[Please welcome Charley from BlueMassGroup with a guest post on Obama's health care proposals. Thanks, Charley! -- CHS]
So a few months ago, Barack Obama got hit pretty hard for seeming like a lightweight on health care. And after all, he was going up against old pro Hillary Clinton, who probably knows more about health care than any other politician in America, and John Edwards, who came out with a fairly ambitious and complete plan of his own. By calling for "roundtable discussions" on health care, it sounded like Obama was proposing some kind of mahogany boardroom Kumbayah:
A Swampland correspondent paraphrases one exchange:
Karen Tumulty: Will you need to raise taxes?
Obama: Did you not hear me? THESE TABLES ARE ROUND.
Now, to his credit, Obama has come out with a health care plan that is definitely substantial and sometimes courageous — the adoption of which would almost certainly lead to more people covered, and getting better value for the vast amount of money that we spend. In spite of its billing, it's not truly universal, but it's still transformational. Obama tapped Harvard econ prof David Cutler to help him wonk out a plan — and to sell it. A veteran of the Clinton 1993 health care wars, Cutler's emphasis has changed to making health care markets work more rationally. So it shouldn't be surprising that Obama's plan is chockful of very appealing market reforms: Heavy on providing more information about the quality of docs, hospitals, and drugs; cutting down on some of the anti-competitive mischief that pharma companies and insurers like to engage in. And it includes a variety of methods to try to ease folks into having health insurance again — while eschewing methods which make people buy it. Bottom line: The Obama plan envisions a much bigger role for the federal government as an honest broker for the health care free market, and bolsters and expands the government health care system to include more people — especially the working poor and children.
As I've said, notwithstanding the sales pitch, it's not a totally universal health plan – there are going to be some people left out, period. It's a problem where our political discussion cannot reconcile two things: You need to call it "Universal Health Care" these days to get attention (that's good!); but actually doing what it takes to cover absolutely everyone requires methods that are too controversial: mandates, either on individuals, employers, the government, or some combination of the three. Here in Massachusetts, the magical solution to getting everyone covered was the so-called "personal mandate": Thou shalt insure thyself. But this was a political solution — a way to keep the special interests at the table, by shunting most of the responsibility onto individuals. (Yet another irony of our age of special-interest politics.) Whether it works as policy is up in the air right now: Already many folks of modest incomes have been exempted from the mandate, and will remain uncovered. In other words, our supposed "model" plan in MA isn't truly universal, either.
So what is there, there?
Obama's plan does include what's called a "pay or play" provision for employers: Either they insure their own workers ("play"), or they have to pay the government to do it for them. Sounds fair, but guess what? Employers don't like that. In MA, it was amazing to see even those employers that do insure their workers come out against a significant "pay or play" requirement. That's just sad, since they're the ones who are losing out to the deadbeat employers. In any event, if Obama's elected, you can expect there to be major special-interest pushback on this one, and calls to shunt more of the burden onto individuals. 'Cause, like, we don't have as many expensive lobbyists.
Obama proposes two major new devices that will change how health insurance is bought:
- One would allow those who can't get group coverage elsewhere (i.e. individuals, small businesses) to buy a government-issued health plan, similar to that which federal employees now get. Obama proposes signficant subsidies for those of modest incomes — I would anticipate that the exact degree of subsidy will be a major expense and policy headache. Still, an expansion of government help for the low-income uninsured is correct, humane … and judging by our experience in Massachusetts, surprisingly uncontroversial.
- The other would create a way for individuals to buy private insurance through the government, regulated and quality-assured. This sounds similar to what we now have in Massachusetts, called the Connector. It's actually very easy now to compare plans and prices, and I've heard it really is a major improvement from the previously Byzantine process of having to buy your own health insurance. ( Here, take a spin.)
For me, anyway, the "red meat" part of the plan deals with cost-control: You know how we hate getting bled dry by fatcat corporations? How they're always out to screw the little guy? Well, they are, and Obama's plan tries to rein them in — with The Truth, baby. By putting together a wonk-hive of Joe Friday-meets-House health care research genuises, we're going to know what technologies and treatments work, and which don't. We're going to know which hospitals, docs and drugs are good, and which suck. (Count on it — they won't like that very much.) We're going to do preventative care, finally; we're going to stop rewarding providers for doing piecemeal services (expensive), and instead reward them for providing health (cheaper). We're going to make insurers open up and tell us how much of our premiums is actually going towards care, and how much towards CEOs' yachts and stogies. Yeah, all this is pretty wonky, but it gets right to the heart of one of the big problems in American health care: We don't know what we're doing — and some people like it that way. Ignorance isn't just bliss — it's gold.
And by the way, no longer will pharma companies pay generic drug makers not to make cheaper versions of their old drugs, or prevent us from getting them from outside the US. Maybe it's just me, but I get all Conan about this part: Crush special interests — see them driven before you — and hear the lamentations of the Republicans. Ahhhh, yes.
Obama also seeks to reinvigorate our public health infrastructure, to take on preventable chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease. I have to say, it's one thing to talk about making school systems and local governments more savvy and able on these issues, but I think we actually need a broader cultural discussion about our priorities: Don't we deserve a little more vacation? Who has time to exercise? Are you going to eat those fries? etc. Obama touts smoking cessation, which is good but ironic. Hey, start at the top, right?
Obama's come a long way on this issue. His plan accomplishes its political goal, in that he's put down a marker as someone with serious and ambitious ideas. You can criticize him for not being audacious enough, for not outlining a true universal care program — but even if every single thing in Obama's, or Edwards', or Hillary's eventual plan were passed by Congress, there are a lot of details still to be worked out. Here in MA, we have a hands-on, progressive Governor, and the folks involved have so far done yeoman's work in implementing a very tricky and often vague law — and we still don't know if it's going to work out.
But as he says, it's up to the rest us to create a genuine movement for universal health care. Considering the fierce mix of special interests involved, there's no way our politicians will do any of the right things without massive pressure from the outside. So it's up to us to keep guiding the process. We've got to reject Godzilla vs. Mothra politics — of gigantic special interests battling it out among themselves, while the rest of us run screaming. We've gotta own this issue — hell, we're paying for it.
Further reading:
Brad likes it.
(Photo via In These Times.)
Related posts:
- Didn’t We Just Have a National Referendum on Obama’s Health Care Plan Last November?
- A Decent Health Care Reform Plan – from Max Baucus
- Why Can’t a Better Health Care Plan be the Next Stimulus?
- Whip the Public Plan: Putting the Public Back in Health Care Policy
- While Jim DeMint Vows to “Break” Obama on Health Care, South Carolinians are Going Broke Under Our System





Spotlight








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

zed?
zed!
With these plans what happens if you don’t have a job? Like a new mom or somebody that got fired or a person who is too disabled to work.
Hi Charley,
Welcome to my world. Long time no see.
Ricardo Sanchez says we have had a crisis inn leadership since 9/11. On KO.
I believe Kucinich kinda declared war on the insurance companies last night by saying they needed to be taken totally out of the mix. Which I think is a large part of universal coverage via single payer…
Excellent post on a terribly complex issue. Mr. Rev. spent the last 2 years cobbling together a health care plan for our denomination. Tough work since clergy are bad risks on the actuarial tables. The only way he could put together a plan that would move if and where we do individually was a self-insurance plan with level 2 reinsurance for catastrophic illness. We now have it and it is expensive! Most clergy and church workers aren’t making the kind of money needed to support such a system. And most churches—though they talk values up the wazoo—don’t want to fork out the kind of money needed for this coverage.
Unless we solve this problem for everyone, we have yet another instance of haves and have nots in society who are just one illness away from bankruptcy.
