« Amended: Gay Relationships Apparently DO Threaten Straight Families | Kirsten's Blog | Investigative Journalism at Work »
One more from the Healthcare Travesty Files
Hear hear, Dan Savage.
Dan points us to an NYT article that tells a story almost tragicomic in its absurdity. It disgusts me that this is even the kind of situation we are talking about. This. Should. Never. Happen.
I really despise the liberals-are-already-disappointed-in-Obama meme, as I think it's a) generally untrue, and b) some slick maneuvering on the part of the right in order to frame America as a center-right nation and to frame liberal America as fractured and whiny. (And god knows there are just enough progressives out there who fit the description to give them a soundbyte or two!) But I will be sorely and loudly disapponted if Obama does not give us a functioning single-payer healthcare system in the first two years of his presidency. We have had enough.
My family went through a situation analagous to the one described in the NYT article when my father retired. His company did not pay for retirees' healthcare, and as my parents were in the process of switching insurances, my mother discovered a lump in her breast. The story is long, but needless to say nightmares ensued, and it began to feel like the cancer diagnosis was the least of mom's problems. My parents are the lucky ones -- they had the spare time to fight the battle, and eventually achieved some modicum of victory over the system. And they weren't forced to go into debt to pay medical bills in the meantime. But you shouldn't have to be lucky, or retired, or have a nest egg, in order to coerce your medical insurance into paying for your cancer treatment.
Dan said it best: This doesn't happen in sane countries.
Dan points us to an NYT article that tells a story almost tragicomic in its absurdity. It disgusts me that this is even the kind of situation we are talking about. This. Should. Never. Happen.
I really despise the liberals-are-already-disappointed-in-Obama meme, as I think it's a) generally untrue, and b) some slick maneuvering on the part of the right in order to frame America as a center-right nation and to frame liberal America as fractured and whiny. (And god knows there are just enough progressives out there who fit the description to give them a soundbyte or two!) But I will be sorely and loudly disapponted if Obama does not give us a functioning single-payer healthcare system in the first two years of his presidency. We have had enough.
My family went through a situation analagous to the one described in the NYT article when my father retired. His company did not pay for retirees' healthcare, and as my parents were in the process of switching insurances, my mother discovered a lump in her breast. The story is long, but needless to say nightmares ensued, and it began to feel like the cancer diagnosis was the least of mom's problems. My parents are the lucky ones -- they had the spare time to fight the battle, and eventually achieved some modicum of victory over the system. And they weren't forced to go into debt to pay medical bills in the meantime. But you shouldn't have to be lucky, or retired, or have a nest egg, in order to coerce your medical insurance into paying for your cancer treatment.
Dan said it best: This doesn't happen in sane countries.
Advertisement
Even with health insurance, the amount of money the insurance doesn't pay can add up pretty damn quickly.
I had pretty good insurance back in 2003 when my child became ill and needed an emergency room. According to the terms of my health insuranc that visit, and the ambulance and tests were "covered." But only up to a point. the hospital, doctors, and ambulance service all charged more than my insurance was willing to pay, so I found myself looking at $3,500 in unpaid bills, as well as a $750 a month charge for medication to keep the child well. We couldn't afford the prescription plan.
Elizabeth Warren did a blog a few years back that said most families declaring bankruptcy did so due to medical bills. As little as $3,500 could put them over the edge as it did with us, although we are just hanging on, and are managing to not go for that protection.
Maybe we're stupid.
My point is that even having Medical insurance is no guarantee against financial hardship due to illness.
You're right that it's insane. I agree that this is a problem that needs fixing yesterday. Thanks for blogging on it.
December 9, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insane. Yes. Drives everyone nuts - providers and patients alike. Employers too.
For some reason Americans are easily frightened. Tell them a sane policy is "socialism," and they'll run from it. Tell them the policy might lead to hoards of people seeking "care" - and they run from that too. But when hospitals start going out of business in this economic downturn... then maybe, just maybe they will see the light. They will (sadly) have to be 'scared' into doing the right thing!
December 9, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kirsten, thanks for your blog. rec'd
You shouldn't feel disappointed if Obama does not pass a "single payer" system. In fact, in the world of practical politics, I would be disappointed if he did. I believe that a system with an adaquate mandate, public insurance to those who can't purchase it on their own, and a ban on insurance companies "creaming" should bring down insurance costs a great deal. This last thing is most important. In fact, I would call it a monumental success if a successful ban were passed. Basically insurance companies use about 30% of their revenues to do medical history research on their applicants. If that 30% were injected back into the risk pool then premiums would be drastically reduced. The point is that these are pretty simple and easy adjustments to the insurance market that could be done to fix the insurance market without implementing the dreaded "single payer".
