Universal Healthcare or Corporate Welfare?
Ever since Hillary Clinton's overreaching Universal Health Care project fell flat in the 90's, we constantly hear Republicans tying the very idea of government sponsored healthcare to Communism and Socialism. Privatization supposedly offers more choices and provides a lower overall cost to the consumer. In theory, they are somewhat correct. In practice, however, that is not the case.
The healthcare industry is rapidly consolidating. There are maybe five major players nationally at this point, and as with what is happening to many American industries, you can pretty much make a safe bet that in the next few years, there will be even less choices. Much of this is due to deregulatory legislation that has been very healthy for corporate America over the last few years. I think this is one of the major drawbacks of an unfettered Capitalistic economy. When there are no stops in place, the Corporation is allowed to grow and absorb all that it can, thus eliminating competition and increasing the ability to engage in price fixing and manipulation. After all, when the channels of availability are few, the potential for profit is maximized. The consumer has no where else to go.
The same patterns are obvious in the retail industry with Walmart, the oil industry, and even the banking industry which I work in. I've survived two mergers in the past four years, luckily, but who knows if one day Citibank doesn't buy us all out.
But back to the subject at hand.
The Republicans in Congress shun the thought of taking your hard earned tax dollars and putting them to work in a health care system that could take care of all Americans. That being said, however, they have absolutely no problem in giving the private health care industry $22 billion in what amounts to little more than corporate welfare. Without our knowledge, and of course, without those pesky Democrats to weigh in on the decision.
Do you think you'll see any of those savings in decreased premiums or co-pays? I think not.
What are your ideas about fixing our health care system?
The healthcare industry is rapidly consolidating. There are maybe five major players nationally at this point, and as with what is happening to many American industries, you can pretty much make a safe bet that in the next few years, there will be even less choices. Much of this is due to deregulatory legislation that has been very healthy for corporate America over the last few years. I think this is one of the major drawbacks of an unfettered Capitalistic economy. When there are no stops in place, the Corporation is allowed to grow and absorb all that it can, thus eliminating competition and increasing the ability to engage in price fixing and manipulation. After all, when the channels of availability are few, the potential for profit is maximized. The consumer has no where else to go.
The same patterns are obvious in the retail industry with Walmart, the oil industry, and even the banking industry which I work in. I've survived two mergers in the past four years, luckily, but who knows if one day Citibank doesn't buy us all out.
But back to the subject at hand.
The Republicans in Congress shun the thought of taking your hard earned tax dollars and putting them to work in a health care system that could take care of all Americans. That being said, however, they have absolutely no problem in giving the private health care industry $22 billion in what amounts to little more than corporate welfare. Without our knowledge, and of course, without those pesky Democrats to weigh in on the decision.
Do you think you'll see any of those savings in decreased premiums or co-pays? I think not.
What are your ideas about fixing our health care system?
Here's the thing, Drew. We always talk about healthcare as if there is this limited buffet of possibilities- either a monopolistic intrusive insura-ceutical (11th made up word today) system or.. people dying on the sidewalk while the Commie Clinic labors inefficiently.
ReplyDeleteBut health policy analysts can tell us many different options and many bonafide remedies to the most oft-cited criticisms. We just have to get past the myopic view of health care reform and the baggage of the ideology wars to think outside the box about what works and what does not. I am not talking about incompatible menu offerings, but there are models of comprehensive national health care that are REALISTIC just as there are plans for energy- another problem that won't be fixed as long as profit reigns supreme and the government's purpose is relegated to corporate interests over the people's.
This problem is illustrated by the bird flu debate, the position that busting tamiflu will suppress motivation for innovative drugs while at the same time the government must realize the potential for a real public health disaster. The answer of course is not to destroy patent law but perhaps to augment it. What if TB had gone unchecked? Typhoid Mary? The point must be made that national healthcare is a right but also SMART for society. The point must be made that competition is not the only feature of performance. There are many hospitals that SUCK that are pretty far from Canada!
Like all things: what do we get for the money? What do we get for these subsidies? What do we get for our education dollars? Why is our 'quality of life' so poor? What do we do for our seniors, children? And for what we pay in taxes, can't we do better?
