Maybe a lot of what I've said is considered more to the right politically than other Obama supporters, but on this issue, my Christianity pushes me to the left. The idea of insurance comes from different historical sources, but one of them is the Church.
In Acts 4, it says " And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."
And when Paul first met with James, Peter, and John, after his conversion, he reports that "... they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do." (Gal 2:10)
From the earliest history of the church, they were coming together, sharing with each other and the poor people of their communities. So I think it's fair to say that the idea of a community coming together to try to help out those in need, which became insurance, is a Christian one, if not exclusively so.So here's the problem: profit. Just as the Corporation has perverted the profit motive of entrepreneurial capitalism (see my post on debt), so Insurance For Profit has perverted the charitable nature of its roots.
In an article, a commentator noticed that President Obama used Health Insurance Reform instead of Health Care Reform in his speech last Wednesday, the commentator suggested that this might be an indication that President Obama may be backing away from public option plan, accepting bills concentrating on regulating current insurance companies. I disagree with this interpretation, because public option plan seems to be essential for reforming the health insurance industry.
I came across some footage on C-Span where some Republican law makers provided their arguments against public option plan. Aside from the merit of their arguments, their arguments are fundamentally flaw. The important theme of their arguments include that public option plan would not be good quality; that the public option plan means government take-over, and wellness program etc. can be used to improve the current health care system.
I said that their arguments are fundamentally flaw because their first argument directly contradicts the second argument. It seems all the proposed plans leave the individuals to choose their plans. If the public option plan is bad, people would not choose it, so there would be no danger of government take over. If people overwhelming choose the public plan, then it is a strong indication that public plan is significantly better than private plans. Then there is no reason not to accept the public plan, if government take-over provides better results.
The third argument seems to suggest that wellness program will be able to solve the problems in health care system, so government should be kept out of the system. But it is simply not truth, because the health insurance industry is lack of competition, and I would like to explain further about the situation. In antitrust law, when analyze the condition of an industry, many factors will be considered to draw conclusion about whether competitions will be impaired. One important factor is the alternative or approximate (in function) industry, and the barrier of entry. For example, when we think about office supply stores, the market concentration might be significant, Staples, Office Depot, Office Max seem to have significant market shares. But, competition would not necessarily be impaired because other stores such as the superstores, supermarkets, department stores, electronic stores, furniture store, convenient stores, etc. also sell some portions of the same products. The market shares these superstores enjoy are based on their low prices. If they raise their prices, other stores will take over the market shares.
Although there are probably more Health Insurance Companies than in many other industries, the nature of this industry determined less competition exists in the industry. Although some large companies may provide their own health insurance program for their employees, in general no other companies can provide something as alternative to health insurance. This means that there is no alternative. In addition, not only the nature of the business requires scale, so that it is difficult for companies with limited investment to enter the market, the current policies of insurance companies make it difficult to acquire new clients. All private insurance companies could deny coverage for “pre-existing condition”, for many insurance companies this means that a condition started five years ago when you started purchasing policy from the insurance company that you did not even know of. This means that people would be very reluctant to switch their insurance companies, and this certainly will significantly reduce competitions. With little competition, the cost for health insurance could rise without limit. With any other industries, the prices often fluctuate, even if the prices keep increasing, the magnitudes often fluctuate. This is not the case with health insurance premium, so it is a strong indication of lack of competition in the industry.
The current discussions about legislation mostly include prohibiting health insurance companies denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. But under the current condition what would be the effect of this? Skyrocketing health insurance premiums. If heath insurance companies cannot calculate their risks (because of the requirement that they would not be able to deny coverage for the high risk individuals), as private companies that do not have significant competitions, it will be very nature for them to be conservative, over-estimating the risks and charging more for the premiums. If government subsidies are provided for certain groups of individuals, this means that waste of taxpayers’ money.
In addition, the policies to prohibit health insurance companies denying coverage would likely increase market concentration in the health insurance industry. The requirement certainly will increase the risks for the health insurance companies, and bigger companies can better reduce the risks based on their scales. So, smaller health insurance companies would likely to disappear, which means even less competition, which means higher premium for anyone, and more waste of taxpayer’s money.
In conclusion, any meaningful reform of health insurance industry would have to include establishing a public option plan, even if simply for the sake of increasing competition. The fact that most people who are against the public option automatically assume that it means government take over is very telling. And, this let me think about the nature of the entire debate. Is it politics as usual, do many people simply want to mislead the public? I like to think of myself as politically independent. But I find myself mostly in line with Democratic now not just because that I likely agree with the policies, it is also because I often become suspicious about the motives of many people on Republican side. Do they really believe what they are saying? Have they thought it through? Are they just lack of common sense? Or, they just want to mislead people in order to protect their own interests, whatever they might be?
To tell the truth I am not sure whether public option plan will mean government take-over, it is probably because I think it would not matter if it lead to better health insurance system, and better health care system. I initially was puzzled by the resistance from the public about the health care reform. After a little contemplation, I start to understand. I read that in the Great Depression, the unemployment rate was about 25 percent, and the condition of the economy was much worse than now, so many current existing social and economic programs were established or started after that time. What would it be like without these social and economic programs and without the rescuing plan?
Looking at human nature, humans’ reaction to the same thing might be different in different circumstances. The effect of the Great Depression made people realized that their economic and social status could instantly change, that they are not immune from anything, so that they are more acceptable to social and economic program that may not benefit them in their current position, and might require them to make sacrifices. Second, the Great Depression made many people lost just about everything, so many felt that they have nothing to lose, thus are willing to try new things. The current economic down turn did not have the same effect. One, for the most part, people’s wealth are reduced, but not wiped out, so their social and economic status did not change dramatically, and the sympathy from most people for others who are less fortunate are less significant. Second, as people are trying to get back to where they were, they would welcome less change, not more. A few months ago things could be really bad, people are scared, so they like someone to do something. But as things calmed down, but not as good as they hope, they would like to think about how to beat the odds. It is just as when disaster came, people’s sense of community will increase, and as the danger passes, it is everyone for themselves.
Of course it is natural to be skeptical for significant changes in the society. One of the fear and one of the most effective arguments against the reform is that people often believe the advanced technology developments in health care industry is results of the current system. But I think that this is not true. The real reason for the advanced technology development in health care system in United States is that it is the biggest market in financial terms. With the most demand, the advance is most rapid. People need to remember that government involvement is the determining factor in the development of many industries, and some examples include aerospace industry, electronic industry, computer industry and the Internet. The fact is when the industries need government involvement, they will do it quietly, only when government’s involvement might hurt certain industries, we will have ear full of government take-over. We should be confident that with government involvement, the development in health care industry would be more, not less. Of course it is not automatic, but confidence and can-do attitude are required to make changes.
There are many suggestions about how to make changes, and I think the wellness program that some republican law makers talked about can be used to change the way of providing health care in public sponsored program as well. There are many things to be considered in changing the health care system, so it should be a working process that laws that provide the basic frame work should be established first (establishing a public option plan should be in the framework, as I discussed above, it is essential to solve the problems in health insurance industry), then certain details can be added gradually.
I like to add comments about revenue generating methods for paying for the reform. I believe taxing cigarette, liquor, and high sugar products such as soft drinks should be considered. The consumption of cigarette, liquor, and sugar many cause health problems. Although people should not be paying for high health care costs just because they happen to have bad health, people do need to be responsible for doing things to harm their health. In the case of cigarette, the consumption itself causes danger to the health. So tax should be used as one of the ways to prevent people from smoking. Although currently cigarettes are taxed, perhaps more tax can be added in order to make it preventive. Liquor and sugar consumption do not necessarily cause health problems, it is only when the consumption is excessive that it becomes a problem. So taxes on liquor and sugar products such as soft drink should be relatively low, so that the taxes would not be a heavy burden for modest consumptions, but will make an impact on heavy consumptions.
I made a simply calculation. Assuming everyone in US is consuming two cans of soda pre day, with 1 cent tax per can, the tax revenue would be a little over 2 billion dollars (based on the population in US is 300 million). If the tax is 4 cents per can, then the revenue generated will be close to 10 billion dollars per year (the tax is less than 1/5 of the cost of a can of soda, this means that it will only prevent people to skip 1 can out of 5, so the tax may go higher in order to actually rise 10 billion dollars). The point is that none of these products are necessities, so it would not necessarily generate hardship, only will improve the health of the nation. This method would not only influence the consumer behaviors, it will also force related industries to provide healthier products. If tax is on sugar and is making an impact on the cost, companies will try to reduce sugar usage. If tax will be added to high sugar concentrated products, then the companies will try to produce more alternative products in order to compensate consumer cutbacks. Currently there are many lower sugar concentration products, it proved that tasty products do not have to be loaded with sugar.
I also like to think that use monetary penalties instead of prison times might be a better way to combat drug problems. Prisons are over-crowed in most places in United States, and significant law enforcement resources are used to conduct the “War on Drug”. But as far as I can see, it is a losing battle (I will discuss further in my later post about methods and effects of the law). For people who are selling drugs, the primary motive is financial. So, if financial incentive is effectively dealt with, the problems with drugs will be reduced. At the same time, fines and forfeited proceeds from the drug dealings could be used as revenues for health care system (as drug problem is a health problem).