Where the real reform needs to be done is in the market for health services. There are many very very complicated reforms that must be done to bring down the costs of health services. I will blog about this soon when I find the time.
I guess my point is that we can fix healthcare without a single payer and without risking control of the white house. I'd hate to have the republicans take over and start bombing Iranian goats because we passed a single payer bill when other more than adequate options are available.
December 9, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest problem with our current system is that the insurance companies are in it to make a profit (actually, to make as much profit as possible)not to facilitate providing health care. This is why there are all those exclusions and pre-authorization conditions etc. It is in their interest to refuse to pay for treatment for their customers.
I say go for single payer--it is the ONLY way we can get out of this mess. Remove the profit motive for most instances, and then let the private insurance companies sell additional coverage to rich people if they want to.
December 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, I knew as soon as I posted that I was too rash in specifying "single payer" rather than general "extensive healthcare reform." I almost went back and edited, but it makes me happier to know someone was paying enough attention to call me on it.
Yes, there are other ways to fix the system without sending half our country into a republican-voting tizzy. And single-payer systems are not perfect by any means -- in fact when it comes down to it I'm not sure I'd prefer them to the hybrid system I'm under in France -- not that I think the U.S. could copy wholesale the French model either. Bottom line is, we will have to develop our own model that works for our country's unique situation.
I would love to hear your thoughts on more moderate effective reforms -- looking forward to hearing more when you get the chance!
December 9, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
extensive healthcare reform
I think that all systems, whether attempting a mix of payers or not, end up converging into single payer inevitably, if carriers are mandated to take all comers at a "community rated" premium, and all individuals are required to be insured, with concommitant premium subsidies and a government sponsored program competing on a *fair footing with unsubsidized private carriers (eg, Medicare for all, eg, open enrollment in the congressional plans, per Prez's remarks from time to time, eg, let the VA go into the HMO business and compete with Kaiser Permanente)
The overhead differential alone between Medicare and private carriers means that any open single payer program will eat the carrier's lunch. No one will have to force people kicking and screaming into single payer; they'll do it because it will provide the best value to them.
On the wider issue, one ought not let the drooling wingnuts ruffle one's feathers; remember, Prez plays basketball; he has the head fakes; don't watch his eyes, watch his feet (he can look right and go left).
In other words, all these "post partisan" appointments are just cover. Prez is playing chess, and the Repugnants are playing checkers.
*cf. the deformed excresence that is the Medicare HMO Susidy Program, which is so cost ineffective that it bumps up the premiums of all Medicare beneficiaries, whether they are in the HMO programs or not.
December 10, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Helen Hunt/Jack Nicholson flick said it all. Listening to McCain and his $5,000.00 credit, what good does it do for minimum wagers--even those with tips?
What are you supposed to do if your kid cannot breath?
And how much are Emergency Wards supposed to give? What is their duty?
Half the country at one time had coverage through their employers and the needs of the other half were never addressed.
I want somebody who had a communicable disease treated immediately with top rate care so my babies don't contract the disease. I do not care from whence the sick person came or if they have a green card.
At any rate, thank you. This mess we are in causes more court cases involving workers' comp., automobile accidents, suits against health insurers, suits against ER's because they did not do enough....the list goes on and on.
Most doctors I have dealt with are Republicans but the AMA notes that a large majority of doctors want national health care. So who does not
want national health care.
Pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, workers'comp. insurance companies....
We need to hear more stories from people like you.
December 9, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting article, I went and read the original NYT article. I have a few questions about the story and I question how truthful it presents the case.
The woman in question could have kept her insurance through COBRA until the baby was born. Also, they didn't provide any details of her case in the story, but any doctor who induces a pregnant woman because her insurance is about to run out is not a very good doctor.
In the article, they also talk about a woman who didn't get her wisdom teeth fixed because she didn't have health insurance. Dentists aren't covered by health insurance in the first place.
December 10, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
whoops, COBRA wasn't an option.
Anyway, I bet she ends up suing her midwife...
December 10, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
some dude named steevo: Even though COBRA is required by law, it's not always an options, especially if you're a member of the working middle to lower class. Why? Because COBRA is prohibitively expensive. I've heard horror stories myself form people who have to spend anywhere from 30 to 80% of their unemployment check on it, just to cover themselves (not to mention their family!) The good news is: our quick-witted new president has recognized this conundrum and has spearheaded efforts to include COBRA in the new stimulus package.
In the meantime, I highly recommend either a health savings account, or some sort of private insurance option. God knows it'll be cheaper.
January 30, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink