Posts Tagged ‘Health care’

How not to message

Democrats have long had a messaging problem, especially at the national level. Sadly, in the past few days it’s become clear that Congressional Democrats have a brain function problem as well, one that is a lot more worrisome than mere issues with messaging, but in the off chance that they stop being afraid of their shadows and piddling all over the floor of the House of Representatives they may need to get back to messaging one day. Despite being told over and over, election after election, that they need to get a message in gear, they still haven’t done it. Maybe this time will be different, if there is a party left.

Read the rest of this entry »

Political Poker

I don’t think President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or other Democratic leaders in Congress are poker players. I think they’d be much better politicians if they were. If they were regular poker players, they’d understand that Obama and Democrats are now “pot-committed”, and folding their hand is the worst mistake they can make. Sadly, early reaction from the election yesterday seems to indicate they are all too willing to get up and walk away, guaranteeing defeat.

Read the rest of this entry »

Joementum

Tracking what is in and out of the health care bill at this point is a pretty hard task, with closed-door negotiations and compromises everywhere. But one thing is clearly evident: Joe Lieberman is a terrible, terrible human being.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health care reform priorities – Cost or Coverage?

A lot of people who are opposed to the current health care reform bill in Congress believe that it focuses on the wrong priority: instead of working to cover everybody with insurance, as the current bill attempts, more effort should be put into lowering costs first.

I agree that lowering health care costs is just as important, and probably more so, than providing everybody with health coverage. But in my opinion, the administration is doing this in the right order by focusing on coverage first. Why? Because reducing costs will ultimately require at minimum two things: paying doctors less, and no longer paying for unnecessary tests and treatments that have no medical merit.

Remember, “reducing health care costs” directly translates into somebody, be it doctor, lab tech, administrator, and even facility support staff getting a salary cut or losing their job entirely. If the pushback against this reform bill seems bad now, just wait until the goal of reform becomes to literally put people out of work.

Given those facts, tackling coverage instead of cost first seems like the right way to go. First, it’s easier, and it at least gets the reform ball rolling. Second, you have to give people something (universal coverage they don’t have to worry about) before you can take away something else, such as the ability to have every test and treatment they think they deserve because they saw an ad for it on TV or read about it on the internet. Taking things away first is not a political winner.

  • Current Mood: Monday

Health care and "freedom"

Ask anybody who has had their house foreclosed upon if the government guarantees a place to live.

Ask anybody who has lost their job if the government guarantees employment.

Ask anybody visiting a food shelf if the government even guarantees a minimum amount of food on the table.

In the U.S., the government guarantees next to nothing. A lot of people have a problem with this, but given the lack of serious attempts to change this in decades, it seems that people in the U.S. accept this situation as just fine.

So it’s pretty hard for me to take people seriously when they say that health care reform and a public option is a major blow against “freedom”, that such government intrusion is a takeover.

If we are going to have just one guarantee in this country, let it be this: that a person who has lost their home, lost their job, or even doesn’t have enough money to eat can still get access to the health care and prescription drugs that keep them alive.

I don’t think that is too much to ask.

Where are the free-market proponents?

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that there is currently a shortage of H1N1 flu vaccine, and that as a result receivers of the vaccine are being prioritized. High-risk groups, such as young children and health care workers, are getting it ahead of other groups. Even with this prioritization, clinics and phone lines are being overwhelmed by people looking for the vaccine, and shortages have canceled some planned clinics.

Read the rest of this entry »

  • Current Mood: Educated

You can’t have it all

I’m sure everybody’s heard the old joke that goes along the lines of "Your ideal spouse: Rich, Educated, Beautiful. Choose Two" or "Computer software: Fast, Easy, Affordable. Choose Two". No matter how much we want everything, it’s almost impossible to find something that has every positive aspect you are looking for. The same goes for health care reform.

Read the rest of this entry »

President Obama’s Target Center visit

Yesterday Julia and I had the exciting pleasure of volunteering at President Obama’s first White House rally at the Target Center in Minneapolis to argue for health care reform. We we asked to volunteer on Wednesday shortly after the visit was announced, and we jumped at the chance. Following a training session on Friday night, where we learned that we would be volunteer captains for the VIP section on the floor of the Target Center close to the podium, the rally left us tired, sore, and fired up. Here are a few of our experiences at that rally…

Read the rest of this entry »

Why health reform requires mandated universal coverage

If we are to have serious health care reform in this country, it will require everybody to have coverage. Universal coverage isn’t just a nicety, or “the right thing to do”, it’s an essential. Without it, real reform won’t be harder; it will, quite simply, be impossible.

The reason is purely economic, and revolves around the other reforms that people seem to take for granted: preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, and preventing insurance companies from rescinding existing coverage due to new illnesses, “technicalities” on the application, and other invented, generally evil reasons. These common insurance industry practices, the ones that lead to big bonuses for insurance company employees that find ways to drop expensive customers, are rightly seen as inhumane, and people assume that any health reform would put an end to them. But in order for that to happen, you absolutely need mandated, universal coverage.

It’s quite simple really: if you don’t mandate coverage, people will choose not to buy insurance until they get sick. Then, since insurance companies can’t deny coverage to anybody, and they can’t cancel coverage, the insurance company will have to pay for all future medical care, despite the consumer not paying any premiums before that point. Sure, the consumer may be on the hook for anything that happened before coverage started, for for chronic conditions like diabetes, there’s plenty of expenses that will come later. The customer saves money, and the insurance company goes under because they can’t recoup the cost of coverage through premiums.

It would be no different than allowing people to buy auto insurance after an accident, or to buy life insurance after they are already dead, with the insurance companies being forced to issue the policy. That’s a fantastic way to put all insurance companies out of business, but not a terribly good way to ensure the long-term health of the industry.

Thus, you need to force people to buy into the system from the beginning, so that they don’t game the system by waiting to purchase insurance. The best way to do that, however, is the question. I don’t think a fine, up to $3,800 as suggested by Sen. Max Baucus, is the way to do it. My preference would be that anybody who does not have other insurance would be automatically enrolled and billed for the public option (yet another reason why a public option is essential). That’s not a fine, that’s just being nudged into a default plan and paying for it.

No matter how you do it, though, mandatory universal coverage is essential if we hope to do away with the worst of insurance company excesses.

Health care: are people just too far apart?

The health care debate is generating a lot more heat than light these days, and I’m somewhat puzzled as to why. Only somewhat puzzled, though, because much of what is going on was accurately predicted long before this issue even came up, and in fact has been the norm for years. What we are seeing is the consequence of events that happened thirty or forty years ago, still having a huge impact today. The sad result is that people are so far apart, it’s hard to know if that gap can even be bridged.

Read the rest of this entry »

« Older Entries Newer Entries »