Last week in The Inquirer, columnist Susan Estrich, who, while I despise labeling, would probably call herself liberal, came out against Obama's healthcare reform. The title of the piece was Don't risk your benefits. A known liberal columnist coming out against healthcare reform can hold a lot of sway, so as my first post I'd like to discuss some of her points and explain where I think she got it wrong.
Your benefits are not at risk–-at least not through a reform plan
Let's start with the title of the article. I find it strange that, over the last couple of decades since the advent of HMOs and PPOs, all the news seemed to be about patient disatisfaction with insurance plans that put obstacles between them and their healthcare providers. Now, suddenly, we are told most people are satisfied with their coverage and won't give it up for love or money. Well, the good news is, if people really are satisfied with their plans, they are free to keep them. I don't know how many different ways it can be said before people stop buying into the misinformation put out there by reform opponents. There is no plan in the House or the Senate or recommended by the Obama administration that would require anyone to involuntarily give up their current health coverage. Period.
Lest you think this blog will simply be an apology for the Obama plan, this is a good place to point out that I have strong doubts a competitive market system with the addition of a public plan is nearly enough to solve our current healthcare problems. I believe anything less than an entire system overhaul with more centralized control, what some might call single payer or, yes, socialized medicine, is required. More on that in other posts, but for now, suffice it to say, the prospects of that happening in the near future are nil. So this sudden love affair everyone seems to have adopted with their favorite insurance company can continue without interruption––at least the government won't interrupt it, whether your insurer or your employer interrupts it is another matter.
The best healthcare in the world
The US ranks 27th in the world for life expectancy. Our infant mortality rate is higher than the other industrialized nations. According to a study funded by the Commonwealth Fund of 14 Western European countries plus Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, the US is now dead last (and by a wide margin) in reducing its "amenable mortality rate," that is, the number of deaths per 100,000 "from certain causes before age 75 that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care." At one point we ranked fairly well on the scale, but while everyone has improved somewhat since the 1990s, the other countries have been improving at much higher rates.
I could continue listing statistics. The point is, opponents of healthcare can't continue hiding behind the myth that our system is too good to be tampered with. All the countries outranking us have some form of universal healthcare coverage, but it isn't only the uninsured and the underinsured whose health is suffering. In his book Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform in which he lays out the basics of the Obama plan, Dr. Howard Dean claims that the US "wastes as much as $700 billion a year on tests and treatments that cannot be shown to improve health." Dean notes that the Obama plan calls for establishment of an independent institute to research and review comparative effectiveness of treatments. (1)
The government coming between you and your doctor
Ms. Estrich seems to enjoy a good professional relationship with her doctor and fears a system where government will intervene in that relationship. I don't know what kind of coverage she has, but most of us already have insurance companies intervening between us and our doctors and they do it with profits in mind. Many physicians support healthcare reform. The AMA supports reform that will bring affordable healthcare to everyone, but pretty much under the system we now have. I'm not sure how that's going to happen. Other large groups of physicians support more systemic reform and the Physicians for a National Health Program are lobbying for single payer. However, they favor public coverage with private choice. I'm not sure I favor that much either.
These represent just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misunderstandings and misinformation flying around regarding healthcare reform. I have nothing against a spirited debate, but it has to be more than a rationale for the status quo by those who feel they, personally, have nothing to gain from a change, and it has to have some basis in fact rather than conjecture.
If you agree or disagree, I would love to read your comments. Please, keep it civil, try not to resort to name-calling, and try to focus your comments on this specific post. If you wish to discuss another aspect, chances are I'll cover it at some point, and if I don't, you can contact me. Maybe we can arrange a guest post.
Next: What you stand to lose from the status quo
(1)Dean, Howard, MD. 2009. Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
BLOGGING FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM
And maybe more...
Deaths from Uninsured or Underinsured 2
How You Can Show Your Support
ATTEND AN AUGUST EVENT
If you see healthcare reform as an important issue, perhaps the most important issue in decades, you may be getting frustrated and wondering how you can make your views known. One way is to contact your lawmakers (see sidebar). Another is to attend an event.