Good commentary, Lily. You used a good amount of large words though and I'm going to have to allow my brain to digest them.
ReplyDeleteMoney is a good starting point though. Obviously, most Americans are going to cringe at raising taxes, which would have to happen in order to fund a national health care system.
Perhaps a workable idea would be one that is similar to Bush's Social Security plan. Create a national health care system that you can pay into if you want to. If you choose not to, you can go with your private insurer and get the service you wish.
I think one of the worst lies that you hear from the right in regards to current health care costs is the insinuation that most of the rapid increases in costs are a result of lawsuits. Frivilous lawsuits are a problem, but rewriting law to protect corporations from private suits would constitute government protectionism at it's worst. And, as far as I know, these lawsuits contribute little to the overall costs of insurance.
Well not to rant your brain out of your head again but the tort/cap argument for costs are a smoke screen. A bone to the ins. lobby. Number one, make hospitals more accountable for errors that are the result of THEIR management, like ratios. Fund patient education, lifestyle initiatives.
ReplyDeleteThe 'savings account' idea is problematic because the people that can afford to tuck that money away are also the people more likely to HAVE health insurance. You are giving the same demographic a choice with none for lower incomes. Medicaid is unrealistic and time limited. What are the people- those from poverty line to middle class, a huge group- supposed to do?
Also, consider the pre-existing condition restrictions people contend with. Not to mention the gap between 'retirement age' and medicare eligibility. The seniors are busy trying to live on raped pension funds and social security with laughable cost of living adjustments. They won't pay in much either.
And costs are also skyrocketing because of the vicious cycles of disease 'fighting'versus 'prevention', the reliance on drugs that the big Pharm. companies convince us will cure everything, and the lack of responsibility for personal behavior. As long as we eat Big Macs and smoke, the more expensive it will be to maintain our battered bodies. How much does smoking cost? How many drugs being paid for RIGHT NOW are cholesterol, cancer, blood pressure, hormone replacement, diabetes, etc. that can be traced to some decision to ignore lifestyle? I'm not perfect, to be sure. But people have to stop this love affair with illness and disease. (aw, night night, Drew!)
"Corporate welfare?"
ReplyDeleteC'mon, now, that's soooo Lee Iacocca! I think the phrase you're searching for is "sowing the seeds on enterprise with the nurturing waters of public investment!"
Yeah, I like that much better.
I think the current "Just Let 'Em Die" program is working pretty well. No changes necessary. Not unless you want all these worthless human beings hanging around dirtying up our streets. Have we no jails? No workhouses?
ReplyDeleteWhile Neil's "Let 'em Die" healthcare plan is noble, I think that just sends the wrong message to Americans because... well... it tells them the truth. How's about we keep pulling the wool over everybody's eyes and call it "If You Can't Afford it, Then You Don't Deserve It" plan... it just sounds nicer huh? And if we could somehow throw in Jesus' name in that title, it would be even better.
ReplyDeleteRight, Tina. It should be "LET EM DIE FOR JESUS". That way they'll get to feel like they're doing something noble.
ReplyDeleteLily... yes, you are right that lifestyle choices do drive up the cost of healthcare. I think you were dead on about big pharma as well. Consider the amount of marketing money that pharmacuetical companies pour into advertising. Watch the evening news and count how many prescription drug commercials are slotted. There is an aweful large profit margin associated with sickness as it would seem. It's funny, now that I think about it... the big pharma companies that push their ads so hard on network tv are pretty much acting like the Hasbros, Mattels and such that push their advertising on children watching Nickelodeon or the Cartoon Network. Of course, instead of nagging a parental figure to get that Barbi or Trix Cereal for us, we as adults end up nagging our doctors to prescribe something that in many cases, we may not even need. All the while, big pharma is playing the other side as well, influencing doctors with free handouts and other "educational incentives".
ReplyDeleteWell am I being excessively negative to suggest that we Americans 'want' but do little to 'get' when it comes to health? Is that harsh? We want happiness by buying advertised shit too, we want to play act like we're Martha Stewart and buy her coordinated crap so we feel better about ourselves...we want 'things' because we have undeveloped selves. And yes, we crawl to doctors: "I took an online test and I have___. And doctors, who would rather spend two minutes with you anyway, say here's the script and send you on your way... I know a doctor who says "discussion is for the therapist, not the doctor'. I am not sure how greed would change with EITHER model.. The best remedy for those commercials- have friends in the pharmaceutical industry and ask them why they won't take their own medications. The FDA is so in bed with these people that they have children together...