Thanks for your cogent explanation.
OT but if I’m a Redubyacan candidate, this does not make me happy. Ol’ Fred to appear on Insanity and Colmes by himself to talk about the Redubyacan debate, which he will not participate in.
KO on fire!
Why is it hard to insure clergy people?
Ewww, film of Chertoff pushing his teeth back in his mouth.
How about dental care?
This is one of my big issues for 08. I suspect that we need major surgery- not just moving the deck chairs around- and that will create INTENSE opposition. The health insurance companies will be fighting for their lives- as they could be cut out of existance with the stroke of a pen.
Driving costs out of the system is not going to be painfree- and much of it may be unpopular as well- still- we should go for the major surgerey.
rw, haven’t heard from Issa’s office. Did you call Bilbray’s?
lolo @ 9
lolo, have you given up the pursuit of the Zed?
Yadda and again yadda….
Get one thing straight. Healthcare should not be a for-profit enterprise in America..
Yeah, I know…
The criminal conspiracy which calls itself the ‘insurance industry’ will never stand for this. Last time I looked we, the people, can still vote those who refuse to do what is needed out.
That’s what we need to do. Make it impossible to win high office unless you are for….
Universal, government funded Healthcare.
Period.
No compromise. No jury-rigged plans. No protection of the insurance industry. No. More. Bullshit. Just issue everyone a medicare card and….
Have at it.
It’s morally and economically the right thing to do. Anything less is not going to work and is a scam.
Any candidate who suggests less in not serious about doing what the country needs and should not receive our votes nor our support.
dakine01 @ 8
That’s cause they don’t give him the script ahead of time to regurgitate in short paragraphs like they do on the teevee or movie set. This is hard work. Kos doesn’t think he’s used to working hard.
SnarKassandra @ 10
We are the repositories of everyone else’s stress which takes it’s toll on us.
Hi Cassie, how are you doing?
I like some of the details presented here that I hadn’t seen elsewhere, but I still don’t see that it will contain costs that much.
What we have is a system that’s twice as expensive, per capita, as the rest of the advanced democracies’ systems, that doesn’t yield better outcomes on the average, and that leaves 15% of Americans uncovered.
This takes care of most of the undercoverage problem, and might help with the outcomes around the edges. But I don’t see it making a real dent in the cost equation.
Take a look at CA’s SB 840 by Sheila Keuhl. It’s single payer, comprehensive(!), and the cost of covering the uninsured is the savings from current Administrative overhead of 30%
The pool is ALL residents – ALL regardless of immigration status. It uses the buying power of the pool to negotiate rates for perscription drugs, provides transparancy so that consumers will know which providers have good patient outcomes, focuses on preventive care. The best part – NO PRIVATE INSURERS!
Der Gropenfeuhrer vetoed it last year. Will likely veto again this year – due to his re-election campaign being financed by the insurance industry.
If he does, the issue will reappear as a voter initiative next year.
In the meantime, I am hopeful that Michael Moore’s movie Sicko will really go a long way in educating the public about why our healthcare system is in tatters, and why the ONLY answer is to get rid of the insurance industry and the obscene profits at the cost of patient coverage/care.
RevDeb @ 16
Yeah, even some of the corporate owned media picked up stories this w/e on Ol’ Fred being just a tad on the lazy, non-motivated side of life. I recall one having him saying he heartily disliked all the votes and procedures of the Senate and how he tended to knock off his “work day” at 2:30 in the afternoon…
that’s the truth of the matter, stripped of all the bullshit.
any plan that keeps private insurance companies in play is a plan designed to serve the CorpoRat Profit/Interest, not the People.
what about all the people that will become unemployed. my mom used to be a book keeper, doiing accounting and stuff for an insurance company. what do all those people do when we change to govt health care?
KO redoing the Nexus of Politics and Terror to include the recent nonsense.
randiego @ 14
No, I am not always first. It takes a lot of time and patience to win the zed or luck☼
Obama like the rest offers Nothing for those who “fall through the cracks”.
Makes sense. They’ve got us so scared of the socialized medicine bogeyman that politicos favor no insurance at all over some kind of National Health Ins model.
Stay healthy. Avoid Chinese toothpaste. Don’t follow leaders … something something parking meters
A personal story:
I work for county govt. Health Ins used to be a cost-free benefit 20 yrs ago. Then employees were forced to contribute but the amt decreased each yr. and eventually self & spouse were free. We’ve been working w/o a contract for 18mos now. The stumbling block is employee contribution to our health ins. They want (need) a much greater contribution from us. Union says ‘no’. This is strangling employers. Same thing happened to Mr.Solai but he didn’t have a union fighting for him. If the County wins, I will have $130 deducted from every biweekly paycheck. That will hurt and yet I see their dilemna. The Federal Govt. must step in and make healthcare/health ins. affordable.
Loo Hoo. @ 5
what he said, according to afp, is this: “Winning in Iraq? Fuggeddaboudit!”
Charley, what is the least expensive policy in MA, assuming that you are low income but not on welfare?
What happens when the consumer can’t afford credit anymore either?
The credit industry may be finding itself downgraded by a rule change that decouples credit “parasites” from their higher scored hosts.
All of a sudden, the aggregate credit score will be reduced by an unknown amount. The weakening credit base will further destabilize debt demand. This could develop into a situation where most of the marginal deals that would have gone through will now stall. That could back up the unsold inventory of homes and further weaken prices. That would be bad for current mortgage borrowers and lenders who would find the diminishing value of their investment to be unsustainable resulting in bankruptcy and foreclosure on a heightened scale.
How do the financially unstable afford insurance? Like our kids for example.
Those in congress who voted to empower the credit industry with carte-blanche on consumers’ wallets will bear the shame of failed financial fairness for Americans.
RevDeb @ 23
Yep, standard “bright shiny object” feint by the administration. They must REALLY be scared of both the Scooter sentencing AND the testimony of whichever ex-DoJ weenie is on for tomorrow.
neokneme @ 29
precisely.
One simple thing that should have been done decades ago is to require insurance companies to insure everyone who is willing to pay. With auto insurance- the state creates a pool and each insurer takes it’s share of the high risk pool- as a cost for “playing” in the state. Same could be done on a federal level with insurers.
That could eliminate millions of uninsureds.
rwcole @ 31
Is that like what they did with cars and car insurance?
I think I can get away with saying that the quality of posts on this blog are excellent without sounding self-congradulatory because they are at their best when I don’t post.
Thanks, Charley, for making this understandable. It’s an issue we’re going to be focusing on.
OT, but the News Blog now has a PayPal link to help with the costs of Steve Gilliard’s funeral:
Click here.
Help, if you can.
There are two many cooks boilin this broth- get the employers out- get the insurance companies out- get the people out who do nothing but bill insurance companies- get the marketing costs out- get the duplicative capital expenditures out for hospitals- get the unnecessary test expenses out-
THEN we can talk.
Thsi is something i could see as an interim to eventual Universal Healthcare. As a Pharm Tech i deal personally with the insurances that won’t cover a drug (too expensive or a generic availabe of a different drug in the same drug class) or makes the entire process a headache in order to get the medicatioin to a patient. The meddling is far more intrusive than many realize and many have begun to see as well in the last 3 years i’ve worked behind the counter.
Simplifying things would be good, but it would mean the govt would also have to have more comprehensive coverage on some types of drugs. Right now medicaid and medicare part D have specific drugs they’ll cover and if a patient needs something different and the plan doesn’t cover it? Too bad. Which usually results in our team calling the doctor and changing medications to something similarly classed that WILL be covered. Either option leads to a headache for us and the patient.
Dispensing medication is generally a simple process. It’s the insurances (govt and private) that have to learn to be flexible. That’s something that will take time. I only rarely see plans that cover anything that’s needed without a lot of trouble involved.
(Negotiating the prices with big pharma is a whole other aspect that leads to what’s covered and what’s not as well.I’d rather have them negotiated so the patient gets SOMETHING! Instead of nothing because they can’t afford the retail price of the drug that isn’t covered. There’s reasons why pharm techs are on the phone 3/4s of the time nowadays)
Not a perfect plan, but interim? Yes.
snar
Yep!
I’m with atrios. Send everybody a membership card. Create a single payer plan. People (and employers) can keep their existing coverage if they want.
But I think these discussions should include three things.
1) The US pays twice as much per capita as the rest of the OECD for health care. US government expenditures exceed the government expenditures in France. A universal taxpayer funded plan would cost half what we’re paying now. If you were to fund such a program by eliminating the cap on the medicare payroll tax and a progressive tax increase, 98% of American take home pay would go UP, because their increasing premiums and the reduction in wages associated with employer contributions and management expenses. When they say “How will you pay for this?” respond by saying the net effect will be a halving of costs.
2) US medical care, twice as expensive than the OECD is inferior to the OECD. By any objective measure you choose–people covered, infant mortality, unwanted pregnancy, life expectancy, obesity rates, diabetes rates–Americans receive worse health care than Europeans.
3) Rudy claimed recently, as others have, that the US has the best health care system in the world. He pointed out that Europeans fly to the US to be treated. Yes, that’s true. They fly here in private jets to go to the Mayo clinic.
What we have is a three tiered health care system. At St Anselm College yesterday we saw the top two tiers. On the stage were the people in the top tier–the people who get the care that Europeans and Saudis get when they fly over in private jets. Senators go to VIP section of Walter Reed, which has decidedly different conditions than the sections to which heroic American soldiers have been sent.
In the audience was the second tier–people with insurance through their employer or themselves (for the most part–some young people in the audience may be rolling the dice, dice that are loaded in their favor, if not society’s).
Back at the hotels and restaurants that the participants stayed at are the members of the third tier–people uninsured because they can’t afford it, who delay treatment until they’re in an emergency room.
One cannot call such a system “the greatest health care system in the world.” And it’s time to call bullshit on people who say so.
There’s no political risk in threatening American triumphalism by saying so. Everybody hates the current system. None of the participants are happy–premiums go up every year, copays go up every year, restrictions on treatment (made by insurance companies in contravention of doctor’s orders) lead to improper care, and valid claims are rejected. Doctors hate it. My PCP is in a two doc practice, and they need two full time admin staffers to handle the insurance paperwork. My brother’s a pediatrician in solo practice. The bane of his existence is getting paid for his work. Employers hate the system. The cost grows without apparent bounds. Administration gets more expensive.
This system is broken. Nothing will fix it except a single payer plan. The first politician that realizes that this is a powerful populist issue (okay, besides Kucinich) is going to benefit enormously.
Things to be cheerful about…tied in with this healthcare thread….
Report in the Journal CELL now being reported that CLL [chronic lymphocytic leukemia] genetic trigger switch has been found, which opens an entirely new pathway of treatment research.
Perhaps Fred Thompson’s “laziness” and short workdays are traceable to his CLL and cancer fatigue.
And Roll Call is reporting that Sen. Craig Thomas is in serious condition with infection during chemotherapy for his blood cancer.
Bush’s war on sicence and medical research is every bit as criminal as his war on our freedoms and civil rights. This is life and death that can strike any household.
We live with Mr. S’s CLL, determined to stay ahead of the dragon. Whatever our differences in politics, keeping caring thoughts for Sen. Thomas’ recovery.
A.Citizen — if you’re right, you need to get organized and make elected officials afraid of you and your friends (legally, please). I can tell you that in Massachusetts, the difference between the single-payer folks and the incrementalists is personal, temperamental, and organizational. The incrementalists knew how to organize and make coalitions; the single-payer folks didn’t and don’t.
Single-payer is a perfectly sensible way to go … although not the only way to do universal care. Netherlands has multi-payer. So does Germany, and others. They cover everyone — not without difficulty, but it’s universal.
dave @ 35
Thanks for letting us know.
These stupid half-measures will NOT even make a DENT in the health-care-problem. Obama’s plan is as awful as Ms. Clinton’s in 1993.
Let’s wait until Sicko has been out for a month and see if these make-the-insurance-companies-richer schemes are still treated seriously.
rwcole @ 37
Today I started driver ed and they talked about insurance and registration tags. Do you know that the whole reason for the tags is the tax you pay?
Excellent work, Charley! Now, can we get a piece about the threat to gay marriage in MA? We have less than two weeks to go to the ConCon!
Thanks again!
I suspect that a single payer plan is the answer as well- but if I were a candidate, I wouldn’t tip my hand on that at this stage- it would be like drawin a huge “kick me” sign on your back. Stay vague and announce the details AFTER you win.
i dunno…it’s like the immigration ‘compromise’, with everybody talking about how you only get to do reform about once a generation…
somehow “interim” becomes “permanent”, like entropically…
./
rwcole @ 45
Then people will say they weren’t honest and they just played politics.
Prarie
Thanks for the news on CLL- I’ve had it for twenty years!
jane hamsher @ 34
yeah, this place really falls apart when you post, Jane. :~)
jane hamsher @ 34
Ms Jane, if I may respectfully disagree to this extent: It is precisely BECAUSE of the quality and caliber of your posts that gives everyone else posting a standard to emulate and when lucky, exceed. Which is not an easy task for them to accomplish…
We need Universal, single-payer, country-wide health care.
Anything else misses the point, misses the mark.
Period.
47-freeking-million people without health care in this country.
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 47
I know, it’ll take at least 10 to 20 years to even get things going in a positive direction. Regulations in the health business move like molasses, while the insurances sprint ahead. Upping and lowering prices every 6 months. (premiums and copayments, drug prices, etc.)
I’d rather see more people insured and i’d want to see several consecutive admins work their way towards universal health care. True single payer health care. I’ve been without health insurance. It’s not fun in any way at below living wages. It’s no way to live. So i agree with you on that. It would likely end up permanent, instead of interim. *sighs* Because we know the insurance and big pharma are gonna fight tooth and nail the entire time.
I raised three daughters over a 29 year period, making between 25,000 -30,000 a year, have never asked anything from the state (ever). Have always paid my taxes, have been self employed yet could not afford health care. During those 29 years we never had any catastrophic events take place in our family. I am not bullshitting when I say that during those 29 years I spent less than $6ooo (thousand) during that time on yearly check ups, serious earaches etc. When I checked into catastrophic it would have been around $450.00 a month. I could not afford it.
I know of a woman who hid millions of dollars (sorry to say but she is a Republican) and claimed that her family (one child) and her husband were living off of what her husband ( a massage therapist) making under $15,ooo a year. Their whole family had full coverage by the state, and when she became ill the state paid for it. I would not be so lucky, because I was being honest about what I made and did not qualify for state insurance coverage for lower income. I can tell you many stories about people being honest and taken to the cleaners by our health care system.
The system now leaves a great deal of room for very abusive hanky panky.
We nedd CATASTROPHIC FOR EVERYONE. So that people do not have to spend their lives (if they survive) paying for a unforseen serious health event.
Our health care system is INSANE
Charlie, thanks for your work and welcome to the Lake.
As in California, the Mass plan appears to require citizens to purchase corporate plans.
I read what you described above about forcing the third party payers to cough up their secrets – and I read about the Govt plan for low-income Americans in Obama’s plan.
OK – so if Obama thinks the Govt is capable of adminstering health coverage, I agree with him – that’s what Medicare does with A and B, for pennies on the dollar compared to all private plans.
