The chart above is my second favourite chart (I showed FDL'ers my favourite chart last time I wrote here. Hopefully I'm not being too forward.) It's a chart of per capita health expenditures over the last forty odd years and what I want you to look at is Canada and the US. You'll see that at one point Canada actually spent more per capita than the US, then over less than a decade our costs dived to about 2/3rds of yours and then started paralleling your costs again.
What happened in that time period is that we went to single payor universal health care. Since then our metrics have been as good, or better than the US, with the exception of waiting times for optional surgery.
Now this isn't actually a post about healthcare, it's about language.
Specifically I'm sick of the idea that “the US doesn't have any simple problems.”
Actually, many of the US's problems are simple, and health care is just one of them.
The problem is the use of simple as a synonym for easy; and hard as a synonym for complicated.
See, losing weight is hard. It's not easy. But it is simple – eat less and exercise more and don't eat too many empty calories. The formula isn't a secret and it isn't complicated at all.
That doesn't mean it isn't hard. It's hard as dickens, which is why most people fail to lose and keep off weight. But it ain't complicated.
Same thing with, say, stopping smoking. It's hard. But it isn't complicated. All you have to do is… not smoke.
Now a lot of US problems are like this and health care is one of them. The US spends about 16% of its GDP on healthcare, clocking in at 2 trillion. Changing to a single payor universal system will slash about a third of that. Savings: about 650 billion dollars. Everyone knows this who isn't paid not to know it – every other country in the world that has universal health care pays about a 1/3 or less than the US and when Canada switched, its costs dropped by a third.
This isn't complicated. But it is hard. It's hard for the same reason that quitting smoking is hard, or that losing weight is hard – that 650 billion dollars extra is something the US is addicted to. That money pays for jobs and profits at insurers, drug companies and to hospitals and to some doctors.
That's a lot of money, and the people who are currently making a living, or a huge profit from it, don't want to lose it. So they'll fight tooth and nail to not end the gravy train. The 20% to 30% administrative margins in health insurance companies as opposed to the 2$ to 3% margins in Medicare are money that someone is getting. The price is that 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical costs; that 43 million Americans are unemployed and that American companies like Ford and GM have huge medical costs that companies like Toyota don't have.
So it's not complicated to fix US healthcare – just go to single payor, probably modeled after France or Germany (who do as well or better on practically every metric), and voila – no more uninsured, much fewer bankruptcies, improved competitiveness and 650 billion dollars in profit and administrative costs that could actually be used for productive enterprise. Hard, because a lot of people make a lot of money from the status quo. But not complicated.
The US has a lot of problems like this. The debt and the deficit can be fixed by simply increasing tax rates and closing loopholes. Raise marginal rates on the rich, who can definitely afford it, end preferences for unearned income (which is taxed at half or less the rate of your paycheck) and make it so that corporations and people are taxed at the highest applicable tax rate on all their income so they can't try and hide some of it overseas and get a lower rate, and you'd be back on track.
Or – to put it even more simply, don't spend more than you bring in. It's simple, and the Bush administration, after the Clinton administration had put the budget back on track, simply decided to max out the credit cards to give the rich tax breaks.
Social Security – simply get rid of the cap on contributions at 100,000 and it'll be in the black. Heck, even without doing that it'll be decades before it can't pay. This one isn't even simple, it's just “there is no problem”.
Prison Incarceration – the US has more people per capita in jail than any other nation, edging out Russia back at the turn of the century. This is largely a result of draconian anti-drug laws, yet drug consumption hasn't gone down, indeed, quite the contrary. When you do something for 30+ years and it doesn't work, the answer isn't to do it harder, the answer is to stop doing it. Get rid of mandatory sentencing requirements, 3 strikes laws and stop putting people away for possession of any but the worst drugs. Legalize marijuana. Legalize most opiates. Legalize mild forms of coca so people can get their kick without crack or cocaine. The prison population will drop, drug use won't go up significantly, and the steady assault on your civil liberties will slow down (the war on terror was just the war on drugs on crack, really.)
One could go on like this for quite a while, including in foreign policy (stop supporting authoritarian regimes because you're scared of regimes with popular support) and economics (restructure the economy so that making things makes more money than playing securities games) and education (don't tie school money to property taxes). The solutions in many cases are clear and they aren't complicated. But they are hard because many people benefit from the way things are done now. But one shouldn't confuse hard and complicated and one shouldn't think that just because someone is mainlining pork today they have a right to mainline pork forever.
When I look at America what I see isn't a nation with problems it can't solve, instead what I see is a nation with problems it won't solve and what I see is a lot of people to whom the status quo is really good (including most Congresscritters) who try and sell Americans that there's nothing they can do.
Politics is about fixing problems. Anyone who tells you that simple problems are complicated and can't be solved, but only managed, needs to be kicked out of office. Because the one thing I'll tell you is this – problems you don't actually try to fix, don't get fixed. Losing weight is hard, but if you never try, you'll never succeed.
Cutting health insurance companies and drug companies off the gravy train will be hard. But if you don't do it, you'll never have good universal healthcare.
Your choice really. America has everything it needs, still, to choose life and a renewal of the American dream. But I wonder if it will, or can. Every great nation has its period in the sun come to an end, and in almost every case, it's internal rot that brings them down. America has renewed itself in the past, does it have the guts and the integrity left to renew itself one more time?
Related posts:
- Only the Insurance Companies Want a Level Playing Field
- The Max Tax: Baucus Plan Fails to Control Growth of Insurance Premiums
- Health Care: Pete King is Out of Touch with Long Island, New York, and America
- More for Health Care, Less for Insurance Execs? Rockefeller Demands 90% Loss Ratio
- Mike Ross: Covering for His Big Money Donors, Yes; Covering the Uninsured, Not So Much





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

ZeD☼
Hi Ian!