ReplyDeletein the UK the people seem to want european style public services but pay US style taxes. the two things don't add up. so we end up getting the worst of both worlds.
ReplyDeletehealthcare is one of the exceptions. it has been 'free at the point of need' since WW2 when it was set up.
although not technically free (everyone pays in tax, but the wealthiest pay more obviously) people want it to remain in public hands. the govenrment is doing everything it can to privatise it sneakily but can't do it openly.
i suggest that if people in the US had this service they defintiely wouldn't want to give it up
The thing is... a good majority of people's privatized health care sucks so bad, you have to wonder how public health care could be any worse than what we are getting now?
ReplyDeleteWhat most people don't realize is that the United States is so far behind other countries when it comes to healthcare. All you have to do is compare issues like the infant mortality rate and the average life expectancy in several countries to realize our system is way behind most industrialized nations. Our infant mortality rate is higher than Cuba's. I actually wrote about this very subject on my blog this morning.
ReplyDeleteBIg News Day
I'm an alternative care provider. I find our current system of insurance outrageous. I bill out my own. We have a receptionist who probably bills out 75 insurance patients a week--mind most of these folks repeat from week to week at our office, yet she spends almost 25 hours EACH WEEK calling on insurance. We are not stupid but it's amazingly creative what things insurance companies randomly decide to deny and force us to resubmit--often multiple times.
ReplyDeleteAs an alternative care provider, I am actually fairly lucky. My patients don't always expect that they will have coverage and they come anyway. Frequently, if they've seen us before, they come more for preventative (always easier to treat), something few doctors see because it's so often not covered. Traditional providers like MD's are locked into a system where people feel that they shouldn't have to pay out of pocket dollars for healthcare and will only go to MD's who have often had to contract cut rates to be on a certain panel to gain patients. This requires them to see perhaps more patients then they should during any given day in order to pay overhead (remember there are probably several insurance billers out there trying to collect money for them!).
There is a class action suit filed against certain large insurance companies about refusing medically necessary treatment to their subscribers.
All of this leads up to a point where the current system is absolutely frightening. I think health savings accounts have a place but they should not be relied on as the only insurance. Perhaps if people were encouraged to use these funds for OTC stuff and preventative care and perhaps things like glasses these could be made to work. However, the major medical--this needs to be funded.
We need to get capitalism out of our healthcare system. You shouldn't have to buy life.
Very interesting viewpoint, Bonnie. I would have to agree with you 100%. My g/f works for the largest insurer in the country and can certainly testify that insurance companies are notably adept at denying claims. When she was with Principal Financial, she actually had to field calls from offices and explain why this that or the other wasn't covered. More often than not it was over a billing technicality.
ReplyDeleteInsurance networks and HMO's also force traditional doctors to see more patients and provide a lower level of service. Doctors cannot charge full costs to insurance and are forced to compensate by creating a drive through culture of medicine.
I remember when I was a kid, my parents would take us to the doctor with no insurance whatsoever. A regular visit would be $30 to $40 dollars, easy to pay out of pocket.
Now, a regular visit would cost in the $150 range and you really have to have some sort of insurance to help cover the costs.
I'm not a big fan of the HSA plan mentioned by Bush in the SOTU on Tuesday. The main reason is that allowing people that can readily afford dropping out of the risk pool and saving their own money for medical may cause the less fortunate who cannot afford to do so to suffer under higher premiums due to a smaller pool of insured. Again, it seems Bush is suggesting a program that will ultimately help only the rich. It seems like the wrong direction altogether.
Thanks for the visit Drew but more than that, I'm glad you're out blogging on something that is such a major issue and will no doubt be throughout the rest of this year. It needs to be addressed by all of us whatever area of the system we are in. As a small business owner (myself only) an HSA is a great thing over traditional insurance--it gives me something and I can afford it. I don't think it should be the only thing available as medical costs are expensive.
ReplyDelete