Questions about health care and then some
Before we get too wrapped up in the shame of it all, or whether the President was telling the truth or not when he was called a liar, may I just ask why a person who needs medical care should be denied it and permitted to suffer or maybe die because he is an "illegal immigrant"?
Ah, never mind. We are too mean, and self-centered a nation to worry about others these days, I suppose, or to do something just because it is the right thing to do.
The President, we are told, needs to explain to the millions who have medical insurance and "like it" why these reform are necessary. Morning Joe tells me this every day: "I got news for you, Mr. President, most people have health insurance and they like what they have." End of story.
Some of us are about to enter a period of introspection as the New Year of our faith commences. Many of us will hear sermons about our obligations to our fellow man. Things like this:
So, no, the system in place now is unfair and frightening. To me, and, by all rights and reason, to my neighbor.
That is what Senator Kennedy was telling us, through our President, and what he told us and the Pope, through Cardinal McCarrick. It is our moral obligation to do something about this, if we can. As the President reminded us, we have risen to the occasion in our past, in the deepest of the Depression and in the aftermath of the murder of our beloved President Kennedy, but we have to do it now without either event screaming at us, because we can.
But just repeating popular mantras won't do the trick. Yes, everyone is for affordable health care and insurance. Yes, we don't want people to be denied coverage because of "pre-existing illness or conditions" nor do we want people to lose their insurance because they got sick, or laid off.
But, ladies and gentleman, nobody wants to say this clearly and unequivocally, but THESE THINGS COST MONEY. Congress can pass a bill, "reforming" the insurance industry and require them to insure people who will have larger medical bills than most, but that will not make rates go down or become more affordable.
Public plans which tell medical professionals that they will be paid only a fraction of what they can be paid by other plans will fail, because medical professionals will not accept patients covered by that plan. And, I am sorry, Mr. President, costs will not be reduced by "eliminating fraud and waste."
Costs will be reduced by only one thing. Competitive pressure or a single source of medical insurance which mandates what doctors can get unless the patient is footing the entire bill themself. (This is what some people who do not speak English call the "single payer" system.)
So, if we cannot have the latter system (called "Medicaid for all" for many years) because it suggests a Soviet takeover of our government (or whatever the stupid excuse is today), then there needs to be a reason for insurance companies and doctors to keep the amount they want to take from sick people, or from those who insure sick people, to a reasonable figure.
That, Republicans have taught me, is called competition. The vaunted free market has not brought us this competition for a variety of reasons. Hence, the government has to do this. Period.
I agree with the President on this point. If someone has a better idea (and not the unregulated free for all that would come from allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines) we should all be willing to listen to it. If it turns out that is a better idea, or even if it might be a better idea, then let's do that.
Or, let's create a government backed insurance company which is not trying to make money and does not need to advertise or have ballparks named after it, compete with all the greed and selfishness that is out there today.
Pick one. Let's do it.
Now.
Ah, never mind. We are too mean, and self-centered a nation to worry about others these days, I suppose, or to do something just because it is the right thing to do.
The President, we are told, needs to explain to the millions who have medical insurance and "like it" why these reform are necessary. Morning Joe tells me this every day: "I got news for you, Mr. President, most people have health insurance and they like what they have." End of story.
Some of us are about to enter a period of introspection as the New Year of our faith commences. Many of us will hear sermons about our obligations to our fellow man. Things like this:
Do we believe that we are behaving well, as individuals and as a society? Would we, without qualification, proclaim that we have done our very best to raise up those who are trapped in an economic circumstances and a social environment which destines a group of citizens to poverty and suffering?
As in personal behavior, so in public policy, we should apply a moral standard which compels us to take a measure of how we are doing. For the Jew, it is not sufficient to obey commandments. Ultimately, the measure proclaimed in the Torah and by which we measure ourselves on Yom Kippur when we stand together and alone before God, is 'Are we living and behaving with holiness as the plumb line in our lives? Are we morally straight in our own eyes and before God?'
We have much work to do together
So, no, the system in place now is unfair and frightening. To me, and, by all rights and reason, to my neighbor.
That is what Senator Kennedy was telling us, through our President, and what he told us and the Pope, through Cardinal McCarrick. It is our moral obligation to do something about this, if we can. As the President reminded us, we have risen to the occasion in our past, in the deepest of the Depression and in the aftermath of the murder of our beloved President Kennedy, but we have to do it now without either event screaming at us, because we can.