Hi lolo. Hello firepups. :)
The boxes on the right of the FDL page are misaligned. They are laying right over the text. Anyone else seeing this?
Broken margins already?? (Everything to the right of the ‘netvouz’ tag is hidden under the right sidebar.)
Dee @ 4
Yup.
Arg. Not seeing it in my browser, but will try to fix.
Hey Ian!
Yeah, you’re correct that a lot of the problems are because too many people are making too much money off the status quo. Too bad these people always forget that the world is interconnected and the karmic pay back WILL come down sooner or later.
Zed squared! Great post. Many on this side of the 49th will not want to hear your message. Getting rid of the wingnut’s nemesis, the frivolous lawsuit, would be simple, too, but hard, too, for the same reasons–vested (or double-breasted?) interests.
Hi Dee #4, Me too. the whole right side of the posts and comments are covered with the ads.
Dee @ 4
Yes – please fix mods – I would like to read. Thanks!
Hi Ian,
great distinction between easy and simple. I make this distinction often, with particular reference to losing weight. Another point: none of the problems you mention (including weight loss) will be solved by accident, or without effort. Our current political system seems to rest on an unspoken belief that the future will take care of itself. It won’t.
well if only we had a two party system where at least one party stood for sensible options like ending the war or single payer health care, then the voters could make their choice.
Democrats are abviously not that party – the Clintons botched the last chance at health care reform out of fealty to insurance industry money, and beltway Dems are losing what little credibility they had by failing to make sufficient efforts to stop the stupid war that most Americans oppose.
This is one of the truest posts i’ve seen on any blog! thank you ian,
Thanks Ian Let your voice be heard from sea to sea and border to border. Single payer YES !!
Nice post, Ian. I think the answer is a lot of us do have the guts, but a lot of well-off people and corporations have a lot invested in the status quo.
With respect to health care costs, what I’ve wondered for awhile is, how much would it cost for the government to simply buy up the big health insurers, ending the fight that way?
Hi Ian
Great to see you at the Lake again. It’s been a long time!
You are right on all of the above. I wish I could believe that the congresscritters had the spine to start to tackle the easy challenges let alone the hard ones. Not seeing it yet, but we, as a young medium and new group of activists have yet to amass ourselves enough to push them to do the right thing. That time I do believe is coming though.
As for the margins, it is probably because of the graphic. That happened last summer on several of your posts.
Again, great to see you here.
You can and should do a score of posts that further develope these topics Democrats have to figure out what they are FOR, besides they are against the war. What do we want? Why do we want it? What do we believe? What price and Who will pay for our desires. Who is likly to be our oppostion on various issues, what is their strenghts who are likly to ally with them. What tactics should or shouldn’t we use to get what we want?
Way cool post. Very clarifying. Thank you.
Very well said, Ian.
The difference between “can’t” and “won’t” used to be a big lesson in our house for The Kid. After months (perhaps years!) of both Mrs Peterr and myself pointing out the difference between the two, he no longer says “can’t” when he really means “won’t.”
The Kid is five, but he seems to have it down pat.
Now, since we can no longer critique the grammar of “I can’t do it now,” we’re working on how to answer “I won’t do it now.”
I’m not sure I understand this bit:
Umm, doesn’t this mean that the minute you earn one dollar extra that just happens to put you into the next tax bracket, suddenly your tax bill goes up by a lot, lot more than one dollar? And wouldn’t this be a huge incentive to hide that last few dollars of income overseas or whatever?
Or have i misunderstood?
Not to nitpick but “when Canada switched, its costs dropped by a third.” just isn’t true. The fact is that our (I am Canadian) health care expenditures haven’t risen as fast as in the US.
The real story is good enough that there is no need to wrongly state the argument. Why give folks a club to smack you with?
Bravo! Well done! I will be sending a link to my sister who is a primary care physician who HATES private insurance. She would much rather have all Medicare patients because of its more straightforward patient-orientation. But then she is obviously not in the business to make money.
Cost of health care. Hmmm
My wife requires large quantities of wound dressing. The other day I did some comparison shopping for some of the supplies she needs. She has Medicare and the provider bills them what is supposed to be, as they claim, “significantly below retail.”
A 2″ roll of cloth surgical tape at CVS sells for $5.99. The provider charges the Guminit $14.40
A box of 12 8″x10″ “ABD Pads” at CVS costs $9.95. The provider charges the Guminit $114.12 for a box of 18.
A box of 24 “Topper Dressing Sponges” at CVS sells for $8.99. The provider charges the Guminit $60.
Nice racket.
Dee @ 4
Yes. Good article Ian. You make sense!
Actually you could improve this chart by showing government expenditures on health care per capita. Even though the US has a “private” system, spending per capita by the government is more than the oecd average per capita spending by government.
IIRC, that is.
The only sane health care system is universal care paid for by taxpayers collected in proportional or progressive tax structure. Anything else introduces middlemen who must be paid.
Is anyone else having trouble seeing the page? The whole right side is off the screen, and the categories and ads are covering the post and comments. Pretty much unreadable.
Hi Ian, I sure like what you have to say
downunder girl @ 22
One thing a lot of corporations and people do is arrange so that income is “earned” in countries with lower tax rates than the US. (This issue also relates to states within the US.) One way to deal with that is to say “we don’t care. If they tax you at 10% and our rate is 30%, you’re paying the difference, no matter where the money is earned.”
