Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Health Insurance Reform

Let me recommend Bill Moyers to you. Washington is still discussing revisons to the health insurance industry and calling it "health care reform." It is as close to being the latter as I am to being Magic Johnson.

The canard about “most Americans are happy with the health coverage that they presently have, and they don’t want to lose it” is thoroughly debunked in that discussion. Dr. David Himmelstein responds to that question,

Well, people are satisfied many times with their doctor and with the hospitals they go to. And most Americans aren't sick and don't actually have experience of their health insurance. But when you get sick, and actually have to use your insurance, that's when people find out the dark side of the policies they have. Huge co-payments, huge deductibles.

Of all the plans that are being presented, by Obama, Congress and others, none represent anything even close to universal health care for this nation. What they consist of is making sure that every citizen of this nation is required to pay money into the health insurance system. How close is that to the “universal health care” that the proponents use to describe them? Not even close.

Illinois State Senator Obama,

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan. We may not get there immediately, because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

Now that all of that has happened, President Obama,

"If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. (…) We don't want a huge disruption as we go into health care reform where suddenly we are trying to completely reinvent 1/6th of the economy."

An economy which has pretty thoroughly failed and is probably in serious need of reinvention. But that is a different discussion.

Just who would be disrupted? Doctors and hospitals would not be disrupted; they would just go on seeing and treating patients. A reduced paperwork load would hardly be a disruption. Patients would not be disrupted; they would see whatever doctor they want and go to whatever clinic or hospital they want. Insurance company profits would certainly be disrupted, and the legislators who receive massive campaign contributions from those companies would be disrupted.

What is disruptive is the cost of our current system, even for people with health insurance. According to Health Commentary two recent studies have shown that “health care costs, for both insured and uninsured, were pushing increasing numbers of American families to bankruptcy.”

Obama promises to reduce the cost of insurance coverage, but the cost of coverage is not the problem. In the “for profit model” of health insurance, the industry makes its profit not by providing health care to its subscribers when they need it, but by denying that care, and they enhance that profit by heaping as much cost as they can get away with onto the subscriber in the form of deductibles, copays and “uninsured costs.”

And those costs place strain on family finances, strain that in cases of severe or chronic illness, or worst of all in the event of catastrophic illness, leads to bankruptcy.

…nearly half (46%) met at least one of the four criteria for “major medical bankruptcy.” The criteria include illness or injury as a direct cause of insolvency, uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000, two weeks of work lost to illness or injury, or a history of mortgaging the home to pay medical bills. (…) Surprisingly, most of those who eventually slid into medical insolvency were initially insured. More than 75 percent had coverage prior to their illness or injury.

How, precisely, is universal health insurance coverage going to change the rate of “major medical bankruptcy” in this nation when most of those bankruptcies, 75% of them, are happening to people who are covered by health insurance?

Critics of single payer systems cite waiting times for non-emergency procedures, but in how many countries who have that system does an entire family lose their home, their savings and everything of value due to a catastrophic illness of one family member?

The studies released last week estimate that 57 million Americans, 75% of whom are insured, are straining to pay medical bills.

How is making sure that every single American is required to pay money into the health insurance industry going to alleviate the suffering of almost 43 million Americans who are “straining to pay medical bills,” and presently have health insurance?

Leadership does not consist of deciding that something is too difficult and deciding to do what is easier. Obama has espoused single payer health care when he did not have to actually fight for it. Now that he is in a position to actually make it happen he says that it would be a good thing but is impossible, and refuses even to allow it as a candidate in the discussion.

I voted for Barack Obama because he promised he would be the leader we needed. Supporting the status quo is not leadership.

No comments:

Post a Comment