A Society Where Health Care is A Right.
I need to live in a society where my daughter's access to the insulin she needs every day to live is not subject to the whims of my employer. And I think Obama offers me that option.
I hope.
Adam Hominem
We are proud of the fact that we are a nation of small business owners and entrepreneurs. I believe that many on the right will agree with that.
Health care decoupled from employers could unleash a entrepreneur force not seen in this country since the Clinton boom days. That is what I believe.
I also think that scares the hell our of the authoritarian leaders on the right.
Can you imagine the uppity employees who can say to the boss, "I'm going out on my own and I'm taking my pre-existing condition with me. You can't take advantage of my need for health care anymore."
How come nobody talks about the boon to the economy universal health insurance would provide? Because there isn't a coalition of people in the business community pushing for it. However there IS a coalition of people in the health care industry pushing against the idea. It is their job. I understand that. That are smart people. Good people. They are doing what they think is best for their company.
But as a larger society our leaders can and should think, "What is the best for the entire country?" There are many people in the business community that really don't want to be in the business of providing health care plans and info about health care plans. (Don't believe me? Mention "Open Enrollment" to your favorite HR professional. Watch them shutter.)
The economic crisis is actually the RIGHT time to start thinking about implementing universal health insurance.
The Progressive Shock Doctrine states that when there is an economic crisis it is the best time to look at Progressive solutions.
Stop looking to the conservative mind set that got us here.
15 Comments:
Excellent post, Spocko - I, too, was moved when Adam wrote that.
I quoted your post over at Slow Roasted, along with my own feeble thoughts.
Great idea, Spocko... keep running with it!
Unless Adam's employer is the sole provider of insulin in the world, access to insulin is most certainly not subject to his employers whims. What "progressives" (I love the use of that term for a 19th century philosophy) are saying is that they'd rather substitute the jusgement of a bureaucrat for your own. If you want health insurance from someone other than your employer look here:
http://www.independent-health-insurance.com/
When was this Clinton boom? I must have missed it.
Health care can be a boom to the economy? We can't hire enough nurses and doctors now. Supply and demand show that prices will go up not down. Also taking money out of your pocket to pay for someone else’s expenses does not and cannot grow the economy. Pretend for a moment that the government provided "free" health care access. I can only hope you never really get sick and need to see a doctor because you'll be standing in line like you were at the ER. I would encourage you to ask your employer about open enrollment- I doubt they'll stutter since it's fairly simple.
I utterly agree that now is the time to take a look at "progressive" solutions. When it's your money, your time, your life and livelihood that may hang in the balance I would encourage everyone to look to see what progressives have to offer.
What I love to suggest is that folks try some of the things suggested to see what happens. Model it out with a monopoly board or do it online with one of these simulators (if possible)
http://www.econguru.com/simulator_game.shtml
What Spocko is suggesting can be represented with an edgeworth box diagram
I hadn't thought about from that angle, but I think you're right about the freedom aspect of nationalizing it instead of the employer based system.
The good news I think is that progressive solutions are becoming more attractive to the electorate as they witness the failure of the phony conservative free market.
I have worked as a health care specialist for over 35 years now and I firmly believe the single-payer model is the only way to go.
So much of our time in a specialty medical clinic goes to trying to untie the Gordian knot that is the present health insurance mess that patient care suffers and staff time is wasted.
Our patients' premiums, deductables and co-pays constantly rise while payments to the practitioner shrink.
The cost of keeping the practice open goes ever up and total revenue goes down.
So, put me down as a fan of the French or Canadian models. Our present system is broken and for much the same reason as our economy.
@gopnot4me- I think you are delusional if you think the exact same thing doesn't happen in canada. Actually I can't speak to the insuree side of things in canada, as far as the praticioner side, when the budget is written in canada, but making sure the doctors fees are on par with US docs is not a consideration. When american insurance co-pays- the doctor doesn't get an extra even though the charge is usually larger than what any american doctor would bill for the same procedure (Full disclosure- I've worked as a systems architect at a major US health insurance firm, and have actually logged and processed claims- just to get an understanding of the business workflow, and a hospital in a senior IT position). I will admit that the insurance infrastructure is not good at handling small independant practicians. However if you employer makes an investment in the IT infrastructure required to simplify the process, you'd be amazed at how easy it is to navigate. Note that I'm not talking supersized bucks here (give or take it should run about $1000 + PC's if you don't already have them)
"The cost of keeping the practice open goes ever up and total revenue goes down."
First I'd be suprised if your doctor gets paid per procedure (although that is more common in specialties), most get paid per patient- essentially meaning the healther you are the more profit the doc takes home.
Second, welcome to small business in America! Likely you work at a "rich" business that obama thinks should give 50% of it's revenue to the government. (note that mccain's not much better) it's the same in every small business right now.
Nationalizing health care also means that as a small independant doctor, your livlihood is at the whim of the government. In canada in the 70's they wanted to (and I believe did) cut back the number of doctors and medical schools to cut healthcare spending.
If you can find it read:
Supply and Migration of Canadian Physicians, 1970-1995: Why We Should Learn to Love an Immigrant Doctor
Journal article by Hugh Grant, Ronald Oertel; Canadian Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 20, 1997
short summary- any doctor with brains that speak english well runs to the US for residency and usually stays or leaves shortly after completing a required period. Immigrants usually come and stay.
Granted the study is old but I don't believe things have canged much.
In New England having canadian patients is relativly common for specialists- because they can't get what they need in canada. What country would you travel to if you couldn't get the care you need at home?
Dear Jim,
I thank you for your concern about my mental health.
Since my people hail from Lake Woebegone, let me assure you that I am good-looking, strong and above average. No worries, mate.
Where would I go for health care?
Well, since I can't go to France, home of the best health care record on the planet, I guess I'll keep going to the V.A.
A model, btw, of how a single payer system might work here.
My V.A. is attached to a medical school, one of the finest in the country and the care had been fast and first rate.
They have become, however, over-burdened and under-funded since a certain illegal military adventure was begun. (You're doin' a heck of a job, Georgie!)
Thank you for your concern and forgive me if I dismiss the rest of your post. I respectfully disagree with you.
GOPnot4me
It would seem logical to assume that the only people defending the present healthcare system are the ones who are successfully gaming it, and those who are too stupid to know.
Single-payer. Now.
'Progressive Shock Doctrine' is a terrible name. I can't imagine how someone could interpret 'shock doctrine' in a positive way.
Blogger llewelly said...
'Progressive Shock Doctrine' is a terrible name. I can't imagine how someone could interpret 'shock doctrine' in a positive way.
---------------
Actually llewelly. I agree with you. It is the concept that need to be considered. That is, "When disaster happens be prepared with progressive solution to implement because the Conservatives ARE prepared with a solution."
Please help with a better name.
thanks
Spocko
Universal healthcare bullcrap! You're telling me that my healthcare is a right? That I can just go up to any doctor and demand his services? Well, then I have an idea! Let's have universal housecare! Now, I can go up to any plumber in the country and demand he fix my toilet.
Laws should only be made to protect people's rights and you're not protecting anyone's rights with universal healthcare. People don't "deserve" healthcare and they're just going to have to get used to the fact that they can't work a low-paying job and get the same benefits as a higher paying job. If you want better security, form a union and go on strike, or something. Just don't demand that everyone else reimburse you for what you happen to not have.
How's about we just get more doctors?
I can't believe people here lying about universal (single-payer) healthcare. Well, actually, I can; the AMA has been doing it for years. I'm Canadian.
I can go to whichever doctor I like, assuming that doctor is taking patients, which is true no matter where you go. In the US, the HMO picks your doctor.
If I call my doctor, I'm likely to be able to get in to see her or one of her residents the same day. Friends of mine with good insurance in the US have to wait two weeks for appointments with their GPs, which often leaves them going to the ER for things like sinus infections.
Canada's system spends less per capita than the US' does, and insures more of its population.
If I need emergency care, I can go to the ER, a walk-in clinic, or an urgent care facility, and I can go to any facility in Canada. Americans who even have health insurance very often have difficulty finding providers who'll take their insurance, or getting service when they're outside their home areas.
Single-payer healthcare does spur entrepreneurship; the number of Canadian small businesses versus American small businesses is so different, it's visible to the naked eye. A good social safety net encourages risk-taking. It's also good for businesses: Cars built in Canada are on average $500 cheaper, all of which is healthcare savings. Single-payer healthcare also reduces employee absenteeism by making it easy to go to the doctor to have a small problem dealt with, rather than waiting until it turns into a big problem. (Canadian doctors' preventative medicine focus does help with this, too.)
Single-payer, universal healthcare is also a good investment from a government standpoint, in that it decreases public health spending. A population that gets regular medical attention, prenatal care, taxpayer-funded vaccines, and so on is less of a risk for major public health problems (like epidemics). That's also good for business...
I'm also Canadian. The single-payer health care system is not only a boon to the patient, it's an economic benefit to the nation.
The US loses up about 7% of GDP through not having even the most basic public health care system. With US GDP in the trillions, that 7% renders any concerns about cost to the nation moot.
If you feel that doctors might somehow be forced into some sort of bondage to the state, I have great news: Almost all Canadian doctors are in private practice. It's just that they all get paid from one source.
In fact, this is where Kaiser misses a point (one of many he misses):
"If you want better security, form a union and go on strike, or something."
In Canada, essentially, the citizenry did.
The Canadian health care system saved my life and preserved my family's fortunes.
I believe, Kaiser and Jim, that once the US comes over to the system that works so well in every other civilized nation, you'll wonder why the hell you ever railed against it.
. The Center for Media Research has released a study by Vertical Response that shows just where many of these ‘Main Street’ players are going with their online dollars. The big winners: e-mail and social media. With only 3.8% of small business folks NOT planning on using e-mail marketing and with social media carrying the perception of being free (which they so rudely discover it is far from free) this should make some in the banner and search crowd a little wary.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
. The Center for Media Research has released a study by Vertical Response that shows just where many of these ‘Main Street’ players are going with their online dollars. The big winners: e-mail and social media. With only 3.8% of small business folks NOT planning on using e-mail marketing and with social media carrying the perception of being free (which they so rudely discover it is far from free) this should make some in the banner and search crowd a little wary.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post a Comment
<< Home