There are ways to try and hide the money, or to structure companies so that you can try and claim it’s a different entity earning the money, but in general moving towards a “you pay the highest tax rate, not the lowest” policy will help finances significantly. It’ll also a small, but not insignificant, effect on offshoring and so on.
This does work best if you get agreement from the major players (the EU, Japan), but even without it, it would help.
Ian,
Please label the curves. People with good color vision are not aware that some of us have a handicap in that regard.
Canada is blue but all the rest look the same to me.
I am one of many. Poor color vision is a handicap and simply labeling eliminates the problem.
Thanks, Joel
Ian sez:
McNulty is resigning…
Ian,
We can’t keep this up forever. China and Japan keep buying our debt. The Republicans are licking their chops wanting to tamper with Social Security. How long until it all come crashing down and why are they so determined to ruin our country? I know they can keep printing more money but eventually it has to stop. What is it going to take to end the madness?
lolo
rob in toronto @ 23
Yeah, bad wording. Touche. Actually what happened is that for about 10 years our expenditures stayed basically even, then started rising more slowly than US costs. I don’t want to mess with the article right now, since admins are working on making it readable for those who are having display issues, but I may correct it later. Thanks for the correction.
OT
JEP @ 33
where’d you hear that?
Welcome back, Ian. I always learn from your writing on this. Thanks for coming by!
Great post Ian, more please.
As to whether the US has “the guts and the integrity” to renew itself, time will tell….
What was it Franklin said? Something like, a republic is a fine thing, if you can keep it.
joel mael @ 31
Sorry Joel. Unfortunately the chart is snip from a pdf (I’ll add the link) and beyond my graphics skills (which are nearly nonexistent) to change. The top line is the US, second is Canada, third is the OECD average, 4th is UK.
re: McNulty
AP just released it.
ThinkProgress link
RevDeb @ 17
Perhaps the most important thing (besides the Iraq war) right now is to take the White House and more of the house and senate in ‘08. Then we can make hard things less complicated.
joel mael @ 31
The data points are actually labeled with different shapes, too, but unfortunately they’re pretty small.
Loo Hoo @ 41
I don’t see how it can happen otherwise, and it HAS to happen
McNulty’s resigning.
I agree these problems are simple but hard.
The only way they will ever be addressed is with campaign reform. Until the big money, special interests are removed from the electoral process, for all intent and purpose, our elected officials are bought by them.
LittlePig @ 40
I wonder what he’ll do for health insurance now?
radiofreewill @ 44
Thanks.
great post, ian… and nice to see you at the lake.
seems we’ve got our incentives all messed up – large incentives (for the politically powerful) to maintain a problematic status quo.
if that’s correct…. any ideas how we change the incentive structure?
McNulty resigning to spend more time with his family!
OT
well, no surprise, really
DoJ officials never told to preserve documents
McNulty – Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..ignation_3
Ian, you are so right. A person can’t really run for Pres and win with saying this stuff out loud, but a person certainly can do it after he/she is in office.
Kind of like, Bush didn’t run on destroying the government, but did it when he came into office anyway.
I really hope somebody will take the hint.
Thanks Ian, great post. I really like the chart.
I like your argument, Ian, and I hope it will be helpful in convincing congresscritters and other policy wonks. However, on healthcare at least, the arguments I hear from ordinary people are not “it’s hard,” rather, they’ve been sold on “we have the best healthcare in the world,” “competition is necessary to make it efficient” and “government-run healthcare means waiting in long lines in dingy corridors.” (I know that single-payer isn’t “government-run healthcare,” but most people don’t understand the distinction.
I presume other countries had interests that made money off healthcare that worked against single-payer (though perhaps not as egregious as ours.) How did Canada, for example, overcome that? What lessons can we learn about how to overcome that and make the transition happen?
Ok, full disclosure – I am actually an economist, PhD and the whole fandango. Probably offsetting this is that it’s bedtime in Europe and I have had a couple of beers…
BUT… The United States already has offshore taxation arrangements for anyone with citizenship or permanent residency, so even if you earned the income here in Europe, you get taxed in the US system. I know this because I have colleagues caught by this system.
Corporations pay a flat rate of tax domestically so the original mechanism you described (pay your highest rate applicable for all income) only applies if they also have foreign revenue.
Assuming the firm does have foreign revenue, the behaviour you are describing is basically false transfer pricing. But the consolidated group declares its profits to there sharemarket, and the IRS is within its rights to investigate whether the firms really are making all their profits in Estonia and Ireland and whereever else there is a very low corporate profit tax rate, and not in the US. (And if they repatriate those funds as dividends, they get taxed anyway.)
Frankly, if such a rule were applied to corporations, they’d all just change their domicile to the UK. Why should an international firm pay US tax on profits that were genuinely earned on non-US activity? Why should Apple, for example, pay the US Treasury for profits made an iPod made in Malaysia or wherever and sold to me in Europe?
And here’s a puzzle: even if firms are pretending too much of their profits are earned in low-tax countries, why has the profit share of GDP risen so much in the US as well??
Don’t get me wrong: I think that the ability of large corporates to distort the system in the US is one of the real problems you have over that side of the pond. The words “crony capitalism” really should be used to describe America more often. I might not be a tax economist, but I don’t think your plan is workable beyond the extent to which the US has already implemented it.
PS: yes, downunder girl doesn’t live there any more
PPS: I totally agree on the healthcare thing
Alberto Gonzales’ Statement on McNulty Resignation
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003215.php
BTW, the same tactic needs to be used to move to renewable fuel and away from the oil companies. The companies need to be able to make money from renewable, the employees need to be re-trained, truckers shipping the oil need to have jobs, repairmen for cars need to be retrained. All the people currently in the money train from big oil need to be taken care of if we are to move to renewables.
itwasntme @ 52
I’m not so sure. I’m not in favor of Hillary for president, but I did have to give her props at the big healthcare forum in Las Vegas — she said that there were going to be those who would lose out in the transition to universal healthcare, and when asked who she was talking about, she said the insurance companies, for one.
