians that come to the US for some of their healthcare needs. My counter to that? So what.  Americans are doing that today, as we speak; insured Americans are going to India and South America to get cheaper healthcare.  That option will always be there, and will always be used.  If that criterion is used to degrade universal healthcare, then it must be referenced when highlighting the failures of the current system. 

The next argument volleyed by opponents of universal healthcare is the inefficiencies of the government.  They claim that healthcare system would become the DMV.  But why couldn’t it be as successful and efficient as the US military, or the US-run anti-discrimination agenda, or the CDC.  These same opponents of the US government attack it while living in the safe confines that same inefficient US government provides to them.    

Public enterprise has merits, but the government has a responsibility to ensure the well-being and security of its citizens, not to ensure public enterprise.  The failed healthcare system in this country is our scarlet letter.  Our allegiance to it is deteriorating our sense of social solidarity and our efforts to address the needs and problems of the population as a whole.  We are failing the 50 million uninsured as well as the 100 million underinsured Americans. Universal healthcare is not some utopian edict that will improve the lives of every single citizen.  It is not a strategy for becoming the best; it is a strategy for becoming better. Potential imperfections should not cause us to lose sight of substantial improvements.

The Great Health Care Debate

Jordan Summers

Does our current health care system meet the standards of quality, accessibility, affordability, and equality that we as the most prosperous and free nation in the world should hold ourselves to?  To deny that our system is currently flawed is to take a position of ignorance and fail to recognize that our system is falling short in each of those categories.  Our current mix of private and public participation in the industry is clearly failing, and there seems to be two directions that health care reform can take. 

Our new administration’s plans for health care are consistent with many of the other strategies they’ve designed and implemented thus far.  As a result of the Obama administration’s initial spending, as well as the spending of the Bush administration, we have been somewhat desensitized to the mind-boggling spending by our government. Some of this spending dwarfs the potential bill for the president’s health care plan.  More central to the debate are the effects they will have on the quality and affordability of our health care, as well as the long-term effects they will have on one of our nation’s most profitable and stable industries.  The main reason for concern on both of these fronts is the more involved role the federal government will take in the health care industry under the proposed reforms.

Essentially, the proposal outlines a public plan in which the government would serve as a health-insurance company providing coverage to all.  However, a government-sponsored plan would immediately generate many problems.  Primarily, it will create an environment where the government will “compete” directly with private insurance companies.  Without being subject to the same risks and constraints that confront a private firm, the government would have a distinctly unfair competitive advantage.  With the ability to offer artificially lower prices, companies would be driven to move from the plans they currently provide for their employees to the new ‘public plan’.  This would directly undermine President Obama’s repeated claims that his initiatives would not have an effect on those who are currently satisfied with their health care plans. 

With a public plan, costs would be driven upward as hospitals, physicians, and drug companies will have no incentive to price competitively, similar to the way they do now.  With a single-payer system there would be no reason for individuals to be concerned with the prices of the service they’re receiving.  Currently this effect can be seen not only with employer provided insurance but also with Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.  Essentially people have no incentive to make a conscious decision about the necessity of the care they are receiving or how much it costs because someone else is paying the balance.

The real solution can be found in increasing the amount of competition within the industry.  Driving down the costs and increasing doctors’, hospitals’, insurers, and drug companies’ incentive to provide service and products of the highest quality at the lowest cost, the same way that industries are forced to do in order to survive.  Many companies have seen a significant reduction in their health care after modifying their plans to provide a stipend for health care up to a certain amount, say $1,000.  In this instance the individual would be able to use that $1,000 for any health care service they receive, with insurance and a deductible kicking in for any expense beyond that $1,000.  If the employee doesn’t use the full balance in the year, what’s left is theirs to keep.  What this creates is the incentive for individuals to make health care decisions based on price and necessity.

Undoubtedly within a free-market approach like the one above there would still be a significant portion of the population who lack coverage; however with lower prices resulting from increased competition the need for insurance would be greatly reduced.  Also, with the emergence of social-marketing as one of the most effective methods of attracting customers, health care providers would be encouraged to extend their services to the least fortunate members of our society to increase their social impact. 

With increased competition in the pursuit of customers who are forced to shop around for their own care we can see the dramatic transformation of an industry which will provide the world a stark example of the best way to harness the power of personal choice and competition.