I support taxes on wealthy individuals (I will explain in my later post why), but I think the revenue generated from it can be used to reduce the general budget deficit. Taxing cigarette, liquor, and high sugar products such as soft drinks is intended to reduce consumptions, so it will not necessarily lead to out of pocket expenses for consumers. If people would not reduce consumption, then the out of pocket costs can either be penalties for their irresponsive behaviors (and payment for increased health care costs for them as the results of their behaviors), if their consumptions will cost health problems, or they will pay modest sums for the freedom of their indulgence, the sense security and benefits provided by the new health care system, if their consumptions are not excessive.
**Original Posted at www.booloon.com.
**Permission is needed to use contents of this blog. All rights reserved.
“If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything,” Alice Cooper/Xzbit
Wow! Saturday was awesome! Messy house and all, I was determined to host a HealthCare kickoff meeting, and I did, in the backyard. Angela and I dragged tables, umbrellas, HDTV, speakers and laptop outside with a few plastic chairs and TV tables to make our own Healthcare Viewing Room under the Fremont sun. Between sneezes from her allergies, Angela set out bottles of juice and water, healthy snacks, and connected everything up. I made lots of copies for our little group and ran the video.
Paul, the intellectual among us, wrote his own manifesto, which you can view at our Yahoo! Groups website. http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/irvingtonfremonthealthcare/
Glenn even wrote a poem, just for the event which he delivered and I recorded! You can listen to it here:
by Glenn Meisenheimer© Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved http://www.glennmeisenheimer.com/the_end.htm
Also, here are all our stories, showing the wide disparity of experiences in US healthcare:
“I was working for a dot com company when the bubble collapsed. This (because of my age) left me out of work for 2 years. During that time I was dealing with severe back pain but couldn’t afford to see a doctor. I wasn’t eligible for Medi-Cal because I was desperately trying not to lose my house. Because I owned the house I couldn’t qualify for assistance.”
“My best friend died fighting to find doctors to assist with her heart condition. She was on Medicare and Medicaid. It took over a year to find a willing doctor to perform the surgery. Her heart was too weak by that time to survive the procedure. She passed June 12, 2008.”
“As an uninsured (unemployment for >1yr) my husband had a fall. Emergency room was $10,000. Health Care reform is needed because of all the debt created by unpaid medical bills. Either it takes all savings or ruins chances of credit in the future. Husband has given up on any kind of financial self-sufficiency. We need it for the overall health of our country.”
“My husband and I are self-employed, we have to purchase our own health insurance, premiums are way high and do not cover our dental neither eye surgeries, which are considered ‘cosmetic’ and cost us a total of $8,000. Both of us ended up getting private laser eye surgeries and going to Mexico for dental care. Fortunately, my sister is a dentist and she helped us with low pricing so we could afford it. We want more coverage and more affordable prices.”
“When my husband had a job that did not provide health care, we attempted to get health care on our own. Due to pre-existing conditions, we were uniformly denied coverage by many providers. We did get on minimal county insurance we were not covered. I had to go to the hospital and for a one day visit which turned out was not covered by the county, we received a bill for $7,000. We also delayed needed medical tests. One clear thing was that any catastrophic medical issue would have ruined us.”
So much to be done! Will we get there? Will we effectively render a positive change? Stay tuned!
Single-payer national health insurance isn’t socialized medicine (and if it was you can bet most doctors in the U.S. wouldn’t support it.) Single-payer is simply a streamlined system in which a single agency organizes health-care financing and payments: delivery of medical care remains essentially as it in in the U.S. today - largely private. All that’s lost is the red-tape and restrictions.
Who’s against it then? Insurance companies, because they profit enormously from the current system - even though they add no value. In fact, many people will tell you that insurance companies make it hard to get what they deserve and pay for with the premiums. That’s why it was such a major focus of Obama’s campaign in 2008: he proposed that modern health care should include giving everybody in the U.S. coverage.
To get there we need the freedom to choose between keeping private insurance—for those lucky enough to have any—and opting into a universally available public health insurance option (something like Medicare.) Ultimately, by reducing the number of agencies handling the payments we simplify the task for hospitals and clinics - less of the time and money goes to red tape, and more goes to actual medical services.
Ultimately that also means diminishing the power and profits of the private insurance companies currently siphoning their lavish earnings off your health care payemnts. They make money off the red tape, and by letting non-medical personnel decide what should and should not be prescribed to treat patients, and that’s a large part of what has caused costs to soar while coverage just shrinks.
It’s time for a reality check. Insurance companies profit from the current system, so naturally they’re opposed to changes that hurt their bottom line and their corporate bonuses. What value do they add to the process?
Digg this article…