I don’t know anyone except people who work for them who would disagree with the statement that health insurance companies are evil. They’ve got a lot of money, but there’s some powerful sentiment out there these days, and if an alternative is in sight, the wave may be strong enough to overcome the money.
Bravo, Ian!
Personally, I’d like to see the oil companies nationalized in the name of national security.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..to-resign/
He said..She said…Or could it be Lawyers in Love
Beautifully — and simply — put.
OT from important health spending info:
The DAG McNulty sacrifice will not appease for the Chief Incompetent. Gonzales, please step down. You are not trusted. Restore trust to the DOJ. Resign. Really.
Slip out the back Jack.
Make a new plan Stan.
Hop on the bus Gus.
You don’t need to discuss much.
No need to be coy Roy.
Just set… yourself…free…….
OT – Re: McNulty. JEEBUS – Pete Williams on Hardball reports that the issue was the process; how the info got out. Williams says nothing about WHY they were fired. Apparently irrelevant.
Great post, Ian!
oh, here’s a big surprise, from kos:
.
DownUnderGirl
All good points. I’m going to go on a digression by way of answering. A while back I was looking into what was happening in the Canadian auto sector and something I saw was that the value of exports to the US had gone up massively. Part of that was production shifting, but it was huge, and I couldn’t figure out what was going on.
Then I realized that they were doing more of the final assembly in Canada, in a big way. And the parts of a car, as you know, are cheap compared to the final car – much more of the value add was happening in Canada than it had in the past. The air condition shipped across the border as $100 part, in a car, was suddenly worth $500 (or whatever, numbers plucked out of midair by way of demonostration).
As I understand it (and I certainly could be wrong, being neither a PhD economist nor a tax maven) that means that much of the profits were suddenly in Canada.
Transnationals, by manipulating their supply chains, and by internal pricing (so much trade is actually shipping between parts of transnationals) seem to be able to shift profits quite a bit between different countries.
Anyhoo – race to the bottom on taxes is a big problem. You may well be right that the solution suggested above ain’t the way to handle it, but we need something…
punaise @ 65
They did it for him. It is only polite to return the favor.
Hopefully Collins will see her career flushed along with any kind of integrity HoJo ever had (assuming that he ever had any, which I doubt)
Let’s hear it for Tom Allen!
OOT-
C-Span 2 @ 9:30 eastern:
Replay from last Wednesday, from Seattle University, School of Law
A Forum on the Role of U.S. Attorneys
Seattle University, School of Law
David C. Iglesias , Department of Justice
John McKay , Department of Justice
Helen @ 63
You mean Dick Cheney’s former flack isn’t leveling with the American people?
Shocked, shocked I say.
-GSD
Thanks, Chuck!
Ian,
yer talkin’ my lingo here, and halleluja and praised be the saints that dropped the golden sight upon your keyboard today, or whenever the hell you typed this up.
Hell, I think every doctor that has dedicated his or her life to the well-being of others deserves to live in a mansion. I got no problem with that. But the barnacles that have attached to their hull is creating a massive drag on the whole deal.
As my Psuedonym suggests, I shower after I get off work and resent those who scheme on the bank of “Ass National” to get rich off of sick people. “Ass National”, in case you don’t know, is the finance department of millions of Americans that do not live off of credit cards and finance.
Now that we have reached the 300 million mark in population, maybe we can get a government “Of, By and For The People.”
Thank you very much for this outstanding post.
Ian –
I just came from a meeting with my new benefits attorney, in which we both bemoaned exactly the points in your post. Remember when $200 seemed like an outrageous monthly health insurance premium? I do. My personal situation means three layers of third-parties involved in paying my insurance; each of them ladles on a profit percentage to pay the well-trained phone-answerers to provide contradictory and conflicting information, depending upon the time of day one calls.
Has America’s health insurance industry become so massive that moving to single-payer would cause significant unemployment and dislocation to our economy? While single payer is the logical solution to what ails us, what other economic sector is ready to absorb all those non-medical paper- and computer-processors who staff the “health care sector” now?
I see vast wastelands of economic hardship in places like Connecticut, and I wonder where the slack will get taken up.
Lieberman is … sticking shivs into Democrats nationwide as he perpetually relives his 2006 grudges
after Joe has gone down in flames: shiv’er, meet embers.
Frank33 @ 60
This could be an opening, perhaps a better word would be fizzure.
this will be used to our advantage. Let the squirming begin. or maybe Let the scambling begin.
and you turned on the jukebox!
It’s nice to read about health care…otherwise I would not know it really exists.
Several years ago shortly into a period of unemployment I was hiking in the woods with family and forgot to take a prescribed medication for about 36 hours. It caused me to have a major seizure (the only one I have ever had) and flop down the mountainside like a fish out of water. When i awoke everyone around me was crying and had given up…evidently I had not been breathing for awhile…
So uninsured I went to my doctor now disabled physically with what I thought was a dislocated shoulder. (whatever it is, it probably needs surgery though its never been fully diagnosed)
She told me for the first time my meds were one of only two drugs that would kill someone if dropped immediately.. Hello? After years of taking them..why should that be the first time I heard that? It took 18 months of hell to get off that horrible prescription drug.
Anyway the shoulder is still serious enough that manual labor on any scale is out of the question (four years later).