Why continue to include corporations that take 20-40% of health care dollars – yet themselves provide NO care – in the health care budget?
Why is Obama’s plan carrying these subsidies to insurance megacorps?
Why did Obama choose to support corporate profits at the expense of Americans’ health needs?
Or does think we have so much money for health care we can cover everyone and still give an extra 30% to the megacorps?
What I don’t get is – Obama didn’t start out demanding single payer. His first offer is a compromise from the start.
Where’s the Dem candidate who starts off with universal health care and open defiance of the insurance megacorps?
I guess I’m looking for a candidate who will directly confront the megacorps, rather than collaborate from the start of play.
I wish Obama’s health plan showed he had that capacity.
Until some Dem candidate can, the community health patients I see get shafted, and Big Insurance makes another quarterly profit goal.
Oh – speaking of Big Insurance? That VA drug plan Obama likes so much – the one he cited in the debate?
That plan provides drug benefits with NO corporate cut.
The Medicare D drug plan is a massive taxpayer subsidy to Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
Great for Obama for insisting that Medicare Part D have the same volume-based drug purchase discounts the VA enjoys.
But why leave in the Big Insurnace megacorps? They’re doing a shitty job (my patients have far more trouble with med access – to the same drugs – than before Part D…all becaus of the pvt drug benefit corps).
Obama knows the Govt can run a great health plan – he touted in the debate.
So why – the day after the debate – am I reading that his actual plan subsidizes the Insurance/Pharmacy Benefit megacorps?
Why won’t Obama stand up to Big Insurance, and offer solutions where all the dollars go for taxpayers?
Or did he lose sight of these concerns around the time he decided that “rich” starts at $200,000 – or maybe $250,000?
And why did Obama go find an Harvard econ adviser who lost the last fight – and seems to think health care is a market, not a service?
Jeebus, where does the DLC find these people?
Obama’s health plan is the political embodiment of the Maginot Line.
The cult of the free market postulates information allows ideal buyer choices.
Which is great – presuming the buyer understands all the choices.
In this case, the “buyers” are the same citizens with so little information about their own biology they are eating themselves into obesity.
I’m all for sharing all possible info about physician and hospital performance – and errors.
I hope that’s in any plan – but that’s not what I’m questioning.
For even my educated private practice patients, deciding among treatments for a given condition is bafflingly complex.
The “market” we’re being offered here isn’t the diagnostic result.
We don’t swap out a breast cancer diagnosis for high blood pressure and hyperthyroidism.
(I’m not suggesting even Obama and his adviser team beeive we can.)
The market is treatment – and acutely ill people generally can’t make their own treatment decisions.
When the buyers don’t know what to purchase, that’s a market?
For all the talk of America being a Christian nation, why do we keep offering human blood sacrifice to the market priests?
When do we get a Dem Prez candidate willing to smash Big Insurance’s sacrifcial altar?
Obviously, it won’t be Obama or Hillary.
Excellent post, Charley. Thanks for all the explanation.
Prairie Sunshine @ 40
The NYTimes a few weeks ago on a Sunday did a story about the oncologists recognizing the validity and impact of “chemo brain” and its long term effects. Probably all related impacts depending on the type and duration of chemo, radiation or other treatments.
With all due respect, it’s not up to the “rest of us”, it’s up to people like Obama to come up with simple plans that work. Single payor universal.
The simplest solution is just to extend Medicare to everyone.
Everyone is trying to be too fancy. Everyone who studies health care knows that the simplest solution is to cut out the health care companies of basic insurance (they can do top up or co-pay if they want.)
This isn’t rocket science. It isn’t necessary to reinvent anything. There are plenty of sample systems out there, which work far better than the US system and cost much less.
Yet the majority of these plans that are coming out are “pre-compromised”. They are all about getting the “special interests” onside. That’s a mistake, because anything that the health insurance companies can live with (like an individual mandate) is practically guaranteed to be far from the best solution.
Americans hate health insurance companies. They hate drug companies. These guys may have a ton of money, but they have no public support. The correct solution, the simple solution (though not the politically easy solution) is to just cut them out of basic insurance.
US politicians keep trying to triangulate situations like this. It’s time to stop. Do the right thing, cover everyone, and go to single payor. It’ll be cheaper, it’ll make America more competitive, and it is politically saleable.
If you have guts.
grayslady, in MA, the lowest-income folks not on welfare pay nothing, and there’s a sliding scale as you go up in income. Through this, the new law has already covered 120,000 people, essentially expanding Medicare. That is a really big deal — these folks used to rely on “free care”, usually provided by the ER, and now they have actual health insurance. Viva single-payer! Would that it would be expanded to everyone else.
So I hear a lot of clamoring for single-payer here. What are y’all going to do about it? Complain? Or make a movement? The other side has tanks and guns, and you’ve got pitchforks and torches. What’s the plan?
Is medicare better than what you get with the military?
punaise @ 50
Jane my 19 year old daughter and I are considering jumping in our car to come over to the trial. She is really wondering why people do more time for growing marijuana and robbing a corner store than Libby is even up for lying and obstructing the investigation of the outing of Plame.
I just think witnessing the sentencing and seeing all of the players live and up close would be such a good experience for her.(she goes to college in Colorado). How long do you think the sentencing will last. We have plenty of friends to stay with in the area, but I don’t want to do a six hour drive if the sentencing only takes an hour.
one of the reasons that Murkin kapitalism works is, as ol’ poppa Karl remarked, because a surplus of labor provides a cudgel with which kapital restrains wages. In this calculus, illness and death have become mere tools in the hands of the bosses. You don’t like the health-care? You can be replaced…y’all go over there and die, now, m-kay?
.
Charley on the MTA @ 59
so like me if you do not fall into the poverty area, are self employed and can not afford health insurance you are left out in the void.
SnarKassandra @ 60
At one time, coverage for active duty and dependent family members was about as good as you could get anywhere. Now, they’ve made so many changes, although it’s still relatively good, it’s not what it once was.
I can’t speak to the medicare coverage however. Other than not every doctor or hospital will take it.
dakine01 @ 63
In 4 yrs the only medical thing we have had to pay for me was the HPV injections. Everything else, even my ultrasound that they did twice, was all free.
medicare is OK as I understand it- there are limits to what it will pay- so some docs won’t take medicare patients. There are also various deductibles and co-pays that are eliminated by supplemental plans. All in all- people over 65 are in the best position of any of us medical care wise.
Thanks, Charlie, for a quality piece on a complex issue!
Our Country won’t be truly great until every American has health care.
We can put a man on teh Moon, but…
What does Obama’s plan say about people who lose their jobs (and hence their health insurance) because the get sick and are unable to work?
I know there’s COBRA, now, (it allows you to continue getting your health insurance after you leave a job or graduate from college), but the reality is that the premiums are much higher even than regular premiums; far out of the reach of someone who’s suddenly without a paycheck.
In 2006 (IIRC, it may have been 2005), more women filed for bankruptcy than graduated from college. Half of all bankruptcies are because of medical bills. Does Obama’s plan do anything to address people who face such bills, either due to loss of insurance or due to denied claims?
there is ample fraud in all of our medical system. Docs do things that may not be necessary and pass the costs on to the insurance companies or to medicare. No one is in a position to really monitor that kind of thing- they might not even DO what they bill for…
The simplest system is between a doc and a patient- the patient pays something every month for care- and a physician’s group agrees to provide the care- they contract with hospitals for other services and the docs keep the profits…they have to accept everybody.
Govt subsidizes those who can’t afford to pay.
Employers get out of the game and give people higher salaries to allow em to pay for their own insurance.
Yes Charlie, thank you for your work and your clear writing. I disagree with Obama’s plan, but I am delighted and grateful for your description of these issues.
