nancynall.com » We can do it.

We can do it.

A small task for you today, my lit­tle fuzzy peaches, at reader request.

Let’s solve the health-care cri­sis. To quote a well-known pub­lic fig­ure: Yes, we can.

I ask because I received an e-mail from a reader last week, with a link to a story with this non-inflammatory head­line — Cana­dian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Archi­tect Admits. Ahem:

As this pres­i­den­tial cam­paign con­tin­ues, the can­di­dates’ com­ments about health care will con­tinue to include sto­ries of their own expe­ri­ences and anec­dotes of peo­ple across the coun­try: the unin­sured woman in Ohio, the dia­betic in Detroit, the over­worked doc­tor in Orlando, to name a few. But no one will men­tion Claude Cas­tonguay — per­haps not sur­pris­ing because this states­man isn’t an Amer­i­can and hasn’t held office in over three decades.

Cas­tonguay is cred­ited as the man who first con­ceived of Quebec’s provin­cial single-payer sys­tem, which even­tu­ally spread across the coun­try and became the Cana­dian sys­tem we know today. In a story that begins by implic­itly scorn­ing the anec­dote as a public-policy dri­ver, the anec­dote of Claude Cas­tonguay (what a won­der­ful name) is given great weight, although his ideas about how to fix the Cana­dian sys­tem boil down to a pretty tame set of recommendations:

Cas­tonguay advo­cates con­tract­ing out ser­vices to the pri­vate sec­tor, going so far as sug­gest­ing that pub­lic hos­pi­tals rent space dur­ing off-hours to entre­pre­neur­ial doc­tors. He sup­ports co-pays for patients who want to see physi­cians. Cas­tonguay, the man who cham­pi­oned pub­lic health insur­ance in Canada, now urges for the legal­iza­tion of pri­vate health insurance.

In my night-shift edit­ing I read half a dozen pieces like this a week. Every­one has an idea how to fix Amer­i­can health care, but no one has the idea. Per­son­ally, I don’t believe the sys­tem is fix­able in the state it is now. But I’m always will­ing to read one more idea. My favorite is the Wall Street Jour­nal, which has some of the best health-care report­ing in the world, but a whack edi­to­r­ial page bought and paid for by the Amer­i­can Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion. And my sin­gle favorite piece on that page in recent months was last year some­time, sug­gest­ing we could all learn some­thing from the Amish, who don’t believe in health insur­ance, and who use such rad­i­cal cost-containment prac­tices as chip­ping in for one another and, my per­sonal favorite, dickering.

Oh, how I can’t wait for the day when I dicker with my doc­tor. I bet he can’t, either. Unmen­tioned in the admir­ing WSJ edi­to­r­ial are the other doc­u­mented Amish health-care cost-containment prac­tices, which include alter­na­tive med­i­cine (herbal­ists, mid­wives, etc.), bus trips to Mex­ico for the Third World option and, fre­quently, quack­ery. The Fort Wayne Jour­nal Gazette had a pretty good series a few years ago, where a reporter fol­lowed one of these car­a­vans. Among the anec­dotes was a woman who’d had a seri­ous ankle injury requir­ing recon­struc­tive ortho­pe­dic surgery, and the inci­sion stub­bornly refused to heal, with chronic infec­tions. (Dr. Nance would pre­scribe a hos­pi­tal stay with heavy antibi­otics to knock down the infec­tion, fol­lowed by a rig­or­ous home-care pro­gram empha­siz­ing keep­ing the wound clean, with instruc­tion for all her care­givers. Oh, and dia­betes test­ing. This is just off the top of my head.) Her Mex­i­can doc­tor advised remov­ing all the sur­gi­cal screws on the the­ory they were caus­ing her infec­tions, fol­lowed by poul­tices. I don’t know where the Amish woman is now. My guess is either push­ing up daisies, or cop­ing with life as a 19th-century amputee.

(A fur­ther note, also from the WSJ: Dick­er­ing doesn’t solve every­thing. Also, let’s recall the tragic case of the Amish Cook, who dropped dead at 66 from an aor­tic aneurysm, diag­nosed by her herbal­ist as an iron defi­ciency, IIRC.)

I don’t mean to be flip, I really don’t. I’m glad the reader sent the link along. I know there’s no sim­ple answer to this prob­lem, or any answer. But here’s what I know:

A health-care sys­tem where a poor kid with asthma has to take three buses and a sub­way to his clinic doc­tor, and a doctor’s wife can get spa-level care while recov­er­ing from her breast aug­men­ta­tion — is not a good system.

A health-care sys­tem that rewards doc­tors more for choos­ing der­ma­tol­ogy as a spe­cialty (with all those lucra­tive, pay-out-of-deep-pockets anti-aging patients) than pri­mary care (with all those poor kids with asthma) — is not a good system.

A health-care sys­tem where insur­ance is con­nected to your job, with no con­tin­gency for job loss other than COBRA — is not a good system.

There is no per­fect sys­tem, and there might not even be a very good one. Life is a ter­mi­nal dis­ease, and some of us have trou­ble fac­ing this fact. There may be no way to bal­ance the truly mirac­u­lous tech­no­log­i­cal and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal advances that are dri­ving the cost of health care into the stratos­phere with the fact hardly any­one can pay for it. But maybe there’s a bet­ter way. This is your job today, lit­tle com­menters of mine: Let’s fix it! You know we can!

And if you’re not up to it, in the blog­gage, two internet-related sto­ries about the campaign:

From Saturday’s Wash­Post, a woman offended by the Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail tries to track it back to its source, with more suc­cess than you’d think.

And in Sunday’s NYT, a piece on DIY attack ads by freelancers.

Both worth your time. And just for laughs:

A bunch of white kids fight the “Barack Hus­sein Obama” thing by tak­ing “Hus­sein” as their own mid­dle names, an “I am Spar­ta­cus” sort of protest. I am Salman Rushdie!

30 responses to
“We can do it.”

  1. coozledad said on June 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am

    One piece of a solu­tion might be to encour­age physi­cians to do their res­i­dency among the rural or urban poor, per­haps in exchange for defray­ing med-school expenses. I think Duke has a sort of pilot pro­gram for this, or at least they did a few years back.
    I just wish they could get physi­cians to stop being sales reps for the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try, and encour­age pre­ven­tive med­i­cine when­ever possible.

  2. derwood said on June 30th, 2008 at 9:55 am

    I’m not sure I have the answer for our health care. I know I pay 12K a year in pre­mium to cover my wife and me. That pol­icy through my employer has a mil­lion dol­lar cap. That may sound like a lot, but it really isn’t.

    I work with a bunch of peo­ple from Canada and they just shake their heads at our sys­tem. They are the first to admit that theirs isn’t per­fect but they wouldn’t trade what they have with what we have.

    My wife is a type I dia­betic and I take a cho­les­terol pill. Nei­ther one of us can buy insur­ance with­out being part of a group plan.

    d

  3. brian stouder said on June 30th, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Every­one has an idea how to fix Amer­i­can health care (empha­sis added)

    yes.

    There is no per­fect system

    yes indeed.

    The seman­tic approach might be worth a glance. Once, a long time ago, it greatly impressed me when a pun­dit some­where, dis­cussing the Amer­i­can jus­tice sys­tem shifted the argu­ment by mak­ing the point that there is no uni­tary “sys­tem” at all. It’s a crazy-quilt of con­flict­ing agen­das and dif­fer­ing cus­toms and so on.…whereupon another per­son pointed out the agreed upon (more or less) ideals that over-arch every­thing — the US Constitution.

    The rest of the argu­ment is lost in the misty miasma of the end­less yap-yap shows that I have taken in.…but the point (it seems to me) is salient.

    While indeed “There may be no way to bal­ance the truly mirac­u­lous tech­no­log­i­cal and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal advances that are dri­ving the cost of health care into the stratos­phere with the fact hardly any­one can pay for it”,

    still, if the polit­i­cal par­a­digm shifts so that we expect bet­ter (even as we con­tin­u­ally fall short), then that’s some­thing real.

    Years ago there was much talk about a “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (etc), and I think that the metaphor was correct.

    And not for noth­ing, but the anti-reform cho­rus from the right HAS (more or less) adopted this sort of rhetoric, and they view the pro-reform efforts as noth­ing short of revolutionary.

    I think Pres­i­dent Obama should use his rhetor­i­cal skills before a con­ven­tion of gov­er­nors (who after­all have a very large stake in the cur­rent ‘sys­tem’), and advo­cate fed­eral assis­tance to state health­care pro­grams that suc­ceed in cov­er­ing chil­dren and pro­vid­ing afford­able cov­er­age to adults.

    The mind­set that Obama should fos­ter should be some­thing along the lines of the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, while the states (with fed­eral assis­tance) imple­ment the con­crete plans; just as in legal terms, the Dec­la­ra­tion is “the apple of gold” on the Con­sti­tu­tional “pic­ture of silver”

    By way of say­ing, per­fec­tion may not be obtain­able, but we cer­tainly should strive to over­throw com­pla­cency with the sta­tus quo (“Amer­ica has the best health care sys­tem on earth” etc etc)

  4. Jeff said on June 30th, 2008 at 10:36 am

    And the date­line for the “Hus­sein is my mid­dle name” story?

    Colum­bus, Ohio!

    On the string of “is not a good sys­tem” notes, i can only offer in response the law of unin­tended con­se­quences — fix­ing one thing has odd effects up and down the line. The conun­drum right now is that we have an awk­ward sort of national health care, which creaks, but works, while allow­ing the wealthy to get supe­rior care. I’m less will­ing to exer­cised about spa care for Doc’s sec­ond younger wife than i am about improv­ing the access and qual­ity for the poorer end of our sys­tem … which is why i worked so hard to get CHIP passed in West Vir­ginia in the late 90’s.

    The prob­lem it gets wrapped up with is that if every­one who cur­rently qual­i­fies for Med­ic­aid actu­ally got it and used it, the sys­tem wouldn’t creak, it would scream the way a bridge does right before the col­lapse. So even children’s advo­cates were, and are (in the CHIP2 bat­tles) often advo­cat­ing a cau­tious approach for fear of bring­ing down the whole house of med­ical cards.

    A big step would be to acknowl­edge the cur­rent sys­tem for what it is — Med­ic­aid, VA, Medicare, CHIP, and laws gov­ern­ing pub­lic ERs (with some med­ical clin­ics run by nfps) cov­er­ing all but the 40% on private/gov’t employee health care, avowedly as “Our National Health Care Pol­icy.” Then we have to fig­ure out how to expand that, and deal with ille­gal immi­grants, who are essen­tially all of the increase in the unin­sured over the last two decades. “Our National Health Care Pol­icy” (ONHCP) actu­ally works fairly well, but has holes.

    Say­ing “we will guar­an­tee every Amer­i­can health care as good as Con­gress gets” is not even remotely deliv­er­able, and those say­ing this know it. (And guar­an­tee­ing that level to all immi­grants regard­less of legal sta­tus? Ay caramba…) Improv­ing ONHCP for vul­ner­a­ble pop­u­la­tions is doable, but the doctor’s mis­sus thing you can drive under­ground, but it’s bet­ter they stay out in the open where a cer­tain amount of scrutiny is still avail­able as a mild disinfectant.

  5. nancy said on June 30th, 2008 at 10:37 am

    “Expect better” — that was the over­whelm­ing impres­sion I got from “Sicko.” You can argue all day about the French sys­tem, or the British NHS, or the Cana­di­ans, or the Japan­ese, or who­ever, but all those cit­i­zens expect bet­ter from their gov­ern­ments, and by and large, get it.

    This fas­ci­nates me.

    T.R. Reid did a health-care-around-the-world piece for “Front­line,” and the Japan­ese sys­tem was fas­ci­nat­ing. The Japan­ese love scans of all sorts. You get an MRI for every­thing more seri­ous than a head cold, and it costs about $20. Amazing.

  6. nancy said on June 30th, 2008 at 10:39 am

    Oh, and Jeff, I wouldn’t resent the doc’s wife’s spa ser­vices if I didn’t see the log­i­cal end of that sys­tem — Don­ald Trump on his third kid­ney trans­plant, while every­one else dies or goes on dialysis.

  7. Jolene said on June 30th, 2008 at 11:00 am

    Expect bet­ter, indeed. Many Amer­i­cans seem con­gen­i­tally inca­pable of believ­ing that we do not have “the best in the world” of what­ever is being dis­cussed – edu­ca­tion, health care, trans­porta­tion, what­ever. This kills me because the data indi­cat­ing that it’s untrue are so read­ily avail­able. I some­times feel that I want to go door-to-door describ­ing the results of all the research we have describ­ing the inad­e­qua­cies of our health care sys­tem to one fam­ily at a time, fol­lowed up with a dose of inter­na­tional com­par­isons on qual­ity and cost.

  8. Gasman said on June 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am

    For profit health­care is immoral. As long as we pit profit motives of stock­hold­ers against patient care, patients will lose. I have grown weary of the con­ser­v­a­tive mantra that the free mar­ket will ALWAYS pro­duce the best solu­tion. The free mar­ket has had a free hand with the health­care sys­tem for decades and it has pro­duced only greater lev­els of bureau­cracy which increase cost, decrease effi­ciency and com­pro­mise patient care. The cur­rent sys­tem seems to be good at max­i­miz­ing cost and prof­its and not much else.

    As to the litany of scary sto­ries about the Cana­dian sys­tem vs. our own, my wife is a Cana­dian cit­i­zen as are all of her fam­ily and I have NEVER heard any major com­plaints from them. Her fam­ily is large, prob­a­bly 3 – 4 dozen, and they range in age from cra­dle to one foot in the grave. They have had the typ­i­cal range of mal­adies and pro­ce­dures for such a cross sec­tion of peo­ple. The wait times have never been dif­fer­ent for sim­i­lar pro­ce­dures here in the U.S. and they NEVER GET A MEDICAL BILL! The entire sys­tem oper­ates more effi­ciently with a far lower cost than ours. My Cana­dian rel­a­tives reside pri­mar­ily in Ontario, which is impor­tant because each province has auton­omy regard­ing how health­care is imple­mented. Sev­eral years ago, I had a visit to a doctor’s office in Ontario to address a chronic sinus infec­tion and an office visit cost me all of $27 U.S. At the same time, such a visit in the U.S. would have been at least 5 times as much.

    While any bureau­cratic sys­tem any­where will have inher­ent weak­nesses, ours is a mish­mash of ludimi­cros­ity that fails mis­er­ably at its pri­mary mis­sion — to pro­vide effi­cient and afford­able health­care to ALL Amer­i­cans. Our moronic “Ours-Is-Always-Better-Cause-We’re-Number-One” atti­tude rarely works to our advan­tage because it keeps us from even con­sid­er­ing any other way of doing any­thing. We lag behind dozens of nations in terms access to care, infant mor­tal­ity, and many other unen­vi­able cat­e­gories. About the only thing we truly lead the world in is health­care cost.

    Screw the for profit model, it DOES NOT WORK! Build­ing upon its crum­bling struc­ture makes no sense. Scrap the entire bloated sys­tem and start anew. Some ver­sion of the sin­gle payer sys­tem seems to be the way to achieve greater effi­ciency and uni­ver­sal coverage.

  9. Jolene said on June 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am

    In addi­tion to the piece re the ori­gins re the “Obama is a Mus­lim” email, the Post pub­lished a piece today re the end result of it. An excerpt:

    “I think Obama would be a dis­as­ter, and there’s a lot of rea­sons,” said Pol­lard, explain­ing the rumors he had heard about the can­di­date from friends he goes camp­ing with. “I under­stand he’s from Africa, and that the first thing he’s going to do if he gets into office is bring his fam­ily over here, ille­gally. He’s got that racist [pas­tor] who prac­ti­cally raised him, and then there’s the Mus­lim thing. He’s just not pres­i­den­tial mate­r­ial, if you ask me.”

    When I read things like this, I just don’t know what to think, but among the pos­si­bil­i­ties is: How can peo­ple be so stu­pid? And my next impulse is to be grate­ful for islands of ratio­nal­ity and good­will such as NN​.com.

  10. colleen said on June 30th, 2008 at 11:35 am

    What Jolene said, in both of her posts.

    Any­one actu­ally FROM Canada I’ve heard speak about their health care sys­tem is fine with it, and wouldn’t want our system.

    I’m also start­ing to doubt the idea that “let the free mar­ket decide” is a good idea at all. It leads to poi­son pet food from China, exploited work­ers, and god knows what else.