But just repeating popular mantras won't do the trick. Yes, everyone is for affordable health care and insurance. Yes, we don't want people to be denied coverage because of "pre-existing illness or conditions" nor do we want people to lose their insurance because they got sick, or laid off.
But, ladies and gentleman, nobody wants to say this clearly and unequivocally, but THESE THINGS COST MONEY. Congress can pass a bill, "reforming" the insurance industry and require them to insure people who will have larger medical bills than most, but that will not make rates go down or become more affordable.
Public plans which tell medical professionals that they will be paid only a fraction of what they can be paid by other plans will fail, because medical professionals will not accept patients covered by that plan. And, I am sorry, Mr. President, costs will not be reduced by "eliminating fraud and waste."
Costs will be reduced by only one thing. Competitive pressure or a single source of medical insurance which mandates what doctors can get unless the patient is footing the entire bill themself. (This is what some people who do not speak English call the "single payer" system.)
So, if we cannot have the latter system (called "Medicaid for all" for many years) because it suggests a Soviet takeover of our government (or whatever the stupid excuse is today), then there needs to be a reason for insurance companies and doctors to keep the amount they want to take from sick people, or from those who insure sick people, to a reasonable figure.
That, Republicans have taught me, is called competition. The vaunted free market has not brought us this competition for a variety of reasons. Hence, the government has to do this. Period.
I agree with the President on this point. If someone has a better idea (and not the unregulated free for all that would come from allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines) we should all be willing to listen to it. If it turns out that is a better idea, or even if it might be a better idea, then let's do that.
Or, let's create a government backed insurance company which is not trying to make money and does not need to advertise or have ballparks named after it, compete with all the greed and selfishness that is out there today.
Pick one. Let's do it.
Now.
Advertisement
barth,
Would appreciate if you would clarify:
I believe your post to state that yes, we need a single payer program/process - but one that includes coverage for everyone, without limits (legal status, etc.). Any other option will not provide any substantive 'reform' (improvement).
Please advise if this is accurate. (Need to be sure I'm addressing post basis before I comment further.)
Thanks.
September 12, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is my preference and I think the right thing to do. It won't happen, of course, at least not now. Too much money in the hands of too many insurance companies who can buy friends and commercials with ease.
I am for the best thing we can enact. If there is a way to keep costs from just rising indiscriminately without a "public option" (I hate that phrase and prefer "expanded Medicaid") then fine. I don't think there is one, but what do I know?
But, yes, dickday, this "illegal immigrant" thing just grabs at me. They are "illegal" because we have laws against them becoming citizens, not because they are inherently bad people.
And, y'know, Emma Lazarus sort of captures my views on this a lot better than some jerkwater Congressman from North Carolina
September 12, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This racist mean attitude expressed by fathead dobbs and others in five thousand dollar suits against immigrants is just incredible.
What happens when the the plague arrives because a family was not adequately diagnosed with some terrible disease?
Yeah, Auntie asks which plan you are for. Frankly I am not sure either at this point. Except I want a public option, loosen the age requirements for Medicare...
This is getting so bad that we are going to need some 'barcode' procedure in place so that everyone can prove they are a citizen.
September 12, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've posted extensively elsewhere on the basics of healthcare reform, and won't repeat that here. Rather, I have a single point to make, reinforcing barth's insistence that we have a moral obligation to care for the sick, regardless of their immigration legitimacy.
It's easy to deny illegal immigrants care as long as they are an abstraction. However, I'm not enough of a cynic to think that most Americans would deny that care to identifiable individuals.
Here's an example of identifiable individuals whom we feel morally obligated to treat when sick. If a convicted felon - murderer, rapist, armed robber, or child molester falls ill in prison, he or she goes to the prison hospital (or other facility) and is treated. We, the people, pay for that through our tax dollars. When healthcare reform obstructionists start demanding that these prisoners should be allowed to suffer and die, their wish to deny care to the illegals will then have the ring of consistency. The public can then judge whether that type of consistent dehumanization of those we disapprove of is the kind of society we want America to embrace, and I expect we'll come to the right conclusions.
September 12, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. I am going to look for your other posts on the subject.
September 12, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry I missed this when it was up on the board barth. Excellent post.
September 13, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink