Ezra Klein succinctly analyzes the various health care options. The Harvard poll at the top of his piece gives me some hope that we will achieve some type of health care reform. The fact that 45% of respondents thought "socialized" medicine would be better than what we now have is amazing.
That is a significant attitude adjustment. If a poll using the big bogeyman word socialized, still shows that type of support, we have made progress. Or more, likely it proves how screwed up our current health care system is.
As Ezra points out no one in this country is seriously advocating a socialized program. I would prefer a single payer system. That not being likely, however, we must fight to insure that any program which passes has to provide a public option. If there is no public option to keep private insurers in check, we will be no better off than we are today.
As Paul Krugman pointed out rules 1 & 2 are "Don't trust the insurance industry". The industry lobbyists are hard at work on moderate and weak Democrats. Make your voice heard over the insurance and pharmaceutical lobby. This is our best chance to fix this system.
Even with a 'single-payer' system, aren't you still beholden to the insurance companies? They make their money by denying claims. I know they can't do that arbitrarily, but at least if my doctor says I need an MRI, I don't have to wait for the governement to approve it (although they do administer certain programs, like prescription drugs).
ReplyDeleteOf course insurance companies won't reform themselves. They are businesses. Businesses exist for one reason: to make money. Full stop. This is not news.
Just like the big polluters in the 70's didn't clean up their act until forced to, I think your insurance companies will keep up their song and dance for as long as possible. They'll only move on this when there is a financial benefit for them to do so, or if they're legislated to do so. They will claim undue hardship in a time of economic recession & uncertainty.
Canadians know the system here is flawed. Americans definitely don't have a monopoly on the term 'healthcare crisis'. A couple of elections ago (we have waaaay too many), most polls showed that it was the top issue on most voters minds. But, for whatever reasons -- access to healthcare most likely being one of them -- Canadians live, on average, three years longer than Americans.
Whenever talk arises about partial privitization, most Canadians are reluctant to accept/permit what we see as the beginnings of a two-tiered medical system, and the erosion of a Canadian ideal. It is seen, or at least debated, as the first step towards a slippery slope.
I take our medical system for granted. It's what I've grown up with. I hear people complaining a lot, but my own experiences (somewhat limited) have only left me grateful for it. All programs will be flawed, as are all systems of governement. I don't think that should be a reason for your government, and your citizens, to not step forward on this.
Bottom line is that we are likely to have to settle for some bastardization of a public health plan. Politically, a government only system, which I would favor has no chance politically.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my letter to the President. My hope is that he will insist on a public option. The public option will at least keep the insurance companies in check, and that is the best we can hope for to start.
I hope Obama, in his zeal to seem bipartisan does not give in to the Republicans, and weak Dems. He needs to remember that Social Security, under FDR, did not get a single Republican vote. Get it through, do it right, and the Republicans are dead for years to come. Compromise and allow a weak plan, and the only ones dying are the American people, even sooner than we already are.
You mention, that people complain a lot about things up there, but in general don't want to change.
When I was growing up, health care was a given. You did not even think about it. Certainly, some plans were better than others, but nobody really had a lack of quality care.
That is not the case anymore. That is the biggest change from when Clinton tried to get health care. Then we were only beginning to see the problems on the horizon. So now is the opportunity, I just hope Obama & the Dems don't blow it.
You have so much knowledge of matters political. This fact that FDR didn't have any Republican votes for his SS plan is quite stunning. Politics are so polarized in the US (as if this were news to you). The flip side though is that, there's talk of yet another election this summer here in Canada. These god damned 'votes of non-confidence' and coalitions. I would almost prefer four-year terms, no matter who is in, just so that these friggin' politicians would GET SOMETHING DONE! Instead, they're always on the campaign trail. (Plus, we just had a provincial election in May. Enough with the frickin' signs! :))
ReplyDeleteYou say that when you were growing up, healthcare was a given. What's changed? Same for the Clinton era. Why has your healthcare been eroded?
(Has anyone ever told you you look just like John Travolta?)
I was surprised about the Social Security vote myself. I thought the polarization was a more recent issue. In some ways it is. I'll get to that, perhaps in another post.
ReplyDeleteDuring FDR's time I believe the Republicans opposed his policies more because they feared his success, than out of principled opposition. History proved they were correct to fear his success. FDR's accomplishments with the New Deal, made Democrats the unquestioned majority party for 40 years. It is also a big reason why Republicans feared a health care plan under Clinton and will fight Obama vigorously. They know the same thing will happen if a succesful plan is implemented. One of the well known conservative mouthpieces, William Kristol, famously told then Speaker Gingrich, that if Clinton got a health care plan approved, Republicans would be DOA another forty years.
What's changed in health care since my youth? I would say two things; cost & profits. The reason health care even became associated with employment was because it was inexpensive. During the New Deal era, FDR, decided not to try for a nationalized health plan. During WWII there were wage & price freezes. The unions that just earned bargaining rights could not negotiate wage increases. An employer health insurance tax credit was created and the employee based system was born. Win-win for everyone it seemed.
Growing up the son of an auto worker, we never worried about going to the doctor, or prescription costs. $2 a prescription, office visits, free or a negligible amount. Even non union shops had to offer decent health care, because it was expected. Now the cost of the employee share of the policy is a much bigger chunk of their paycheck. Coverage is less, deductibles are higher, prescriptions can be outrageous. Administrative costs are out of control and of course adjusters fighting how much they will pay and who they will or will not cover.
I also blame deregulation. When I was growing up there was no such thing as advertising for prescription drugs. Now we all know about little blue pills. We all know to ask our doctors about restless leg syndrome, and we all want dance through a field of daisies with no allergies. Used to be when a doctor gave you a prescription, only he and the pharmacist could pronounce the name of the medication. Nowadays you get a group of seniors chatting together, and you think you walked into a pharmaceutical convention. :)
Anyway that is a brief (or not so brief summation).
Added the JT pic just for you> ;)