November 29, 2009
-
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure — which is: Try to please everybody. (Herbert Bayard Swope)
Because of the United States two-party system of government, everything seems to always be presented as “yes” or “no” and based on party loyalty. What a terrible way to run a government. One’s position on the Health Care Bill (and this is the Congress’ bill – not Obama’s bill) should not be determined as being in favor if one is a Democrat or a progressive, just as one should not be against it simply because one is a Republican or a conservative.
The fact that our present health care system is broken should be obvious to people of both parties. The fact that almost all other developed countries and many developing countries have better health care systems than the US, for cheaper dollars should be enough to prove that point. There is no rational argument for being against a health care system because of the dreaded “government control”. Right now, our health care system is government controlled – only at the State level. And it doesn’t work. That is why our doctors are regulated by the States. And the insurance companies are regulated by the States. We already have government control. So the question is, “Can and should the federal government exercise some control to fix the parts where the States have failed?” If insurance is to be considered part of a society’s infrastructure, like it is in so many other countries, than like other infrastructures like roads, utilities, etc. there needs to be structure that is common throughout all the States and that is the purpose of the Federal government. (And by the way, the Federal Government has done a wonderful job of developing the Interstate highways so no one can say that the Federal Government does a lousy job at everything.)
Much is made about the points of the health care bill that are contentious. Again, with our two-party system, the contentious issues are all that the media will discuss. But here are some good parts about the system that everyone should realize would be a big benefit to our current system – regardless of party affiliations.
For those people already insured: no bad practices by the insurance companies such as capping your annual or your lifetime benefits. No refusal of individuals based on pre-existing conditions. (How have the insurance companies been able to exploit this without the States interfering?) No provision for cancellation (such as unreported items at time of initial application). Insurance companies will not be able to charge more for women’s policies than they do for men’s policies. Young adults can be retained on their parents’ coverage until 26 (or 27). These are all common-sense items that should have been enforced years ago but because of the power of the insurance companies at the State level, and the impotence of the citizens at the State level, have not been adequately addressed.
This new health care bill will extend coverage to many who are presently not covered. The United States has more people not covered by insurance than any major developed country. And it shows with the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Under the proposed system, eligibility will be based on income plus dependents rather than just income as it is now. This will mean that the working poor (our highest rising class of citizens) will be able to be covered even if their job doesn’t cover them. The proposed bill will set up insurance exchanges to help smaller companies provide coverage for their workers. (Also, the self-employed and students who now are at the mercy of extravagant rates will be able to have decent coverage for decent premiums.)
In order to compel insurance companies to cover everyone, it is imperative that everyone is covered and not just those that need it. So small businesses will NOT be forced to provide coverage, and subsidies will be offered according to the poverty level to help everyone afford the coverage they need. The cost will be reasonable. It will be 2% of income for poverty level and based on a sliding scale to no more than 10% for higher wages of four times the poverty level. So for someone earning $40,000 a year, their premiums be less than $100 a month. (Compared to current rates often over $500 a month for individuals and much higher for family plans.)
So while both the Senate plan and the House plan may have some areas of contentions, it’s important to know that these above benefits are common and should be a welcome relief to everyone – Republican or Democrat. And with these benefits, the question should not be “For or Against the Health Care Bill?” but rather, “How can we make the Health Care Bill better?”
Comments (26)
I just watched a tv series about the life of John Adams spanning from the trial of the Boston massacre until his death. He was a fascinating individual and there were so many instances in his career after the U.S. became a nation where he feared that the two party system would bring down our government. Well, it almost did and I think the two party system hasn’t really advanced humanity. I hear so many Christians against health care reform simply because of the idea that people shouldn’t be given handouts. That sickens me because I thought it was a Christian’s duty to make sure that EVERYONE is provided for.
I sometimes wonder if the two-party system is not a purposeful artificial construct to keep the nation divided. For such an advanced country we sure do seem to have some priorities backward.
P.S. In one of your posts you mentioned empathy as one of your missions to learn and teach. I would be interested to read directly about the other three, should you have an inclination to do so.
There are many things I may never learn to understand, especially with how the system works, why it’s corrupted, why Walmart can get subsidies and the ducational system is rotten. But what I do know is that there no matter what the parties only seem to want to divide at any cost.
Overall I agree with the points you make.
Of course people who are truly genuine, who are out to love people as if they were our brother and sister would never be at the seat being in the position of a politician.
As always..in love with your entries.
there are good positive things about it, and negative things about it.
mainly, I am just very concerned about the federal government having more control of anything else in our lives. still, the thought that everyone can be covered is very, very alluring, and if the federal government can be trusted, give it a try. what is the federal government’s track record?
yet, there is this one clincher which has truly not been fully addressed, and which surely is and will be the end-all of this whole venture: can we as a nation afford it? will it bankrupt the united states so completely that we will have to have financial help from other countries, (ie: the European Union)?
right now, we are so far in debt that they won’t even talk about it in real terms. if this proposed new federal health care system really could work, there will still be many, many years of funneling billions of dollars into a hole with no recompense. I’m not sure we could survive that long with that much overhead.
