“The Best Health Care” Myth Debunked August 25, 2009
Posted by Kate Ryan in Health Care, Health Insurance, National Politics, Public Health, Public Option.Tags: Democrats, Economy, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, National Politics, Public Health, Public Option, Republicans, Single-Payer Insurance
add a comment
I was waiting in a long line in the post office yesterday. One poor clerk was working the desk and was being besieged by patrons with multiple packages, a mass mailing, and a pick-up of a certified letter that didn’t seem to be anywhere. The wait seemed endless. An elderly gentleman in front of me – obviously old enough to be enjoying his Medicare benefits – huffed and said, “And NOW they want to take over our health care!”
I stopped myself before publicly arguing with this old fool, but I wanted to tell him that while he’s enjoying his government-run health insurance, many other people would give their eye teeth to have whatever he had – even if it was inefficient. It’s a damn sight better than nothing. I just figured he was a Republican, and left it at that. And If you only know one thing about politics, know this – if there is one thing that the Republicans are really good at, it is the “sound bite”, the succinct summing-up of any debate in three words or less.
Rationing! Death Panels! Illegal Immigrants! Government Takeover! The lies and disinformation campaign have controlled this debate for almost a month now. Liberals, Progressives, and just plain Democrats that want health care reform have been stunned silent by the sheer numbers of people the other side has gotten to believe this. They’ve even got elderly Americans believing that the Medicare that they love and revere so much, is NOT a government-run healthcare program. I am losing faith in the intelligence of the American voter.
What’s worse than the lies from the other side is the amount of time we are spending to tell the American people what health care reform is NOT, rather than what it is. Is it any wonder that support for an Obama health care plan seems to be dwindling? Nobody knows just what it is. The administration MUST do a better job at letting Americans know what they are buying and what they can expect. Any of these explanations must include the debunking of the more insidious health care myths – the ones that all of us seem to accept without question. First and foremost of these is “The U.S. has the best health care in the world.”
According to every agency that keeps statistics on health care about the only areas where the United States is tops are in financial indicators. We are ranked #1 in how much money per capita we spend on health care (over $7,000 per year in 2008 – twice that of ANY other country), number one in the percentage of personal bankruptcies caused by health costs (50% in 2006), we have more medical equipment per capita than any other industrialized country in the world (MRI machines, CAT scanners, x-ray machines, etc.), and the highest rate of health management support workers (business managers, administrative workers, etc.) to providers (doctors, nurses, and pharmacists).
What we do not have are outcomes. Of 48 surveyed nations, the U.S. ranks 47th in life expectancy in the world (just below Costa Rica), 43rd in infant mortality (lower than Cuba), and 24th in the probability that you will die before the age of 60.
The fact is, our “best” and wonderful system of medical care is only available to those who can afford to pay. From 2000 to 2006, overall inflation has increased 3.5%, middle-class wages have increased 3.8%, and health care premiums have increased 87%. The family share of premiums plus cost sharing have been rising faster than inflation, causing access problems for some. Current estimates are that about 47 million Americans – about 17% of the population – is uninsured. Four out of five of the uninsured are families, and about two-thirds are low-income workers. The most often cited reason for lack of health insurance is cost (over 50%), followed by lack of a job (24%). Less than 10% of the uninsured are those that just don’t purchase it. These chronically uninsured do not count those people that will face insurance gaps – temporary loss of coverage, usually due to unemployment. Looking over the last two years, about 82 million Americans younger than 65 experienced a significant gap in insurance coverage.
This does not include the underinsured population – the Americans with insurance who find that the coverage is not adequate. Several organizations estimate that about 16 million of the insured do not have sufficient coverage to protect them from crushing out-of-pocket expenses. Of all the personal bankruptcies that were filed due to medical expenses, 75% of those were by individuals that had health insurance. Finally, more than 40 million adults stated that they needed but did not receive one or more of these health services (medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses) in 2005 because they could not afford it.
The most important feature of any health care reform legislation must be to provide universal coverage and health care access to all Americans. Many proposals that the Republicans and “blue-dog” Democrats say that they can affirm are health INSURANCE reforms, not reforms to health care. Eliminating denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and prohibiting dropping an insured individual from coverage because they are sick are great ideas – but they do not improve access. They are also a red herring. No, they won’t deny you coverage with a pre-existing condition, they’ll just charge you three or more times what anyone else pays. Insurance co-ops again will not improve access because they must compete within an industry model that only makes money by denying coverage. A non-profit entity still has to cover its expenses and insurance reform does nothing to lower cost.
The only thing that is guaranteed to provide universal coverage, adequate access, and lower costs to consumers is a public plan option. Immediately, consumers would see savings over 20% due to less overhead costs. More enrolled would mean lower costs as the risk would be spread through a larger population. It would be Medicare for everyone – but younger working people would pay additional premiums.
It is time that we realize that it isn’t good enough to have the most expensive best health care in the world – that more and more citizens do not have access to.
(sources: World Health Organization, Center for American Progress, U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Health Statistics)
Let’s Kill Grandma July 31, 2009
Posted by Kate Ryan in Democrats, Economy, Health Care, National Politics, Republicans.Tags: Chris Matthews, Democrats, Earl Blumenauer, Economy, Health Care, National Politics, Politics, Public Option, Republicans, Virginia Foxx
1 comment so far
The Republicans are firing a new salvo in their fight against meaningful health care reform. Apparently, House Democrats have hidden a provision in their reform bill that will force the elderly to choose to elect how they want to die. Or maybe it will send brown-shirted government workers to their houses to let them know that their health care costs too much and they need to take the big shot. Or maybe it it will pull them out of their homes and force them into a concentration camp for old people where they’ll be euthanized once they are no longer productive. However it happens, if you’re old, you’re a goner.
What is it that has these folks so riled up, so much so that Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said Wednesday on the House floor, “The Republican plan would “make sure we…will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.”? . It is Section 1233 of the bill called “Advance Care Planning Consultation”. It would enable anyone in any public plan (including Medicare) to voluntarily request and receive end-of-life counseling and have the government pay for it. The provision simply provides guidance to seniors (and younger people enrolled in the public plan) on complicated issues, such as living wills, durable power of attorneys and health care proxies, which are services Americans have been requesting for quite some time.
When I first started hearing about this, I thought it was another right-wing, lunatic-fringe, six-days wonder conspiracy theory. After all, I first heard it on TV by Rep. Foxx, one of those tea-bagging, “Obama is a secret Muslim and was not born in America” nut-bags (Foxx is, of course, the same congressional representative who said that the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming was not a hate crime, even though the confessed murderers stated that they singled him out because he was gay).
When the President was asked about this, however, by an elderly woman in a town hall meeting Wednesday, I knew the thing had legs.
On Wednesday evening’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, Matthews was so worked up about this that he could barely let his guests, Lois Romano of the Washington Post and Jonathan Martin of Politico, speak. Matthews (who I normally respect) really went off the rails here, equated the provision with taxpayer-funded abortions, and called the provision “social policy”.
“It’s the kind of social policy dynamite that sounds like Denmark or Scandanavia,” Matthews said, “and it’s that kind of mind set that drives a lot of moderates and conservatives crazy.”
Matthews, who at times lets his Irish-Catholic sensibilities through the veil of objectivity, must have gotten spanked a little by MSNBC for Wednesday’s segment because yesterday he had the provision’s sponsor, Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon on to explain it. Of course, before Blumenauer appeared, Matthews put Conservative radio host Lars Larsen on – who stated that the government would insist that doctors initiate the discussions with elderly people because they “had a dog in this fight” – there would be billions of dollars at stake.
When Blumenauer appeared, he was visibly passionate and upset over the obfuscation of the law by Larsen. “Lars is either not telling the truth,” the congressman explained, “or he doesn’t know how to read the bill.”
Blumenauer went on to explain that his provision, co-sponsored by a Republican, would just allow doctors to have these consultations with patients – ones that they are already having – and be compensated for them. Rep. Blumenauer said that doctors and the AARP support such a provision as it allows the decisions to be made before a person is too extremely ill to sensibly make them. Matthews pressed the congressman to tell him who would initiate the conversation. Blumenauer responded that it could come from either party; it is the same thing as any conversation any practitioner and patient would have about care for any illness.
One of the reasons that medicine costs so much in this country is, truly, that we use way too much of it – especially when it is clear that death is the inevitable result. Of course nobody wants to die, but there has to come a point where you know that no more medicine can help you. It really is the responsibility of any ethical medical practitioner to advise a patient when more medicine will extend, but not enhance, his or her life. Certainly, if a patient wants to keep fighting death he or she should be able to access all the medical community has to offer, and his doctor should be aware of his intentions. But the doctor should also know when or if the patient says “enough is enough”. Too many people do not have these conversations with their doctors and their care and quality of life suffers for it.
My Dad was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor in January, 2005. He had surgery, then went through chemotherapy and radiation – but the doctors made it clear to all of us that those measures would merely push death out a few months. When his scans showed that the tumor wasn’t going anywhere, my Mom, Dad, and the doctors decided how and where he would die. At the end, Dad was at home, with his family around him, and with excellent palliative care from hospice. Dad lasted 5 months to the day from his diagnosis – but died at home in his own bed – just as he wanted.
It is my hope that if I am ever diagnosed with some incurable disease, the doctor will be able to ask me what I want. I hope that the doctor will honestly tell me that I am at the end of the road. I do want to choose how I will die – free of pain, without extraordinary measures, calmly, and with dignity.
Don’t we all want that – even the crazy right-wingers?