Ian,
the only politicians we see with the kind of guts to propose Medicare for all are in the movies or teevee. Matt Santos, the Jimmy Smitts character in West Wing did just that. My guess is that people watching from their homes probably thought about that and cheered.
But that was fiction.
Biden made THE point last night in the debate.
The ONLY way things like this will change is if elections become federally funded. My guess is that he made the point because he’s having a hard time raising money himself. His credit card and pharma buddies are probably topped out already and the next couple of quarters will show him hurting. None the less, that is the answer to so many of the dilemmas we face in this country.
As long as the corporations own the candidates we will continue to get cobbled together rube goldberg plans—whether it is health care or the war doesn’t matter.
AllisonInSeattle @ 52
And the other (less mentioned) part of the equation is that for those that do (and for employers) the cost is a horrendous financial burden.
Read “The Moral Hazard Myth.” Read also “Overdo$ed America.”
Mostly hot air going still in the health care reform “debate.”
I’m going to do my part. I’m never going to the doctor again. All they do is make you wait three hours, then they tell you it’s a virus. Who needs it?
RevDeb @ 71
So much to do.
Why doesn’t someone suggest conservation as one of the solutions for the health care industry? If we all cut down a little on our health care, we’d get a lot more bang for our buck.
My “plan” is simple. I want Bush’s.
Platinum-plated, comprehensive, free, for the rest of my days, just like his.
;)
Bush and I are the same age. It galls me to no end to be lectured by this dumbass and his ilk that I have to learn to accept limits and make hard choices while I continue to fund his cushy retirement.
How is this going to work? What’s to keep the hospitals from creaming? –that is, accepting only the easy cases, referring off the difficult, complicated cases to someone else? As it is, the “private” hospitals always look better on success rates, etc. because they refuse high-risk cases and dump them on the public hospital ER services, which then look bad because their burdened with high-risk cases. Somehow, to make these kinds of comparisons work, you have to make the comparisons comparable (if that’s not redundant.)
Here’s one way to do it. This approach is currently being used by certain Grocery store comparisons– that is, you define a typical “shopping cart”, with a standard set of purchases, and then you shop the same set of services to all vendors. It will be vulnerable to some of the same problems as the grocery store “shopping cart” comparisons, but its a place to start, and maybe we can learn from the Grocery store example.
Or has Obama already anticipated all of this and built it in?
Bob in HI
RevDeb @ 71
gotta disagree a bit (would love to see federally funded elections)… even tyrants can be made to be responsive to the people…. it just takes a lot more people and a lot more effort (and risk – not infrequently it ends up in some people getting killed). i’m thinking the people power route of mass nonviolent movements.
we’ve got so much organizing to do…
RevDeb @ 71
Nah. That’s not true. Medicare for all has been suggested in the Senate by Kennedy and Dingall. I agree that full public funding of elections is necessary, however.
GeorgeSimian @ 76
Except that the majority of the costs to the system, if I understand correctly, come in the final six months of people’s lives.
People could cut back on the care they receive then, but only if it is discussed with them and their families beforehand. When there is a chance to think ahead of time about how many heroic measures they want to be taken on their behalf when they are in pain and within weeks or days or dying anyway. If doctors wait until a crisis to ask, people and their families almost always say to do whatever can be done, regardless of whether there is any hope of any recovery or conscious, non-excrutiating life again.
People not getting their annual physicals wouldn’t save much money… people letting death come when it is imminent anyway could. But it’s something doctors are only beginning to learn to broach with their patients.
One tool that would help is the computer system that the Mayo Clinic has been developing. If a doc plugs in symptoms and lab results- the system can advise on further tests and treatment- in effect it becomes a minimum standard for care- if a doc at least does those things- he’s practicing good medicine.
Could avoid tragic errors and lawsuits. Docs don’t like it though- makes medicine too mechanical they think.
OT (or maybe not) but the Paypal link is back up at The News Blog. Not only do they need money for funeral expenses, but remember that Steve spent several weeks in the ICU and isolation ward. The medical bill has got to be tremendous, and I doubt that he had much in the way of medical insurance or life insurance. Please give as much as you are able. Steve could have given up and gotten a job and blogged only weekends, but he continued to fiercely believe in himself and his work, and the price he paid was just this-no real money to draw on.
Carol
How do they intend to collect those medical expenses?
Point being that if Obama (or anyone else) want to call themselves brave, visionary, full of hope for the future – whatever, they need to show some leadership and guts. So far the only one of the frontrunners who’s shown any guts on anything is Edwards, by taking on the “War on Terror” frame and refusing to expand the military (which is the last thing America needs).
Mind you, I don’t like Edwards health care plan much either, but it’s better than Obama’s.
I don’t care what the Republicans are dishing out on this subject. We are not safer now than before George Bush took over. We are on the brink of a regional war in the Middle East. How does this make us safer?
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 27
The Bush administration has been re-defining success downward for the last 3 years. Next thing you know, the criterion for success will be “escaping from Iraq without getting killed.”
This is what happens when you fire all the generals who don’t agree with a crazystupid strategy.
Bob in HI
Obama? Give me a break!
Carol @ 83
So his friends have to pay instead of the govt or the insurance?
It annoys me to no end that the DLC players – and am assuming Obama is under their spell – continue to ignore Dr. Howard Dean’s knowledgeable and reality based calls for solving the uninsured Americans nightmare. He is a much more tolerant than this old ‘brat. Paging Dr. Dean – how I miss your spunk.
You know, Krugman said something pretty similar in his NYT editorial today. And he also omitted the key point that Obama made during the debate last night: universal coverage doesn’t work because some people won’t pay their share for it, and we can’t afford to give it away for free with no deductibles.
Bottom line is that Obama is the only Democrat who can win the consensus necessary to really move the ball on this issue. He’s the only one who can get it done. Hillary tried and failed. The right doesn’t trust Edwards, despite all his talk about honesty, which just makes him less credible IMHO.
Ian Welsh @ 80
Kennedy and Dingall would make sense. Kennedy chairing (or having been the ranking member) of Health, Education Labor and Pensions and beholden to no corporations—he has his seat as long as he wants it— and Dingall needing to make a statement to please the hurting auto industry which has been hugely struggling. But for all intents and purposes, those proposals were kabuki. There was no way that would go anywhere.
Thanks for reminding me though. And I still feel that this will never happen until campaigns are paid for with tax dollars.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 86
Not to mention that Putin’s not sounding too friendly.
Ian Welsh @ 85
or audacious?
newspaperbrat @ 90
second that.
Bob Schacht @ 78
I don’t think Obama specified exactly how the quality and cost data would be reported, but suffice to say that it’s not a simple matter, for all the reasons you suggest. And actually, part of it is just sample size: too few procedures of type X to do a meaningful comparison. However, Obama proposes reporting “preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care, and costs.” I’m assuming that those are somewhat easier to compile and report.
JD21 @ 91
Strangely enough, universal coverage works in every other Western country, producing better outcomes than the US in the vast majority of outcomes and costs much less (ie. yes, you can afford to give it to people who are poor, and yes, everyone who can pay will pay, since you’ll tax them.) Since Obama isn’t even suggesting universal health care (calling it that doesn’t make it that and as Charley points out, his plan doesn’t cover everyone, which is what universal means) he clearly won’t get it done.
The Democratic Party needs to get it’s act together on the Middle East.
O/T, but really sweet.
I find it delicious that the notorious Gitmo “Hamdan” case and one other were today tossed by a military judge, on the grounds that they had only been designated as “enemy combatants” — not “unlawful enemy combatants” — “unlawful” being the linchpin distinction germane to the unconstitutional POS “Military Commissions Act” we all so loudly protested last year to no avail.
UNLAWFUL, Commander Guy.
solai @ 93
Russia is the sleeping giant. ;0)
OT
Bad news for our favorite resident therapod. The BBC reporting that “T-rex was slow-turning plodder.” Not the T-Rex that we know!
Oh dear. Here I am being un-American again. I support socialized medicine.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 102
Me too, Comrade.
Ok, enough commenting for me, this topic makes me cranky. Later ‘pups, and I honestly hope that the cynics (often including myself) are wrong and that whoever gets elected gets it done. I lost an American friend who would probably have lived if he was insured a while back, and an acquaintance I greatly respected recently. The inhumanity of the current US system really does make me see red. My friend won’t be coming back, and everyone else who dies needlessly because politicians haven’t the guts to fix the system when the majority of Americans want universal care and are willing to pay to have it, is another death that I lay at their feet.
I strongly believe that our President is in need of medical treatment. This is one sick boy.
Confession. I have not read any of the comments, so take it or leave it as to whether should comment. For what it is worth here goes.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING should be settled for, negotiated, or compromised short of Universal Health Care!
If the rest of the developed world, and most of the undeveloped world in one form or another have it, I want it too. I want it for all Americans. There is absolutely no reason short of political posturing, insurance companies, and K street lobbying that all Americans do not have universal health care today. The time has arrived. It is shameful, even embarassing, that we do not have it.
And there is a very good reason that I am asking for it.
Simply said, I will get something in return for the taxes that I pay. That should’nt be that hard of a sell.
You get what you pay for. I want universal health care. At least, I will have something to show for my money.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 105
He’s not MY president. I refuse to go there.
OK.
That was my exact point. That Sen. Clinton would push that line is pretty appalling to me. Safer? Turkey is ready to head into Iraq. Iran is building a nuclear program no matter how hard Bush blusters. Afghanistan and Pakistan just had some cross border spats. Lebanon is ready to get back into civil war. The Israelis are gearing up for another confrontation with Hezbollah. Syria and Iran have a mutual defense pact. China is shooting down satellites and expanding their military…Russia is talking like it is 1977 again.
Heckuva job.
The world is so much more safe Sen. Clinton.
-GSD
caia @ 81
My mother was on oxygen full time for the last year of her life in a nursing home. She had been disabled for a dozen years due to a myriad of lung problems but she, in cosultation with my dad, had decided long before the end period that no heroic measures.
After she died, my dad made the same declaration to my sister and me and we have both made the same pledge. I sometimes think the heroic efforts is almost an ego thing with some doctors. Granted, in some situations I want a doctor with a strong ego. But not to the extent that I’m left in a Terry Schiavo situation because his ego can’t stand it…
RevDeb @ 107
send him to the doctor anyway. it will be better for all of us
RevDeb @ 101
Different TRex. That one is in the creation museum.
Scarecrow @ 111
playing with Adam and Eve.
Scarecrow @ 111
707!!!
rwcole @ 82
Maybe for some doctors it would be too mechanical. There are a lot of mediocre (that’s my euphemism) doctors who assume you must have what the last 100 people in your demographic that he has seen had. And never bother to listen to figure out what is really wrong. It seems to me this system would help in some cases, but would also make it take even longer for those patients who do not have the most obvious ailments to get treated properly, encourage doctors in a statistical approach which is, ironically, a pretty unscientific way to diagonse.
The audacity of the Republicans is unceaseless. Their corrupt leaders can stay and stay and stay. But one Democrat comes under the gun and they are firing away.
I say the Democrats should point out Boehner’s abject racism in calling for Jefferson’s expuslion.
Boehner didn’t call for Bob Ney’s expulsion.
-GSD
RevDeb @ 95
Dr. Dean was fun to support. I don’t get any sense of that now. He was so outspoken and decent.
Parsley Sage @ 114
Read Jerome Groopman’s “How Doctors Think.” Very illuminating (scarily so).
kirk murphy @55 says:
it all!
sorry this got delayed when the guy fixin my fish pond showed me where the patch went…
rwcole @ 84
If he has any sort of estate, they may still try to collect. Believe me, they will try to collect something-anything from the next of kin.
Obama’s plan strikes me as awfully complicated.
I would think that most employers – except in the insurance industry – would welcome a single-payer universal health care system. As it is, they are bearing a lot of the costs for health care, and it affects their competitiveness and profits. And don’t these employers make political contributions too?
GSD @ 115
Frankly I wish Rep. Pelosi would stop fronting for Jefferson. He should resign for the good of the order. Yes, he’s not guilty until proven so, but a couple of his staffers have flipped on him. It’s time for him to go. We can’t tolerate corruption. Let that be the repig. brand. They do it so well.
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 118
Is that anything like wondering where the yellow went when ya brush your teeth with pep-si-dent?
(sorry! as he ducks)
GSD @ 115
Sadly, the Democrats are not organized enough to follow your excellent suggestion. They are handed opportunities and simply waste them.
My caveat on Jefferson wasn’t posted, but it was my wish that he hadn’t run for re-election. He should do his best to help the Democrats by stepping down poste-haste instead of being a another corrupt asswipe who doesn’t know when to quit.
The Republican spin machine will now call all things equal and the charges against Jefferson are now equal to Ney, Cunningham, Burns, Abramoff, Dave Safavian, Claude Allen, Scooter Libby and Gonzales. Besides all of the Republicans were framed or railroaded or just plain victims.
-GSD
Thanks. Have read some, then got annoyed since after all my experiences I (unfortunately) KNOW how they think.
BobbyG @ 117
Get rid of Jefferson!
Holy Schnitzel.
Pooty Poot must have stolen some of Chimpy’s Delusion Pills.
“MOSCOW – President
Vladimir Putin called himself the world’s only “absolute and pure democrat” in an interview published Monday, and launched scathing attacks on the U.S. and Europe ahead of this week’s Group of Eight summit.”
Put down the Stoly Vlad.
-GSD
Cheney is pumping his soft and oily ham-sized fist in the air yelling ‘The cold war is back on!’
When I hear the FIRST phreakin speech about DELIVERY OF CARE TO ALL CITIZENS, when I hear the FIRST word about DELIVERY OF CARE, then I’ll pay attention.
So far, every kook plan is about COVERAGE!!!
That means profit, and insurance, and capitalism. Mainstream corporate rapage and pillage of the masses.
Screw that, show me health CARE, not coverage.
And make it free, for everyone (ostentiably).
Pure fuckery at this point. All of it.
Harumph.
I want my party to take responsibility for their screwups.
What repubs are now serving that we expect (or at least hope) to be indicted at some point?
Ted Stevens would be nice. Jerry Lewis. Anyone else?
SnarKassandra @ 3
BINGO!!!!
N there’s the rub. No work, no coverage.
Simple brilliancy. Well done.
Sorry if I intruded on the intent of yer post. It’s just pure spot on in asking one of THE questions.
Not coverage, WE WANT CARE!!! ACCESS, UNFETTERED, TO CARE!!!!!
Dental, medical, eyecare, ear care, yadda yadda.
GIVE US CARE!
As Iris Dement says: WE WANT HEALTHCARE NOW!!!!
She don’t say COVERAGE! CARE!
Can I get a MYDD amen!
-GSD
dakine01 @ 6
Ya MOHN!!! (smile)
New thread!!!
BobbyG @ 103
I’m for it. Before he died (in the U.S.), over a 15 year period, he had 80 (full anesthesia) procedures (cystoscopies) for bladder cancer and kidney cancer) 100% paid for by the Norwegian government. When my mother was gradually succoming (over a 7-year period) to demencia, she was covered 100% by the Norwegian government, in the United States.
If, I, as a U.S. citizen, were to be stricken today, I would have to just ride it out and die without significant treatment, because I do not have health insurance. That is a fact. I live with that fear every day with everyone else that has no insurance.
SnarKassandra @ 65
Who paid for it? Did you have some insurance coverage? Or did you throw yourselves on the mercy of the ER system?
The ER system of this country is the de facto payor of last resort, and that is one of the reasons our health care system costs so much: ER is an expensive way to pay for treatment. Besides, people wait too long to get treatment, so that when they finally do come to ER, their problems are much more serious. An ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure.
One of the problems is that young adults generally need the least care, and older adults need the most. Decades ago, Colorado Governor Dick Lam thought through all these issues and came to the conclusion that we spend far too much on the last month of life, which robs us of the resources to invest in people who are still productive. His book, The Brave New World of Health Care (2003), was a criticism of current United States health care policies and proposals for reforming them. (Fulcrum Publishing, ISBN 1-55591-510-8) His ideas can be controversial, but he digs deep into the issues. His book has been reviewed by some heavyweights, such as Sen. Gary Hart, Michael Dukakis, and Tom Brokaw. There may be no more thoughtful book on our healthcare system than this one.
Bob in HI
Oklahoma kiddo @ 126
Wasn’t this story out before his last election? At least the 90K cash found in freezer, meme, must have made the local news and they reelected him with a clear message that they stand by him at least until a guilty verdict. I don’t like it either but I think its the voters choice which I feel compelled to stand behind, through a trial. I understand why his constituents did so, even if I disagree.
Didn’t the Speaker withhold him from chairing committees?
bin—fucking—GO!
Re: my post at 135,
We’ve been experiencing zero computer server today due to extreme weather last night….I am referring to my parents.
Indicted, Jefferson should be stripped of all his leadership perqs forthwith.
he should not be perceived to be allowed to use his congressional privileges to shield himself, the way Ney and DeLay, among others, have…
.
Charley — that NYT article about Cutler is excellent background. Still reading. Thanks for the link.
Bob Schacht @ 136
I’m unemployed and have no insurance. About a year and a half ago, a couple of weeks before Christmas on a Saturday morning, I sliced my hand opening a can of cat food. I bled for a bit and finally got a gauze pad on it tight enough to stop the immediate bleeding. I drove to the emergency room as I knew I needed stitches. I got in there quick (7AM). I received a tetanus shot and the doctor came and looked and put in the stitches. I paid $300 to walk out the door. I later received a further bill from the hospital for another $700 and a separate bill from the doctor for $600. I contested part of the hospital bill as they attempted to charge me for pain killers which I never received.
Bottomline was for that little visit, I paid $1400 total to receive four stitches and a tetanus shot. I acutlly spent anothe $120 on doctor visits to my local GP for reveiw of the stitches and the removal. I wish I had sliced the hand during normal business hours as it would have been far cheaper but those things don’t happen during normal business hours.
I still have the cat. He’s lucky I love him enough to put up with him like that. :})
I want Universal Health Care. Virtually every country in the developed world has it, and many countries in the “undeveloped world” like Cuba and Iraq.
It is embarassing that the US does not have it. Do not compromise whether it be with insurance companies, K street, or politics.
I want something for the taxes I pay. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, better or more visible than giving health care as a return on your tax investment. Higher taxes with free healthcare should be an easy sell.
Give me something for my money. IMHO, people will buy.
Harry and Louise, have long gone into to wild blue yonder of being able to choose their own doctors, or healthcare facility. What a novelty. That is sooooo passe.
GeorgeSimian @ 74
You’ve been lucky so far. Pray that you don’t ever get gall stones. Or diabetes. Or cancer. Or that you don’t ever have a traffic accident that busts you up into pieces that a good ER can sew back together. Or a host of other debilitating maladies that can be treated so that you can lead an otherwise normal life, but leave you crippled if you don’t get that treatment. The disability community has a word for people like you: you are one of the “temporarily abled.”
If it weren’t for our medical system, I’d have died many years ago. In fact, I must be a cat, maybe on my 4th or 5th life. Just for starters, I’ve had open heart surgery twice in my life. Do you know how expensive that is? They can do incredible things, but it costs a bundle. If I hadn’t had insurance, or the Mother I had who insisted on treatment, I probably would not have gotten the surgeries I needed. But thanks to those Doctors and surgeons, and my Mother, I can lead a pretty normal life. I give thanks for all of them, and the nurses, too. I skate on thin ice, however, supported and guided by half a dozen prescription medications that need periodic calibration. Without them, I’d probably die within a year or so.
You may live to regret your contempt for doctors. Or maybe not.
Bob in HI
caia @ 81
Yes. This is a point Gov. Dick Lamm of Colorado, a 3-term Democrat, made 20-30 years ago.
Good points!
Bob in HI
newspaperbrat @ 90
What are Dean’s proposals? I should know, but can’t remember. Linky, please?
Bob in HI
Great responses, everyone; really awesome.
I think there are clear conclusions for our Prez candidates: Wonkery is great, catchphrases are fine (”affordable, accessible” blah blah blah), and with those you might get folks to listen to you and take you seriously.
But what people really want to know is Can I get the care I need when I’m sick? If the answer is “Yes, definitely, always” … you can get people’s loyalty. Policy-wonk talk that fills in and elaborates on that general principle creates trust and loyalty; wonk-talk that rationalizes shortcomings creates distrust. And I might suggest that at this stage in the game, you might need more loyalty than just respect. I respect all kinds of folks, but really, I want a candidate for whom I’d take a bullet.
Eureka Springs @ 137
He had not at that point been indicted for anything. What was out was the report of the 90K in the freezer. Today he was indicted on something like 16 counts including soliciting bribes, obstruction, money laundering, and conspiracy. It is no longer about what the voters want. As someone said earlier, the repigs will use this to even the score—the dems are just as corrupt—even though they have Ney, Delay, Safavian, Abramoff, etc.
He should step down.
Rev Deb, Yes, he should step down. amen to that..)
Charley on the MTA @ 147
And those kinds of candidates are hard to find. By the time they go through the food processor that is our election system, they are so thoroughly ground up that little of substance is left.
Charley, When you find one for whom you’d take a bullet, will you let us know who it is please?
GSD @ 132
AMEN!
Did you have a particular post in mind?
Bob in HI
MyDD Diary
One thing that might be necessary is regulating insurance companies in the way that many public utilities are regulated: a maximum allowable profit and rates that have to be approved by the regulators (after public hearings). It isn’t a perfect system, but it’s worked for a lot of years.
One last point, “the last six months of your life” sometimes isn’t obvious. My father’s been in his last six months at least twice now. I suspect the next time will be the last, but who knows…?
dakine01 @ 109
Exactly. I think it’s partly because doctors see death as failure – which, in some ways, we want them to. But it’s also where we all end up, so it makes sense to talk about it, and before emotions are running high in an emergency.
Bob Schacht @ 145
I didn’t know that. You’d think with all the talk we hear in the media about “skyrocketing health care costs,” it would get mentioned more often. But I suppose they don’t go there for fear of being thought to be suggesting limiting old people’s care.
I can’t really take credit for them – I got them from talking with the doctor in my family. On the bright side, count her one doctor who is aware of these issues.
Ian Welsh @ 153
True.
And this could be the last six months of any of our lives, for all we know.
A good start, the problem is, of course, that private insurance will always have a profit margin. While I’m a good old American capitalist who enjoys profits on my investments, there’s something about an unnecessary middle man on health care that just bothers me. Doctors should be paid well. They go to school for a long time and are (usually) intelligent and hardworking. I understand why health care is expensive (although some costs could be significantly), but the frickin insurance is just a 10% tax on top of an already expensive product.
As for the post: “if Obama’s elected, you can expect there to be major special-interest pushback on this one, and calls to shunt more of the burden onto individuals. ‘Cause, like, we don’t have as many expensive lobbyists.”
Hopefully he keeps refusing money from lobbyists and PACs and maybe, just maybe we’ll have a president who isn’t so beholden to special interests (Congress is another matter). It sounds like a pipe dream, but what if…
Q: Won’t healthcare raise taxes?
A: Iraq is the biggest tax increase in American history.
Just putting everyone on Medicare is way too simplistic. Medicare does not cover everything and esp. hospital inpatient stays. Last time I looked a hospital confinement would cost you over $874 deductible out of pocket.
doctor’s charges were $100 deduct, 20% co-insurance last time I looked so fairly decent.
You would have to pay for Medicare AND a supplemental policy to pay anything that Medicare doesn’t pay. Supplemental policies also don’t cover anything that is not also covered by Medicare.
There is no vision care or dental coverage on Medicare either.
We just plain need universal health care that covers every living American. To get it at a decent price you are first going to have to have federally funded (taxpayer paid) elections so politicians aren’t beholden to corporations & their lobbyist. Otherwise it will just be made up of another gift to the insurance & drug companies.
Health coverage must also be unlinked from employment so that everyone can have it. That means employers (particularly small employers) should be willing to join with individuals in this fight against corporate interference in our health care.
Why aren’t we looking to France as the model for health care coverage. It is my understanding they are the best in the world, not Canada or the UK.
K Ols @ 158
France’s system has co-pay, actually, usually 20%. For that you can buy co-pay private insurance. Medicare is closer to the French system than it is to the Canadian system (the UK system is about the worst of all universal systems, though still better than the US). In the Canadian system there is no co-pay. I go to the Dr. give my card and pay nothing. There’s no drug coverage (except in the hospital, in which case you’re covered) and no dental.
Those holes aside most Canadians never pay a cent when they go to the hospital or Dr. – they just get the care they need.
However, I agree that Medicare by itself probably isn’t enough. Still, it is by far and away the simplest thing to just extend it to everyone, then add inpatient to it. That’s so much simpler than any of these other plans that there’s no comparison. I mean, I’ve read many of these plans, and I’m a wonk, and they strike /me/ as complicated.
Complicated isn’t necessary.
RevDeb @ 107
Until the unspeakable faux Texan vacates the WH rest assured the real President Gore and soon to be Nobel Prize winner is in the wings. Accept no substitute/s.
BobbyG @ 99
Hmmm. If they weren’t ‘unlawful’, does that mean they were ‘lawful’? And, if they were lawful, does that mean WE had to be doing something unlawful?
I hope they toss out the Padilla case too.
The courts should really toss Bush out, but that’s a little too much to expect — especially considering how many Far Right judges there are.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 102
It raises important questions about our economic system. What is it about the medical system which fails in the normal free trade economic model? Second, what adjustments or regulations would be needed to fix the problem or what model would be needed, apart from a Socialized health care system, for health care to be delivered in a frugal timely way?
I would like to make one comment on this passage – “…..the so-called “personal mandate”: Thou shalt insure thyself. But this was a political solution — a way to keep the special interests at the table, by shunting most of the responsibility onto individuals.” I think individual responsibility and social needs go hand in hand here. When everyone is insured, group health goes up. People go for regular health checkups, teeth cleaning, eye check ups. Babies and mothers are healthier, earlier. This makes the whole population healthier and increases the value for the whole population. I live in a country where insur is mandatory. I pay $200/mo for zero deductible full coverage. If I can’t afford it, the government will pay it for me. So I fully support mandatory coverage. Let’s not reflexively see it as a bad thing, I’m just sayin’.
(You should see the homeless people here- healthy and hale as can be!)
A universal coverage plan for me would be paid for by tax payers and would be modelled after a European system. It would be a safety net and part of comprehensive plan to make sure people don’t fall through the cracks in the system, including a reversal of the so-called welfare reform.
Charley, I know you wouldn’t want to mislead anyone by leaving out the facts, such as the fact that the Massachusetts incrementalist “advocacy” groups take hundreds of thousands of dollars$$ in “funding” from the insurance and hospital chain industries. Hush money, some would call it. This fact goes way way beyond the differences you so blythley list (see comment below).
Readers, don’t take my word for it, the legal filings in the MA Attorney General’s office will share it all with you (as they did with me last year when I went down there). One such example, the group “Health Care For All MA” took $200,000 from the insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield and onother $50k or so from the HMO Harvard Pilgram (that has recently merged with UnitedHealth HMO), and that was back in 2004.
Makes you wonder what “Health Care For All’s MA” booty was last year, and this year?!!! (those sums are small but add up to HCFA’s annual budget being over $2Million in 2004, and the state’s single payer group was able to raise, how much?? Not nearly that much. I wonder why…
So please don’t simplify the realities of what’s going on in Massachusetts, including how hard the health care justice activists –including single payer advocates– are working to speak truth to power and how that work is all too often ignored, sometimes willfully, even by “the progressive community”.
And yes, temperment can get a bit prickly when dishonesty is tacitly accepted and when it results in the current healthcare mess that kills people and bankrupts many more.
Charley on the MTA @ 41
Charley on the MTA @ 59
“The plan” is HR 676 in Congress, to expand and improve Medicare to cover everyone with comprehensive benefits. And state-level plans exist in many states also. Here in Massachusetts our version of a single payer financed univ. coverage for Mass. is the “Mass. Health Care Trust” bill which has been re-filed every session for the last 10 years.
Find out more on both at
http://www.MedicareForAll.net
and
http://www.MassCare.org/legislation
btw the Massachusetts Mandate Mess faux reform plan is not working as well as the above comment might lead one to believe. In fact, there is no way this plan can actually work because it does NEXT TO NOTHING TO CONTROL COSTS.
It was created largely by the health insurance industry in the state and the industry’s “influence” over our politicians (read “control of our political process”).
I think Charley meant to say the plan expands Medicaid (not Medicare) but it doesn’t simply do that, or else it would have just expanded Medicaid eligibility coverage and it did not!
What it did do is created an entirely new layer of healthcare bureaucracy called the “Connector”, funded with $25Mil in taxpayer funds in just the first year, to force people to purchase PRIVATE INSURANCE PRODUCTS.
It also forces taxpayers to funnel more money in those same industry coffers. The “new people covered”, including the ones that are fully taxpayer subsidized, are covered under private insurance products.
There are no gov’t standards for how the industry spends those funds.
The Exec Director of the non-profit group Community Partners in Amherst MA explains why the prospects for this law working well don’t look so good:
From Michael Dechiara at Community Partners:
“the easy part has been achieved. As of April 3, 2007, 62,979 people were enrolled in Commonwealth Care. Sounds reasonable BUT of these…
52,528 (83% of total enrolled)- are in Plan Type 1 meaning they pay nothing. More importantly, 44,948 of these people were auto-enrolled from the Uncompensated Pool meaning enrollment only required flipping a computer switch.
The remaining 10,451 (17% of total enrolled)did pay premiums but most of these, 8,260 people, had the lower, mostly subsidized premiums of $18-$57/mo.
Most importantly, of the entire 62,979, ONLY 2,191 people enrolled on their own initiative paying the higher premiums of between $70 – $134/mo. This is 3% of the total enrolled. Sorta low in my opinion.
of the remaining 82,000 eligible for Commonwealth Care, most will be harder to enroll. They will need to pay higher premiums or are not immediately inclined to enroll. And getting the word out and convincing people about Commonwealth Choice – folks with UNsubsidized health coverage – they might be even harder to convince.