Health care costs for the public sector are going to keep rising and it likely will mean service cuts, tax increases, layoffs and labor disagreements at both the local and state levels of government. The micro read on this is that the various government entities have been too generous — which is way too simple an analysis. The reality is that we should be discussing this as part of the national health care debate and not focusing so narrowly on public employees and turnining to the rhetoric of resentment (i.e., “I work in the private sector and get shafted on health care, so public employees should get shafted, too). Fix health care and health insurance and this should take care of itself.
Tag: health care
Scare tactics on health care
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.
Closed party on health care
There will be changes in the way health care is provided, but we are not likely to ge the kind of comprehensive reform we need. Single-payer was taken off President Obama’s table a long time ago and, as if to emphasize his centrist bona fides, the president brought together the so-called stakeholders in the reform debate today — insurance companies, drug makers and “providers.”
Consumers, you say? Single-payer advocates? Nope. Forget it. They weren’t invited.
The president is calling it a consensus approach, but as with many policies Obama has pursued, consensus means capitulation, a willingness to bend and leave much of the status quo in place.
Don’t get me wrong. Obama has been a godsend after eight years of disaster. And he’s done quite a lot of good, so far. But on the big tickets, he has been too willing to give in — assuming big change was ever really on his agenda.
David Sirota thinks it was, but that
he’s afraid of being attacked by moneyed interests that enjoy the status quo, and he’s surrounded himself by Clintonites who, after the health care debacle of the early 1990s, aren’t interested in antagonizing the insurance industry.
It is up to us to change his mind.
Dispatches: National fix needed for healthcare mess
Dispatches is up — thoughts on healthcare after I attended an AARP event on Monday.
Unhealthy system of healthcare
I don’t have much to say about this report, aside from this: It is another in a steady stream of reports on American healthcare that outline its problems and, by implication, demand solutions.