Opponents of healthcare reform are organizing to show up at town hall meetings all over the country, and where they are in the minority, they sit in strategic spots in the audience and interrupt the speaker. They've already caught the attention of the media.
Free speech is fine, but we can't allow a minority of shouters to monopolize the debate. Go to the above site and commit to attending one event in the month of August.
Blogging About Healthcare and maybe more...
How does that ad go? "This isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it's a human issue." They're talking about the environment, but it could apply to healthcare reform as well, at least in the US. That's not altruism for the 48 million and counting uninsured. It's good old American "what's in it for me" thinking for both the uninsured and the currently insured who could find themselves uninsured at any moment.
Even if you've already taken sides on healthcare reform––especially if you have––I urge you to read these posts and simply consider these points. I have a writing blog and a book review blog, and I swore I'd never add my voice to the cacophony of angry voices blogging on politics. Only there are so many people adding their voices who don't have a clue what they are talking about, that I figured my more than 10 years experience working in benefits––most of it looking for ways to contain costs without cutting benefits––might actually add something to the conversation (if you can call it that).
I promise not to make statements I can't back up with experience or research. In return I ask that you approach my posts with an open mind, and when you comment, which I hope you will, make the comments civil so that they invite further discussion. Also, please comment on this blog rather than dragging the discussion to your own blogs, so that we can all take part.
I'm open to guest posts on either side, so long as they are well-informed and cite sources. Contact me
Even if you've already taken sides on healthcare reform––especially if you have––I urge you to read these posts and simply consider these points. I have a writing blog and a book review blog, and I swore I'd never add my voice to the cacophony of angry voices blogging on politics. Only there are so many people adding their voices who don't have a clue what they are talking about, that I figured my more than 10 years experience working in benefits––most of it looking for ways to contain costs without cutting benefits––might actually add something to the conversation (if you can call it that).
I promise not to make statements I can't back up with experience or research. In return I ask that you approach my posts with an open mind, and when you comment, which I hope you will, make the comments civil so that they invite further discussion. Also, please comment on this blog rather than dragging the discussion to your own blogs, so that we can all take part.
I'm open to guest posts on either side, so long as they are well-informed and cite sources. Contact me
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
"Won't lose your health care"
I was speaking to a woman at a tea party tent, and we had a very civil conversation about what we agreed about and disagreed about in health care reform. I had met her the night before when I served her at a restaurant, and having established a sort of simple relationship, neither of us was able to completely disregard the other and stand there shouting or speaking our views without hearing the other one.
We both agreed strongly about reducing corporate control over things, and that our representation at the national level has been reduced to zero because of corporations. This was each of our number one gripes with the US system, and moving on from such strong agreement together on this, it was impossible to see our disagreement over health care reform as anything more than a difference of opinion. I hope, hope hope that talking to her helped her to understand the legitimacy of my side, as she helped me in that way.
What I took away from that is that for one thing, she was sincerely upset that, if a public option were available, her employer would, in her words, dump private coverage in a second. She liked her insurance plan very much. She works in the public education field, and i know that their health insurance premium is 10,000 per year - my brother in law is a teacher - giving them fantastic benefits.
Given the possibility of this, I understood that she feels she really WILL lose the plan she likes, and must fight against a public option.
Legitimate concern.
I would not wish unemployment on her, but in the event of a job loss, she will have shot herself in the foot, and is thus taking a bit of a gamble in fighting against health care reform. She may understand this.
Public educators, in most states, are the last vestiges of the middle class who still have those plans that were popular 30 years ago, but you know what, they are eroding to as states struggle with deficits. And, as you say, she could lose her job.
However, this idea that the public option means people waiting in line at clinics has no grounding. First off (and even I didn't realize this until the other day), the uninsured will have a menu of low-cost options to choose from, one of which will be a public plan. Second, I'm sure it will operate much like an HMO which I have had for nearly 20 years and I like better than my old indemnity plan. I pay $25 when I go to the doctor and never see another bill. Better yet, unlike my old plan, my doctor contacts me when I'm due for vaccinations, mammograms, routine physicals, etc. I've never been denied a specialist. However, like you, I don't over-use.
Post a Comment