Commentary on health care politics
A few months ago I was watching an Oprah discussion with Michael Moore regarding his latest movie Sicco. I tend to appreciate Mr. Moore’s radical social graces but viewed his comments on health care with a degree of skepticism. I have been following the debate over “universal healthcare” within the narrow scope of American t.v. journalism for years trying to make sense of the problems and alas looking for political leadership with a clear vision for remedy. I have yet to hear anyone involved with government sponsored health care outside of the US who genuinely likes their respective systems. While lying in bed with flu the last four days I took the opportunity to catch up with the 2008 presidential candidates leading up to “Super Tuesday” and I must say that it has been very revealing. In spite of ongoing stories such as that represented in the following You Tube video (http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php), the democratic candidates seem to persist in the rhetoric appealing to public fears regarding rising health care costs. While the current system clearly suffers from economic exclusivity I am not convinced that socializing the system addresses more philosophical issues about entitlement, longevity and quality. Equally important is the notion that somehow socializing medicine makes it free. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
Voting is always difficult for me because the choice usually means the lesser of evils. In this year’s election, the issue of health care makes the decision that much harder. Many have suggested that positive change happens when people “come together” in a bipartisan way. In politics this seems to mean choosing candidates that agree with each other. From my perspective the greatest benefit of debate is a deep understanding of the issues. Consensus building is merely good salesmanship. Separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is perhaps one of the greatest institutions set forth by the founding fathers and I contend that any vote on universal health care should be approached with the same degree of checks and balances. Change is good, but Americans ought to be extremely prudent not to fall victim to the rhetoric but instead, to listen objectively to the debate. For 2008 this may mean abandoning radical idealism and holding the status quo on the health care issue long enough to make sure that solutions adequately satisfy individual and collective interests.
Gordon, my friend and felon. You’ve written a gutsy 396-word piece about health care legislation in America without using the word “insurance”. Unfortunately, health care reform is doomed without insurance and pharmaceutical companies agreeing to stop, er, bleeding citizens dry.
I’ve lived in countries as disparate as Germany, Turkey, and Singapore and would take any of their health care systems over the US. Yes, Michael Moore’s movie is biased and somewhat cartoonish, but his heart is in the right place. Bottom line: Something is seriously wrong when a country as wealthy as America cannot hide the fact that close to 50 million are uninsured.
Ranald,
Non-PC overtones aside, I greatly respect your first hand experience on this issue. I fully agree that “insurance” is out of control. I opened our homeowners insurance policy and read it for the first time this weekend to find that our premium is 250 times above the insurance commissioner’s book price. Not to mention the fact that we’re required to have flood insurance on a house that will statistically never flood. Based on this one example it seems that folks could do better with their own private savings (perhaps akin to an HSA) with the benefit of serious tax credits. This too is unrealistic because I do not believe most people have the financial savvy or the discipline to be independently responsible - thereby necessitating a benefactor like…the federal government. There is not doubt that the government has a tremendous role to play in health care policy. My hope is that the solution is equitable and sustainable.
So, so many words. Don’t get it all. Missing something. But enjoyed it.
1. Please actually watch the movie, Sicko, before judging MM’s comments on Oprah. Sorry if you have and I missed that. True, MM’s movie left out some important aspects and figures, but his heart is definitely in the right place (thanks Ranald).
2. The whole point of the movie, as I understand it, is that we need to move toward taking profit out of healthcare.
3. Another point, which surprised me, is that it wasn’t about uninsured Americans. It was about people who HAD health insurance, but were denied coverage for all kinds of reasons I suppose because covering decreases…PROFITS!
4. The idea that “folks could do better with their own private savings” seems ridiculous to me considering how much treatment for diseases such as cancer can cost. There is no amount of “financial savvy” that can save you in a situation like that. Not to mention: being “independently responsible”. What is that? Aren’t you looking for: “independently wealthy” with so much $$ that it doesn’t matter what kind of disease you get, you can still afford the best care? Again, no amount of “responsibility” can save one from such costs. This is where I’m missing something.
5. I hope I didn’t misinterpret the “financial savvy” stuff…sometimes it does seem like it would be better to roll the dice and hope for the best instead of bankrupting yourself with high premiums for insurance. Is that what you meant??
Anneliese, I am pleased that you took the time to consider my remarks above, but you seem to have missed the central thesis of this commentary which is simply that thought should proceed action.
In response to your comments 1-3, I thought that the Michael Moore segway was appropriate for 2 reasons: 1. he is a polarizing figure on this issue and 2. the enclosed You Tube clip about health care accessibility in Canada which prompted my commentary referenced him. I appreciate anyone’s heart being in the right place, but passion without reason is fuel for bad policy. I plan to watch MM’s film and I imagine that I will enjoy it every bit as much as his other’s. However, I can’t imagine his comments being less provocative than they were on Oprah where he basically refused to have a civil conversation with other guests on the show.
My comments are a call to action for voters to engage the issues outside of the polarizing and sensational forum of national media. I offer no opinions or conclusions - only the hope of responsible democracy. I hope you agree that this is good idea. From my perspective, the debate is about how to make sick people better, and the fact that this simple idea is overshadowed by “insurance” and “healthcare” semantics clearly demonstrates how unfocused things really are.
My problem with the debate over health care is that it’s all too complicated, and this maintains the status quo. Even legislators can’t figure it all out, or explain it in plain English.
If someone is sick or injured he/she should be treated. Period. If it’s one thing I cannot stand it’s visiting a doctor’s office, or worse, an emergency room, and being met with not care professionals but administrators eager to stick paperwork in your face. At the very least, it should be the other way around –treat first, settle payment later.
In America, nothing exceeds like excess. Complexity is no exception. I’m ready for a candidate with a snazzy campaign slogan like “keep it simple stupid!” Does that person exist?
But no Ranald, that would get in the way of the health industry’s unique hold on American capitalism: show ability to pay 1st, treat & care 2nd. Seriously, it is a complicated issue and one need only to tune into any of the previous Democratic debates to see that. Curiously, the Republicans don’t talk much about it in their forums but maybe they don’t get sick. Candidate Clinton can spin circles around any of the other challengers on the issue but the discussion has all the sexiness of watching paint dry. But can she or whomever occupies the White House in ‘09 begin to attack what most people would consider the gravely broken system of health care delivery for profit? To support the status quo is akin to having your head in the sand.
This post goes out to those following the American health care debate. To those who may not find this interesting, please disregard.
It has long been my contention that there is no perfect system inasmuch as we may collectively idealize one. Seeing how my older brother is living abroad in Germany, I thought I’d challenge him with providing a field report as to how the Germans like their socialized system. True to form, he researched the topic and responded in kind with this fascinating PBS website. Enjoy!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/