  11. moe99 said on June 30th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    My daugh­ter is spend­ing her sum­mer in rural Mon­tana at a clinic there – the Univ. of WA places its incip­i­ent sec­ond year med stu­dents in a rural set­ting for the sum­mer. So far she is really enjoy­ing it. No idea if it will be a career call­ing for her.

    More on the “Ohio is a fer­tile ground for big­ots” meme:
    http://​pandagon​.net/​i​n​d​e​x​.​p​h​p​/​s​i​t​e​/​c​o​m​m​e​n​t​s​/​t​h​e​_​g​a​y​_​m​u​s​l​i​m​_​c​h​r​o​n​icles/

  12. whitebeard said on June 30th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Ah, health care issues are meat and pota­toes to any Cana­dian worth his salt. I was on the city desk at The Mon­treal Star when uni­ver­sal health care or single-payer health care came into being in Que­bec, after a brief unpleas­ant bat­tle between a band of money-grubbing doc­tors with really fat wal­lets and the archi­tects of a health care sys­tem that CARED.
    As for the Cana­dian sys­tem (with each province in charge of its own health care role) being in ruins, what a bunch of hog­wash. In any sys­tem, health, taxes, trans­porta­tion, you can find a headline-grabbing inci­dent and claim it rep­re­sents a com­plete fail­ure.
    I have Medicare here in Con­necti­cut, which is a fed­eral single-payer sys­tem and will stay that way if the Repugli­cans are dri­ven out of the tem­ple in this gen­eral elec­tion.
    And as for Claude Castonguay’s task force report on the need for user fees and a Que­bec sales tax, “He took issue with how media reports inter­preted his rec­om­men­da­tions and said they were mis­rep­re­sented as a road map to pri­va­ti­za­tion.” CBC News back on Feb. 20 http://​www​.cbc​.ca/​h​e​a​l​t​h​/​s​t​o​r​y​/​2​0​0​8​/​0​2​/​2​0​/​q​c​-​c​a​s​t​o​n​g​u​a​y​r​e​a​x​0​2​2​0​.​h​t​m​l​?​r​ef=rss

  13. Jeff said on June 30th, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    Hear, hear for “Expect better” — a vital com­po­nent of any national health care worth hav­ing, here or any­where. And some­one (i think Jolene) said it is a prob­lem that we think ours is best: in my man­gled way, that’s what i meant. It’s not that ours is per­fect, or non-existent, it’s that we have a national health care pol­icy, and it needs work.

  14. Jolene said on June 30th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    A cou­ple notes from my PBS view­ing: First, last night I watched “Traces of the Trade”, a 90-minute film about sev­eral mem­bers of a white Amer­i­can fam­ily who learn that their ances­tors were slave traders and the jour­ney they under­take – both psy­cho­log­i­cal and phys­i­cal – to learn what hap­pened then and how we got to where we are today. May have already been shown in your area, but worth check­ing to see whether it’s still pos­si­ble to catch it. It’s on the P.O.V. show.

    Sec­ond, on Char­lie Rose, I saw an inter­view w/ the broth­ers Emanuel, i.e., Rahm, the Illi­nois con­gress­man; Zeke, oncol­o­gist and bioethi­cist; and Avi, Hol­ly­wood agent. Very inter­est­ing his­tory of a fam­ily, but ger­mane to today’s topic is the recent pub­li­ca­tion of a new book by Zeke out­lin­ing a way to reform our health­care sys­tem. Called Health­care, Guar­an­teed, the book describes an all-encompassing approach to single-payer uni­ver­sal health care. His idea is to set forth some sim­ple ideas to serve as a start­ing point. Might be worth a read.

  15. whitebeard said on June 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    When I wrote about that band of money-grubbing doc­tors with really fat wal­lets that pre­tended to speak for every doc­tor in the province of Que­bec, I for­got to men­tion the good guys, the good doc­tors who did care.
    When the gen­eral prac­tion­ers went on strike against the plan and held a meet­ing and my newspaper’s med­ical reporter went AWOL (he said he was hun­gry so he stopped for lunch on the biggest story of the decade) I called the head hon­cho at the meet­ing and asked if they had voted to return to work.
    He answered that, of course, they were going back to work and I knew in my mind that his fel­low doc­tors favored uni­ver­sal health care and no wor­ries about being paid in a timely fash­ion.
    In the next decade before I moved south to the U.S., after numer­ous doc­tor vis­its, hos­pi­tal emer­gency room vis­its, hos­pi­tal stays and even major eye surgery (a detached retina) I never heard a doc­tor or hos­pi­tal worker com­plain about the new sys­tem, and believe me, I asked every chance I could.