I guess, my only question is this: where will the money come from to pay for this system?
this is a very good post, and you brought out a lot of good information … I’d like it if you would post more about it.
j.
@llibra -
not sure if it’s designed to keep the nation divided, but of course the two-party system was definitely and openly constructed on purpose, so the citizens can have more than one voice in the government.
in most countries, prior to our founding, there was just one voice or party, which was easily manipulated by the one group of leaders within that party. and with a one-party system, any president or king can easily muscle them around. two or more parties are much more democratic and safer.
blah blah blah … that and two dollars might get you coffee at starbucks, too!
j.
What I fear about the government not having some control of health care is that the insurance companies will make even more profit. It also concerns me that Americans may be subject to fines and imprisonment if they do not purchase medical coverage. I think I also read that it may take up to four years to implement the coverage.
The cost: maybe if the government stopped bailing out banks, investment companies, wall street, waging unnecessary wars, etc…
Here is a list of countries that have universal health coverage:
Afghanistan*, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq*, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom
*Universal health coverage provided by United States war funding
And I’m not financially well off, don’t have any health insurance, although I was and did, worked for municipal gov’t, so have good reason not to trust gov’t, but still believe our own money would be better used to service us with universal health care.
haha, ya got me goin’.
@SignificanceOfTheMightyClit - Hi. Thx for the sub and friend request. I have a silly quirk about friends, and so don’t have any in boxes on xa. I might be interested in having a virtual friend though if I could see your site; it’s rated x, which means no one can see it unless they send in proof of age to xa. Would you consider re-rating it to r?
@llibra -
I do believe that, in theory, it can be done. there has to be a way. I guess, our nation has so many intricacies that other nations don’t, it makes it hard to see the forest for all the trees. so many needles need threaded to make something work which should be relatively simple.
I definitely don’t think that insurance should be mandatory, with the fines or imprisonment being punishment for not having it. that simply makes no humane sense at all. does it? it rather boggles my mind to think any sensible legislator would force this upon someone.
another thing is that I don’t think companies should be forced to provide health coverage. many of them can’t afford it at all and are going under, while the ones who do make it have to charge higher prices for their goods and services to make it work … hence, making the average person/consumer struggle even more to make it in a depressed economy.
it’s a crazy mess to figure out.
@llibra - You asked about my “four missions” in life for me to learn/teach. They are 1) critical analysis; 2) empathy; 3) ethics/justice; and 4) conflict management. These were four things I came up with that I felt our society was lacking in. They are not taught in school, and they are not taught outside of school.
If you would like a descriptive essay on how I came up with these and how I define each of these, let me know at David.Kimball@att.net
@speraquodvereor - As to the cost, that shouldn’t be a problem. Look at our defense budget. (By the way, I work for Raytheon) There is no need for the US to pay so much for defense compared to other countries. Are we safer than the people in Sweden? Or Spain? Or Japan? When you see that the defense budget is about half of the total budget and look at the incremental benefits for the dollars spent, you realize that it’s not a matter of where the money would come from but rather a matter of priorities. We do not prioritiize helping the vulnerables in our society.
@speraquodvereor - Regarding your comment on the two party system. I didn’t mean we shouldn’t have two parties. But rather, we should have more than two parties. Every other developed country has multiple parties. Whenever a new democracy is formed (even in Iraq) it is never a two party system but rather a multi-party system. A multi-party system forces more collaborative efforts rather than contentious efforts. (Not that they don’t have conflicts.) Also, a consensus-based system is better than an up or down vote. In a consensus system, you have about five ways that you can vote and the process becomes one of consensus building rather than partisan fighting. All one has to do is to look at other countries and see that our system could and should be modified and still be a democracy. We are so provincial here in the US that we think that the only democracy is our brand of democracy. And we suffer because of our provincialism.
@llibra - I agree. I don’t understand how all these other countries can have universal health care (by considering health to be a part of their infrastructure) and we don’t. That is one area I would like to see improved in the current bills (there are two bills). But I am not prepared to say that I am against the bills because I want them better. I’m afraid of what will happen if we don’t get a bill passed. Another 20 years of nothing but creating an even bigger divide between the haves and the have-nots? We can’t afford that.
@llibra - Are you sure it’s rated X? It used to be but then I changed it. It should be open to all now. I can’t check it myself. Could/Would you check it and let me know if you don’t have access to it? I’ll report it (yet again) to the Xanga clan and insist (again) that they change it. Thanks.
@speraquodvereor - I agree that it’s a crazy mess. The craziness is in large part due to the fact that for some ungodly reason, insurance got tied up with employers. No other country that I know of has that as part of their system. What value is added by having it supplied by the employers? Especially on a checkerboard pattern where some do and some don’t and some have good coverage and others have poor coverage but the employee has no choice. Personally, I would like to see the employer part taken out completely – like it is in other countries. But I’m afraid to be against the bills (there are two of them) because of this as I’m afraid of what would happen in our society if something doesn’t get passed. Another 20 years of nothing like happened 20 years ago when health care reform was shot down because of partisan politics? We can’t afford to not change it.
@speraquodvereor - What about tweaking medicare/medicaid to include everyone? Those gov’t run programs seem to work fairly well. And I agree, companies should not have to include medical coverage to their employees, and if i understand the bill(s) correctly, some companies would not be required to do so. To me, bottom line on this issue is, will we have a gov’t by, for, and of the people, or as curiousdwk puts it, will the divide between the haves and have-nots continue to widen. sigh, it should not be a mess, it should be a no-brainer
@curiousdwk - I tried to e-mail you, but received an error msg: missing or malformed recipient, invalid e-mail value.
So: your four missions yes please, i would like to read your descriptive essay on how you came up with and define these.
You are also significanceofthemc? haha, that was unexpected, and now i’m even more curious. yes, the site is still rated x, and unavailable. as you have the old-style xa, you should be able to check, and change that rating by going to edit>account info>safebrowse; or new private homepage>settings>safebrowse.
or, good luck with getting xa people to help, i have a couple bugs on my site they can’t seem to fix. please let me know if that (your?) site becomes available, thx.
David, this post was long time coming. As long as the insurance companies and the hospital administrations are sitting at the same table, on the same side of the table, this is going to be a long drawn affair. The lobbying by the insurance companies is simply too great a hurdle I think.
Like you, I wish for a solution to this mockery of our health care system. Having been in it for more than forty years, I have seen a lot of heart ache among people who couldn’t afford to go to the doctors or pay for their medications. Heave help us, one and all.
Great post! Although I live in Canada, this issue about health care really interests me. If they implement a system something like the one here in Canada, the costs overall will be reduced.
I read that over 30% of funds goes to administration costs in the states right now. In Canada, the figure is just 1%. That alone will make a difference in the overall costs/savings to help more people have coverage.
I’m hoping for the best. Like you said, the system now isn’t working.
@godfatherofgreenbay -
Wow I so agree if you learn about early christian history hand outs were part of the early church system.
Christian standards now a days are fear tactics to make people listen. Why The almighty dollar speaks. I am for healthcare reform. So many are without in a rich nation who says they are christian is a shame.
@Ikwa -
@godfatherofgreenbay – Thanks to both of you for your comments. This whole issue shows why I feel our society is so lacking in four things: 1) critical analysis; 2) empathy; 3) ethics/justice; and 4) conflict management. If a society is to be judged by how it treats its vulnerables, our judgement would be one of damnation I’m afraid.
@ZSA_MD - Thanks Zsa. I’m sure that as you’ve been in the health care field for 40 years, you have seen a lot of problems with our health system. You have seen where the doctor’s recommendations get over-ridden by insurance administrators. I’m sure you have seen cases where people who were hurting or otherwise vulnerable were made to feel that they had no options or only terrible options. I’m sure you saw many cases where decisions were based on the availability or non-availability of funds rather than what was best for the patient. I’m sure you have seen countless people who were not able to understand the system and so weren’t able to defendd themselves nor to advocate for themselves or others. And I’m sure you have seen where so much of the system is ruled by those with power and a profit motive rather than by compassion. I’m sure you have seen so much more than any of us.
@llibra - I agree here also. It is foolish to say that nothing that the Government runs works. I know personally of many people who have benefitted from Medicaid/Medicare. I think that would be a good system for everyone. Or the health system that our Congress-people have. I understand that’s even better. If it’s good enough for our “public servants”, then perhaps it’s good enough for everyone. Thanks for the thought.
@curiousdwk - You have such a great vision, and see every thing with such clarity. You ar so right about everything you have written.
Hope your mini vacation was wonderful.
Just had time to read the first two or three paragraphs, and no surprise, we’re in total agreement with your opening thoughts. Can’t wait to have time to come back, and read and comment further. Gots to get to work.
Dear David,
Thank you for dropping by my blog, leaving a comment, befriending me, and most of all for subscribing. I thought I “recognized” your profile name perhaps. (You mentioned that you had read my blog in the past.) I have gone on “hiatuses”, most recently earlier this year, while I moved and then had my hip revision operation, but I’ve kept posting at least once a week to seem somewhat “active” on Xanga.
Okay, now to the subject at hand. I just gave you a recommend. I’ve been wanting to write something along these lines. Well written, and easily understood. I especially like how you begin the article. I’ve looked into the history of our political system, and no matter how many “third parties” appear (and quickly disappear), the U.S. is always split right down the middle. (Sometimes with disastrous results, like in 1861)
Love your comparison with the Health Care bill to the interstate highway system. (which was initiated by a Rebublican, it might be pointed out.) I always wonder why the critics of the ever evolving health care bill don’t seem to mind Medicare, which has been in existence for decades.
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
Well, I’m back, and this time I had time to read it all, and next time I’ll even have time to finish reading the comments!
Oh, woe is me
Time is my enemy
What a lousy poem THAT was. I’m too much of a purist to rhyme me and enemy. Remind me to rewrite it someday. Or better, just forget I wrote it
Of course, when you’re talking to me, you’re preaching to the choir. I did love the comment (by llibra) that listed all the countries with universal healthcare.