I hope Nicholas D. Kristof is right about this, that we are wiser about the failings of our own health system and won’t be scared off by the kind of “swiftboating” that targeted John Kerry and that helped doom the Clinton-era health reforms.
In a fine column discussing the Canadian-style single-payer plan, he demonstrates that most of the arguments against single-payer are, well, hogwash. Focusing on the story of an American attorney living in Vancouver, BC, and paying “the equivalent of just $49 a month for health care,” he knocks the legs out from under the arguments against the Canadian plan.
Diane Tucker, 59, the subject of his column, suffered a stroke at work and was transported to an emergency room where she was met by a doctor who immediately took her for a CT scan. She was released after a week in a hospital in which “conditions weren’t as opulent as at some American hospitals.”
Then again, the price was right. “They never spoke to me about money,” she said. “Not when I checked in, and not when I left.”
Scheduling an appointment with a specialist after her hospital stay wasn’t exactly easy, but she did get an appointment and “underwent three months of rehabilitation, including physical therapy several times a week.”
Again there was no charge, no co-payment.
See a pattern?
Let’s consider her American experience — which occurred last year while on a visit to San Francisco. She had fainted and was rushed to a hospital, where “the person meeting her at the emergency room door wasn’t a doctor.”
“The first person I saw was a lady with a computer,” she said, “asking me how I intended to pay the bill.” Ms. Tucker did, in fact, have insurance, but she was told she would have to pay herself and seek reimbursement.
Nothing was seriously wrong, and the hospital discharged her after five hours. The bill came to $8,789.29.
The two experiences, Kristof writes, have settled it for Tucker:
Ms. Tucker has since lost her job in the recession, but she says she’s stuck in Canada — because if she goes back to the United States, she will pay a fortune for private health insurance because of her history of a stroke. “I’m trying to find another job here,” she said. “I want to stay here because of medical insurance.”
Of course, single-payer is not on the table at the moment — a travesty. Rather, we are arguing over the merits of creating a public insurance option that would compete with the private insurers, with lawmakers fearful that private insurers would not be competitive with the public plan. You read that correctly: Lawmakers are more concerned with inefficient private insurance companies than with providing lower-cost insurance and expanding coverage.
Given the way this debate is playing out, I doubt anyone would be surprised to learn that the health and insurance industries have given in excess of $3 million to Congressional candidates during the 2010 election cycle — which started in January.
Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, one of the committees reviewing health care legislation, is a major recipient of health care and insurance money, as are many members of the relevant committees.on
The reality is that this is a fight about money — providing access to health care to everyone in the United States will cost the insurance industry, the HMOs and many in the health care industry money. That’s why they’re spending money to control what reform ultimately will look like.
As much as this is a discussion about health care, it also is evidence of the need for a clean elections program — voluntary public financing of campaigns — at the federal level. Take the private money out of the system and we stand a fighting chance to make the kind of changes we need.
Hank Kalet 