  16. Jolene said on June 30th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    One more good thing to watch: Peter Hart con­duct­ing a polit­i­cal focus group made up of PA vot­ers on C-SPAN this evening. I’ll stop now.

  17. brian stouder said on June 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    Years ago, I got invited to a ‘focus group’ con­ducted by the Hart group. It was very inter­est­ing; if I recall cor­rectly, it was con­ducted back O’bannon was run­ning against Mutz for gov­er­nor. Lots of open ques­tions about White River, fish kills, envi­ron­men­tal pol­icy, and the like. They had a pleas­ant mod­er­a­tor, and a video recorder, and I recall that all of the par­tic­i­pants were well-mannered (can’t recall if any­one tried to hog the platform…presumeably a deft mod­er­a­tor pre­cludes that)

    It might have lasted two hours or so — and at the end, we each got paid $40 cash!

    I remem­ber pon­der­ing what they really gained from it…it would be inter­est­ing to see that C-SPAN show

  18. Gasman said on June 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    If you think the health­care cri­sis was bad before, wait until the real impact of $4+/gal. (do I hear $5, $6, even $7?) gas hits mid­dle income Amer­ica. When gas was $2/gal. peo­ple were already find­ing it dif­fi­cult to afford, or even obtain, health­care. When mil­lions more aver­age Amer­i­cans are fac­ing the very real prob­a­bil­ity fore­clo­sure of their homes and they are spend­ing up to a third of their income in gaso­line, do you think that they will be spend­ing any money on health­care vol­un­tar­ily? We are deep in the weeds on this issue and so far, the Repub­li­cans have been unable to pro­vide any lead­er­ship. In fact, the only time in 28 years that an attempt was made to even dis­cuss the sit­u­a­tion, the Rs found it more prof­itable to attack and vil­ify Hillary Clin­ton than to actu­ally do any­thing use­ful. I say “No Repub­li­cans in 2008.”

  19. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on June 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    What’s going to get weird is when bid­ness (the wreck­age of GM-Ford-syler, Buy n Large, USX-Bethlehem, Boeing-boeing, etc.) all get into the idea of sin­gle payer, non-employee based health insur­ance, and try to get out from under their retirees as well as cur­rent staff.

    There’s a case to be made that global com­pet­i­tive­ness means we need to have fed­eral sin­gle payer, and you can argue that entre­pre­neur­ship and inno­va­tion have been directly sti­fled by employer-based health care keep­ing peo­ple in dead-end, no-longer-a-fit jobs just to keep that vital necessity.

    But it won’t be paid for unless *at min­i­mum* cor­po­ra­tions keep pay­ing to *some­one* the amount they’re cur­rently putting up for Health Care, and they’re gonna try to shift the load like Her­cules did Atlas. Mean­while, smaller biz­nesses are going to be even harder to nail down (for the amount they’re cur­rently contributing).

    It’s all gonna be up for grabs when the credit mar­kets go nuts in late August as parental tuition with­drawals uncover the really severe credit short­age going on right now. When China isn’t stock­pil­ing steel and oil after Aug. 24, there will be some eas­ing, but finan­cial mar­kets are in for a wild, wild sum­mer — does this help keep focus on health care? I don’t think so.

  20. beb said on June 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    The Big 3 car mak­ers have long whined about how much their employee health cov­er­age costs and how it pre­vents them from being com­petive with Japan/Korea/China. And yet they never seem to be the table for sin­gle payer uni­ver­sal health insur­ance. Or any kind of insur­ance. Do they know some­thing we don’t or do that just want to ame cars with­out workesr? Like MM Jeff says above, uni­ver­sal health care would be in their inter­est, so why aren’t they interested.