Since this happened in a low financial point.. I have not been able to get medical help or return to a rather plentiful (to me) income level…
So I live day to day most of the time in pain and at least partially disabled.
I only ask for or accept work I can “pull off” in short spells.
I’m 42 healthy mind and spirit…but wont risk losing my home for the price of surgery…
It’s fun being one of the 40 plus million without healthcare. Afraid to even tell a doctor I have a problem.
And I used to be a highly productive member of society with many productive employees… What a waste.
McNulty to Abu
Anybody who thinks that the Democrats aren’t up to their necks in all this mess aren’t paying attention. They got elected to stop this President, not just the War. They are busy helping Bush and the rest of the War Profiteers stall for time to steal more billions. They could impeach the bastards tomorrow but won’t because they are no doubt trying to clean up both ways(making profits and political hay).
FYI, new thread
OT –
Hey pups!
Remember the school trip where the 6th grade class went on an overnight trip…
and the grownups told the kids “there’s an armed attacker – hide under your desks”
but it was only a teacher – disguised as a mass murderer?
Sooo funny
Just a fake mass killer on the overnight trip?
The sick fucks taped it
(h/t Raw)
punaise @ 73
you’re in fine form tonight!
The U.S. is riddled with overhead (parasitic loss to you engineering types) in almost every arena.
Example: It’s not been noted much that as of today, all ISPs (right down to the lowest level) are now required to have fully compliant eavesdropping provisioning for CALEA in place. Inability to promptly provide LEA (law enforcement authority) requests for either pen-trace or full-content capture can result, as of today, in a $10,000/unfulfilled tap request/day fine. An FCC form 445 must have been supplied to both the FCC and FBI describing the provisions to make this possible. Yes, that’s right, your ISP has to register with the FBI.
Now, accomplishing this tapping task is not exactly trivial. For large ISPs the sheer quantity of traffic makes the gear to do this both expensive and hard to design. For smaller ISPs (and there are many) the quantity of traffic may not be an issue, but the human resources overhead to get the tapping equipping in place comes out of tiny margins.
What to do? Why, turn to one of the many “TTP” or CALEA compliance appliance vendors that have sprung up like maggots on the carcass of roadkill (roadkill being ISPs, in this case). Suddenly an entire industry has been wished into existence by the likes of Verisign and others who (we may undoubtedly be assured) were “helping” the regulatory process along. For a reasonable (in comparison w/$10,000 per day) fee or a mere few thousand dollars, the new CALEA requirements can be satisfied.
Now that an industry exists to support CALEA as it applies to ISP operators, do you think there’s even a ghost of a chance that CALEA requirements will be softened or eliminated in the future? No, think again. Once the new CALEA compliance industry has reached the flat part of its revenue graph, expect the bar to be raised as lobbyists get busy on that bottom line. Same deal as the prison industry.
This country has an infestation of tapeworms, and I don’t think there are any pills to take care of ‘em.
(As an extra little worrisome item, as part of the CALEA requirements ISPs must now apply for an ID number from the FCC. So, ISPs are now essentially licensed by both the FCC and FBI. We’re enrolled as unpaid, covert government informants, penalties for noncooperation being quite harsh. Nice, eh?)
How can we get politicians out of insurance companies’ pockets?
Ian, I like the ‘easy but hard’ analogy, because it smacks of an addiction that must be dealt with consciously, and with discipline, if we are to have any real success changing behaviors!
One of the worst addictions we have – and this may be the ultimate ‘easy-but-hard’ – is consumerism. It’s easy to satisfy our impulses, and hard to stop.
Consumerism is the treadmill we all run on – only the ads change – but the tease is always the same: Have it now (easy,) pay for it (exorbitantly) later (hard.)
kirk murphy @ 79
Lawyer up. I hope whoever did this serves time for giving a bunch of young kids PTSD. Bastards. That is child abuse. There is absolutely no logical defense on earth to do that.
Doug Bostrom – Do you have a link to that source of info?
Eureka Springs @ 75
((((Eureka Springs))))))
damn, Eureka Springs. sorry to hear that.
Excellent post. However, as recognized by Redshift @54 and others- the crux of the problem is how do we in the USA finesse the interests of the insurance companies who will strongly protect the current scheme? Redshift suggests that we look at how the shift to single-payer was managed in other countries- Was private insurance such an issue elsewhere? I remember traveling in Europe in the early 70’s and making the acquaintance of a young Australian MD, who was travelling around the world. When he needed to make some money to continue his trip, he would head to a Commonwealth country and find a doctor who would let him take on his “social” cases so that he could focus on his more lucrative “private” patients. This may suggest that ways can be found to overcome the self-interest of parties that gain from the current private system here- or it may simply mean that there is a different weighting of societal benefits in other countries that make it less likely that parties with an interest against the common good will loudly campaign (or complain). It is not clear to me how achieve that here. Perhaps a gradual expansion of Medicare to other classes, until the portion of the population needing to be covered by private insurance shrinks and finally disappears? Other ideas for a less gradual approach?
Really an important and critical topic. Thanks!
Eureka Springs @ 75
I am so sorry to hear this.
This sort of experience is what makes me so angry about US healthcare. In Canada, you’d get the surgery you need, no cost, end of story. In fact, in most of the 1st world you would.
It’s cheaper. It covers everyone. It gives as good a care or better on almost all metrics. Not changing is stupid and immoral and the people who are living off the extra money it costs to do it the inefficient, inhumane way, make thier living or their profits of other people’s pain.
Mike Kinsella @ 88
I’ll have to look into that more. My recollections of how it happened in Canada is that it was actually pretty tumultuous, including huge demonstrations by some doctors, walk outs and so on. It took determination to push it through.
I confess this is one of the few occasions on which I favour what amounts to “shock therapy”. Enroll everyone in Medicare, set up a fund to give aid to those laid off by healthcare comapnies and get it over with. It wont’ be pretty, but it must be done and the longer we wait, the harder it will be.
A lot of things in the US are like this – drug war reform would hit a lot of rural counties really hard, because they depend on prison jobs, for example.
sporkovat @ 13
Clinton opened his bidding with a compromise.
That is, he stated he would let insurance companies run the program. He should have left that for a fall-back position. But, the insurance companies along with Chamber of Commerce killed the bill anyway. Guess they thought a fixed percentage for administrative fees weasn’t attractive enough for them.
Though I read FDL daily, this is my first visit to the comments section. Is it always such a love-fest?
While I agree that vested interests make solving even “simple” problems “hard”, the analogy frays when it is extended. It is simply not true that if dieting is “simple” then fixing healthcare is “simple” too. Scale matters.
For example, raising or lowering taxes does not increase or decrease revenue in a linear fashion. Lets examine the taxation analogy by scaling it in the other direction.
If raising taxes increases revenue in a “simple” fashion, then doubling the price of bread would double the income of bakers.
Political will is definitely lacking in the U.S., but it is also true that some “hard” problems are also “difficult” to solve. If you don’t agree, then I have a loaf of bread to sell you.
Mark
Eureka Springs,
I feel for you. I’ve had a rotator cuff injury and couldn’t afford surgery. I did specially-targeted exercises a physical therapist friend printed out for me. It took a year, but it got well. And, it helped with the pain, which was a great side effect.
Otherwise I’d be in a bad way.
Eureka Springs, Margot – I so apologize for the hideous mess that is the US “healthcare” system.
I’m asahmed to be a physician in America.
On a practical basis, our health care system doens’t give a shit if your live or die – far less how much you suffer.
Our health cares system exists to pay its own overhead.
You patients are just the excuse.
I apologize for being part of this sham – it certainly is not why I went to med school.
Ian @ 90
Yes, perhaps the only way to accomplish large changes is all-at-once, then deal with the fall-out. IMO, however, the only way the political will for such a large change (yes, Mark @92, size DOES matter, I agree) will be reached is when there is consensus that we have a crisis- perhaps that time is coming as the personal burden of the health care system is less hidden by the reduced willingness of companies to pick up all of the cost. Still, there have been a fair number of articles, posts, editorials, what-have-you, that lay out the points and the directions, as you have so ably done- but in a conversation with my little sister this AM, her take on the issue was directly from the private insurance propaganda book: “Oohh, people are dying in Canada, just waiting and waiting for surgery”, and “everyone in Canada who can, comes to the US for major surgery”. What can be done to reverse this sort of framing?
Another thought that occurs, in response to Ian’s mention of the cross-border auto industry comparisons- With the US auto industry in severe difficulty, and unlikely to be given another government bail-out, how long do you think it will be before we will see the large industries agitating for singler-payer- just to get the costs of health care off their backs, allowing a more even and competitive playing field for US industries?
To everything you list, there is a simple political answer. Vote for Dennis Kucinich.
He has proposed exactly what you proscribe for years. Look at his platform. Dems are going to have to come to the realization that if they actually want to solve these problems, they must support someone who has proposed these simple solutions.
And, of course, Iraq. He voted against going in and has consistently tried to get us out. In the end, some version of his Iraq plan will be adopted, it is just a matter of how many die in the interim.
And let’s not forget Impeachment. That is the simple solution to the lawlessness that has permeated our government the last six years.
So he is short and funny looking. Lincoln was tall and funny looking. And, also, a dark horse candidate.
If you want to be bitching about these simple problems 4,6,8 years from now, stick w/ the front runners. If you actually want to solve these problems, get behind Kucinich.
john in california @ 96
DING!
He is the only candidate who actually expresses the nature of our problems correctly.. How the heck are the others supposed to do anything correctly if they wont discuss the problems or solutions completely or honestly?
Thanks to all for kind words above. I cannot imagine how many millions of US are in similar and much worse situations.. I would be dead if it had been cancer or something.
It just feels like the system is spiraling into self defeat..
One day, though I don’t know how, I will kick ass again.
(((((((((Eureka Springs)))))))))
User Loser @ 77
Ian’s post reflects the idealism I had as a teenager. Of course, as I got older and studied how the system worked it became obvious money was the ruling factor and not ‘what would work’. My father once said government was really screwed up. I told him it was the best government all that money would buy. It’s only screwed up for you and me. For those it serves it works very very well.
Ian, friend, keep your idealism, but don’t forget that winning the political battles to get OUR representatives into government is the real battle. Once you have sufficient power (as Money does now) you can really fix the problems.
Personally, I don’t favor big government programs. I think they offer the Republicans far too many opportunities to royally ruin things (see Iraq war).
I’d prefer to regulate, rather than to run things. I think that’s more in the spirit of the Founder’s Constituion. ‘Course, FDR found that starting things was very useful, but in the end what he started that stuck best was the Fed and lots of regulation of financial institutions.
Now, back to the present — first we gotta get rid of the electronic voting machines, then get rid of BushCo, then take control of government and only then can we do the simply obvious things Ian talked about. It’s a long row to hoe.
TJ @ 82
Being the small little weenies that they are, it’s not surprising they’d fit in there.
Vote someone else of larger character into office.
Thank you, Mike @ 95. I’m glad that you agree. I have a few more comments on health insurance.
I am self-employed and pay for my own health insurance. Last year I switched to a high-deductible insurance plan that allows me to use a Health Savings Account. I love it for many reasons. One reason is this … My premium plus what I contribute to my HSA is almost exactly what my premium would be under my old plan. I can pay for any medically necessary product using my HSA. What I don’t spend stays in my HSA, and if I do spend it all, my insurance covers the rest 100%.
I thought long and hard before I switched because I couldn’t see a downside, and I found that hard to believe. I finally decided there isn’t one.
Also, my doctor stopped accepting HMO and PPO plan reimbursement and I pay out of pocket when I see him. Now I pay from my HSA with pre-tax dollars. He gets the money directly from me without the insurance company taking a cut. I am covered for big things, like ER visits and surgery, and self-insure for the smaller expenses. I think this is ideal.
Compare our health insurance system (and Canada’s too, I presume) with auto insurance. My auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance. If it did, I’ll bet a tune-up would cost $1,000. As P.J. O’Rourke said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”
As you might suspect, I do not favor a single-payer system. I think that letting health consumers decide how to spend their own money, or to keep it, would provide a lower cost and fairer system.
Tying this back to the original post, I doubt this is “simpler” than a single-payer system, but I’m convinced it would lower the national cost of health care while allowing individuals to tailor the health care they consume.
Mark
Great post, Ian. Really one of the most succint explanations of government problems I’ve read.
A really excellent post. Thank you.
MarkW @ 102
As P.J. O’Rourke said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”
Look at the chart. Medical care does not lend itself to markets. Back in the early 80s, I supported PPGP, because it was clear that fee for service was broken. People were being overtreated because it made money for doctors. Unneeded hysterectomies and tonsillectomies were pandemic.
But privatizinng care through PPGPs hasn’t worked either. Profit motives have led to HMOs cherry picking, and to undertreat. Undertreating, one would think, would save money, but it doesn’t. They spend a lot of money trying to not pay for treatment, that still has to be paid for. So instead of just the fee, you’ve got the fee, the CPT code reviewers at the insurance companies, the extra staff in the doctors’ offices and just lots and lots of expensive administrative costs.
I can see, as a transitional program, a mandatory high deduction insurance program provided by the US government. But it’s nonetheless the case that the best medical care is being delivered by single payer plans.
A while ago, Brad Delong had discussion up about the left vs the right on medical care issues. He said (or quoted someone saying) that really what this breaks down into is people who worry about adverse selection vs people who worry about moral hazard. People on the left want universal coverage, because they fear adverse selection– people not partipating during the periods of their life when they are not at risk of getting really sick. People on the right fear moral hazard–that people, given “free” medical care will demand overtreatment.
So lefties advocate free universal care, while righties advocate HSAs. Universal care means that everybody’s covered, even if they happen to be very unlucky, while HSAs means that people don’t go to a doctor whenever they have a hangnail.
I’ve never found the moral hazard argument persuasive. I hate to go to the doctor. I hate taking pills. I hate having my lifestyle choices reviewed by someone who barely knows me. My brother’s a pediatrician, and if anybody is going get patients who want to overtreat, it’s gonna be pediatricians, because the decision maker over care is not the one who has to get poked and prodded. Overtreatment really is not a problem, but dealing with insurance companies is a constant problem.
It’s true that there are people who go to see their doctor for, essentially, entertainment value, but those patients are rare and they have been dealt with under other health care regimes.
And, at the end of the day, you have to recognize that this system, as a whole, is failing to cover a large fraction of the population, and is doing an awful, very expensive job on the fraction it does cover.
People look forward to being on Medicare. Now you, concerned about moral hazard, may think that’s because they’re going to demand overtreatment. But in fact, they look forward to it because it so much less hassle. They don’t have to negotiate every visit, deal with rejected meritlessly rejected claims, hoard thie ration of pills for chronic, but not constant conditions.
Everybody hates the system as it is–patients, doctors, employers–except the insurance companies, big Pharma, and politicians who keep that money flowing.
I gotta disagree on the “weight loss is simple” thing. Sure, the overall formula is relatively easy, but that formula doesn’t include all the finicky little facts you need to know in order to execute the formula effectively.
For example, how easy it is to overeat even healthy caloricly dense foods like nuts or dried fruit, and how less dense foods may be more filling. Or how eating less more often, and eating fiber, protein, or fats with simple carbohydrates, may help keep your blood sugar (and hence insulin) from spiking and plummeting. Or how limiting one macro-nutrient group (such as fat or carbs) can help some people lose weight (it leads to overall reduction of caloric intake) but why it often fails, too.
Saying it’s simple also ignores how undiagnosed/untreated endocrine and other medical problems may make it next to impossible for some people to lose weight. I say this as someone who, despite diets and lots of exercise, could never lose even five pounds… until they diagnosed one of those problems.
I’ve lost seventy pounds since then.
I know that’s not what this post was about, but that erroneous belief is one held by a lot of people, including many who could benefit from a more detailed (complicated) understanding. Thank you for your patience.
For those interested in Canada’s experience converting to a single-payer health care system, you should look up Tommy Douglas, the lefty Premier of Saskatchewan who proved not only that it could be done, but done right. He’s also Jack Bauer’s grandfather, btw.
A couple of years ago the CBC made a two part miniseries on him, appropriately titled “The Tommy Douglas Story”. I recommend it to all.
One thing of note about that conversion in Canada, which politician’s touch at their peril, is that it wasn’t easy. The VRWC spread every lie imaginable against Douglas, and for the record, that involved very much a sad, negative US influence in Canadian affairs. Even Canada’s federal government behaved quite shamefully to those ends.
But Tommy started something special. He’d lived through the depression, and experienced first hand, in his family, and in the church where he preached, the pain many families had to bear when medical attention wasn’t available due to cost. Many people were too proud to seek (or submit to) the charity of private hospital administrators, and suffered due to lack of care.
Saskatchewan was not a wealthy province at the time Douglas brought in his vision of a government funded system, and perhaps that’s what made it so necessary. After it began, and the nightmare scenarios never played out, any politician in the entire country who wanted to be elected had to deal with citizens who demanded that Saskatchewan’s model was what their province needed. Douglas ran the system so well that not only did the sky not fall, nor the Commies take over, nor did all of the medical professional flee screaming, but the value he delivered to his constituents was undeniable. On top of that, there was plenty of work for the medical professionals, since so many more were now covered.
For all of its faults, I assure you that the negative HMO-Insurance industry spin on Canada’s health care system is just that — spin. Health care is expensive without excessive profit-taking and massive marketing campaigns to pay for. Our wait times are longer for some surgeries (hip replacements, for instance), and some of our wealthier citizens do cross the border for faster service, but we cover all of our country’s citizens (and landed immigrants) without asking directly for money. As experimental treatments become accepted, the provinces (health care is a provincial jurisdiction) begin to pay for them. They also, as any insurer, deal with disappointing amounts of fraud.
My hope for the future is that the cost of pharmaceuticals will be covered, as the increase in their costs is too substantial to be ignored. Currently our drug costs are covered by the US style system — if you or a family member get coverage through employment. This is getting harder to find for the lower skilled workers in our country. There is also talk about covering some dental care…and I support reasonable coverage wholeheartedly.
Please don’t construe this as a Canada vs USA competition…I’ll even hand ya the blue ribbon myself. This is about a common good — and it seems more of the wealthy don’t subscribe to shared values unless it involves lining their pockets.
I love FDL, and what a great post, Ian. I was really pulling for Ned Lamont in November, along with so many of you. Here’s a wealthy guy who put himself out there when he didn’t need to, and talked about subjects so many in Washington, like Conneticut for Lieberman, seem to laugh at in private. Lamont talked about health care, and other issues, not just the Iraq mistake. I hope he runs again. He’s a leader, not a status quo prick trolling for bucks.
Come into the single-insurer water…the temperature is fine. For all of the talk about a two tier system in Canada, the overwhelming majority of Canadians are repulsed by the thought. When Douglas first spoke about his vision, he had a tough fight against the doom & gloom crowd. The best part about imagining a similar system in the US is that there’s nowhere for the doctors to flee. THAT must make it a bit easier, if only a bit.
This is beyond EPU’d but I thought I should once more point out: there are limits to false transfer pricing because the IRS looks out for it.
Not as much as you might think. The part might only have been $100 wholesale. The value add (wages and profits from the activity of assembly) really did happen in Canada, so not all that $400 markup is fake. And anyway, some of that $400 markup would still accrue to US entities down the production chain, like the distributor and the retail dealer. People tend to overestimate the contribution of materials costs to the “fair” price of a retail item.
And anyway, I’m not sure this is a good example for your argument. Canada isn’t exactly a low-tax haven. Firms moved car assembly there because costs were lower. This reflects a better public education system and (ta da!) lower health care costs, as well as lower absolute wages. The US health system is one of the things killing your car industry.
As I noted earlier, the US already does this citizen-based taxation for individuals for people living overseas. Other countries do not do this. Personally I think it is rude to tax people for income that had nothing to do with the US.
Anyway I’ll stop now coz I doubt anyone is still reading this thread.
downunder girl @ 109
Well, the same sort of thing happens in other countries when you move final assembly there. I used Canada, not because it is a low tax domicile (it isn’t) but because I knew this had occured. Same thing happens elswhere, add low tax domicile, voila.
I’m not all that concerned about citizens, I’m concerned with corporate entities, myself.
Which isn’t to say you aren’t necessarily right that I’m, er, wrong, that this is a big issue or that this is a good solution. I’ll look into it more.
Some issues that occurred to me reading the post have mostly been raised by others, eg, by DownUnderGirl @ #55 re the penchant for corporate entities to change domicile to minimise tax liabilities and MarkKinsella @ #95 re removing health care as an item of cost from corporate books.
MarkW’s (@ # 100) preoccupation with gaining power first before any debate over public policy is a dodo – public policy infrastructure should be a vital component of any metric/benchmark to assess the suitability of elected representatives. He is right @ #102 that over referral or prescription can be a problem. Problems, however, can be tackled. A single payer system usually encourages the adoption of sensible benchmarks to undertake meaningful cost-benefit reviews which should be regular periodic audits of all publicly funded legislative programs. Such audits need to be robust enough, they usually are in many OECD countries, to highlight malpractice. Elected legislators need to specify penalties and be prepared to implement them through open and accountable processes when such malpractices are uncovered. After all, it was the revelation of unusually high incidence of caesarian deliveries on Thursdays and Fridays relative to Saturdays-Wednesdays inclusive that started to see a more even distribution of caesarian and natural deliveries throughout the week. They stll remain somewhat skewed but way better than they were from the mid 1980s to late 1990s.
Also, there is a an entity called the Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT), levied on employers only. There is no reason why employer funded health cover cannot be relegated as a fringe benefit that employers are taxed for. Such an FBT can be tacked onto legislation for a taxpayer funded universal health care legislation that cuts out private corporations from the game. This also has the potential to encourage the inclusion of access to health care as an important determinant of poverty.
Finally, perhaps US needs to reflect that US is ranked 27th in the world by the OECD for access to health care and the French (cheese eating surrender monkeys) as Number 1.
Perfect. Bravo.
Personally I don’t think this country is going to fix our problems. Greg Palast is right, we are an armed madhouse.