  21. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on June 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    Because they can’t fig­ure out how to get sin­gle payer with­out still hav­ing enough con­trol to be able to game the sys­tem — their pay­ments would be clear and obvi­ous under single-payer, and due each year/quarter. When they fig­ure a for­mula for how to shift it with­out hav­ing to pay what they already owe (let alone what they’re gonna owe the next few years), they will be at the front of the parade, call­ing for “action on the part of Washington!”

  22. Jen said on June 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    I, unfor­tu­nately, have no answers to fix­ing the health care sys­tem. When my fiance lost his job in the begin­ning of May, he could either pay $500 a month for COBRA cov­er­age or go with­out insur­ance. The prob­lem with going with­out insur­ance is that he is a can­cer sur­vivor, which really screws things up (if his cov­er­age lapsed, the next insur­ance com­pany could refuse to pay for any­thing that had to do with his pre-existing con­di­tion, and I’m afraid that they would have tried to make EVERYTHING con­nected to the fact he had can­cer five years ago).

    We solved the prob­lem by elop­ing six months before our sched­uled wed­ding so he could get on my health insur­ance. (We’ve now been mar­ried for a lit­tle over a month.) But it sucks that a 23-year-old had to choose between los­ing his life sav­ings now by tak­ing COBRA and los­ing his life sav­ings later if the insur­ance com­pany refuses to pay for med­ical treat­ments. Thank good­ness we had a third option, but he would have been in huge trou­ble had we not been together and already plan­ning to get mar­ried. The whole ordeal has been hor­ri­bly frustrating.

  23. Deggjr said on June 30th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    Here are two ideas:
    1) Health care prices are the same for every­body. Big cor­po­ra­tions get huge dis­counts off of list price (60 – 70%), small busi­ness and indi­vid­u­als pay list price.
    2) Pre­mi­ums have the same tax­a­bil­ity for every­body. An indi­vid­ual who is pay­ing non-COBRA pre­mi­ums can only deduct the excess of 7%. Large and small busi­ness deduct start­ing with first dollar.

    Two caveats. One, this is my under­stand­ing. Two, even if these ideas are imple­mented, the cri­sis is not over.

  24. Cynthia said on June 30th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

    This is a very inter­est­ing dis­cus­sion about health care. Like all of you, i have no real answers either.

    I’m very skep­ti­cal about a single-payor sys­tem (read gov’t) because I just don’t like the idea of cre­at­ing a huge new bureaucracy.

    I think health care should be manda­tory, like car insur­ance, with man­dated min­i­mum amounts of cov­er­age. I like the idea of my insur­ance being portable and not depen­dent upon hav­ing a job. I also like the idea of being able to choose a plan that fits my and my family’s needs and hav­ing the option of choos­ing just a cat­a­strophic type pol­icy if I can afford it. If I don’t like the plan I’ve cho­sen or find the ser­vice infe­rior, I want to be able to switch to a new plan as eas­ily as I change car insurance.

    I do think the gov’t (state or fed­eral) should man­date cer­tain fea­tures, such as no refusal for pre-existing con­di­tions, pay­ment for exper­i­men­tal pro­ce­dures, annual rate reviews by state gov’ts, manda­tory health sav­ings plans for all Amer­i­cans, and manda­tory con­tri­bu­tion to the cost of your per­sonal health care with a min­i­mum and max­i­mum. I know health care is expen­sive, but there are a lot of peo­ple who don’t know the real cost because their employer is pick­ing up the major­ity of the tab.

    Finally, on a fed­eral or state level there should be sub­si­dies for the truly needy.

    I’d like to see a top-notch com­mis­sion com­prised of an equal num­ber of doc­tors, health care admin­is­tra­tors, nurses, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal experts and ordi­nary cit­i­zens with a mod­icum of intel­li­gence set up to really study the issue, and look at what other coun­tries are doing bet­ter than we are and make real, sub­stan­tial, thought­ful rec­om­men­da­tions or even pro­pose a new sys­tem that can be dis­cussed rationally.

    This coun­try needs a real con­ver­sa­tion and debate about this, as well as other impor­tant issues. All we seem to be get­ting from politi­cians from both sides are empty promises and platitudes.

  25. MichaelG said on June 30th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    Obvi­ously, sin­gle payer is the way to go. There’s noth­ing wrong with a well run bureau­cracy. Think Toy­ota isn’t a bureau­cracy? The big thing is to keep the insur­ance com­pa­nies out of the mix.

    Also, all any­body seems to talk about is how to meet the costs. Is any­body look­ing at what the costs truly are? At why the costs are sky­rock­et­ing? There must be some­thing other than prof­i­teer­ing on the part of the indus­try. They wouldn’t pad costs would they? So what has caused costs to increase so dra­mat­i­cally? What can be done to hold them within rea­son? Has any­body even taken a casual look at the health care mega corps and their cost struc­ture? The politi­cians couldn’t be . . . No, even such a cynic as moi couldn’t believe that. I mean, look at the won­der­ful, clas­si­cally sim­ple drug bill that the Bush admin­is­tra­tion has given us. It cuts out the insur­ance com­pa­nies while cre­at­ing a mech­a­nism to allow nego­ti­at­ing the most favor­able prices from the drug com­pa­nies. Doesn’t it?

  26. Mosef said on July 1st, 2008 at 12:37 am

    This is a “don’t get me started” topic for me. I received a health care mas­ters degree, and could go on and on (and ON) with Rx for change. But NNC​.com is not the time or the place. How­ever, I would like to bring up a sta­tis­tic I learned at grad school (UCLA). Approx­i­mately 80% of health care expen­di­tures are spent in the last year of life. Speak­ing from a strictly util­i­tar­ian per­spec­tive, this is not a sen­si­ble allo­ca­tion of resources.

    Of course, peo­ple have a greater need for med­ical care as they age, and the guar­an­teed cov­er­age ensured by Medicare increases demand for ser­vices. But there is a national con­ver­sa­tion to be had about how do we, as a soci­ety, want to dis­trib­ute our health care dol­lars. Does grandma have to go out in the ICU after heart surgery at 83 while kids lack basic pre­ven­tive serives? Before any­one writes “But why do we have to chose?” Because we do. Because allo­ca­tion of resources is a basic func­tion of fam­i­lies, busi­nesses, and gov­ern­ments. It’s called real­ity. So let’s talk.

    Per­son­ally, the Alice in Won­der­land aspect of the health care indus­try made me nuts. I got a mas­ters in finance and changed careers.

  27. MichaelG said on July 1st, 2008 at 8:50 am

    Now you want to put some kind of needs/qualification test on med­ical care? Gonna put the old peo­ple out on the ice? Stake ‘em out on the hill­side for the wolves? So how old are you Mo?

  28. brian stouder said on July 1st, 2008 at 8:59 am

    Stake ‘em out on the hill­side for the wolves?

    Just fin­ish­ing White Fang; Call of the Wild was last week. It’s when you see that one she-wolf, larger than the oth­ers and with the red­dish tint; the one that sashays.….THAT’s when you have to worry! (well, and when you see the reflec­tions of the packs’ eyes, as they work them­selves closer and closer in to your camp fire, in the mid­dle of the night)

  29. caliban said on July 1st, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    Hillary had the idea. Tip O’Neill didn’t like it. There’s noth­ing wrong with Canada’s health care sys­tem, other than that ghouls like the Frist fam­ily aren’t rak­ing in big bucks.

    Cuba has a bet­ter health care sys­tem, with no money. Granted, boob jobs may require a wait.

    Pri­va­tiz­ers will pay mucho dineiro to so-called experts to ‘splain this crap, but that sure as hell won’t make it true. Check out recidi­vism rates from the Erlich­man school of free enter­prise Chris­t­ian prison reform. Why are there more con­trac­tors than sol­diers in Iraq? Somebody’s mak­ing a pile and nobody’s get­ting a bang for the bucks.

    With regard to health­care, seems to me it’s everybody’s duty as a human being. Com­mon­weal. That’s why we agree to pay taxes, and Grover Norquist should die a painful death in an ER wait­ing room. But no. He’s got the best cov­er­age rich asshole’s money can buy.

  30. baldheadeddork said on July 1st, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    Sorry I missed this yesterday.

    Ques­tion for every­one, that for me is at the cen­ter of any dis­cus­sion on chang­ing the system:

    Can you get effec­tive reform (either lower costs for those who have cov­er­age or more peo­ple cov­ered for the same cost) with the for-profit insur­ance indus­try as the gate­keeper for healthcare?