Tuesday, April 21, 2009
News Anti-"Socialized Medicine" = Anti-Family
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM
This story in today's NYT—which I only just read—is obscene.
When Danna Walker left the second-floor conference room and returned tearily to her desk—where someone had already deposited a packing box for her belongings—her first thought was not of the 14 years she had worked for DHL or the loss of her $37,000-a-year salary.It was of Jake. In three months, once her benefits ran out, how in the world would she provide health insurance for Jake, her mountainous, red-headed 21-year-old son, who had learned three years earlier that he had metastatic testicular cancer?
The Walker's coverage runs out in three months time. They can't find a private plan that will cover their son. If they fail to find him coverage when his current coverage expires, and Jake is uninsured for more than 63 days, federal law allows insurers to deny Jake coverage for his "pre-existing condition." Jake may be able to survive his cancer—but only with careful monitoring over the next two years.
Because the Walkers own their modest house, they have been told they do not merit other government assistance. With little predictable income beyond Ms. Walker’s $688 unemployment check every two weeks, the family cannot afford the state’s high-risk insurance pool or continuation coverage through the federal Cobra law.
The United States is the only industrialized that does not guarantee health coverage for its citizens. Only in the United States is health insurance tied to employment, only in the United States can a family face financial ruin due to a medical crisis, only in the United States would hard-working parents have to lose their home in order to save their child, only in the United States would a child know that his death would spare his family financial ruin. I don't understand how a party can oppose a single-payer-health-insurance program—Medicare for all—and still claim to be "pro-family." I don't understand how a party can stick employers with the burden of providing health care—which makes Americans businesses less competitive internationally—and still claim to be "pro-business."
Think of the financial and psychological burdens lifted from American families if they didn't have to worry about losing their health coverage. Even if you're not sick for a single day in your life paying into a national health care program would mean never having to worry about health coverage if you did get sick. It would mean never having to worry about your loved ones being covered if they got sick. People would be able to move to where the jobs are more easily, start over more easily. People would have more children, which the conservatives who oppose national health care claim to want. People would be free to start new businesses without having to worry about living without health insurance while they got their companies off the ground.
We've already got socialized fire departments, police forces, public schools, state universities, roads, defense forces, air traffic control systems and on and on. We need socialized medicine. And we'll get it if Democrats go on the offensive and start calling opposition to socialized medicine exactly what it is: anti-family.
Share via
3
Well said. The thing that I can't get my head around isn't the heartlessness, or the "cut off my nose to spite my face" anti-efficiency, but the sheer illogic of tying health insurance to employment.
4
Oh c'mon now Dan, stop being such an alarmist. I'm sure there are plenty of countries around the world where health care is just as bad as it is here in the United States.
Angola, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Laos, Liberia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Rwanda, Senegal, East Timor, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia for instance all immediately come to mind.
Besides, if God truly wanted these people to live, He wouldn't give them these horrible, fatal diseases in the first place, now would He?
Angola, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Laos, Liberia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Rwanda, Senegal, East Timor, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia for instance all immediately come to mind.
Besides, if God truly wanted these people to live, He wouldn't give them these horrible, fatal diseases in the first place, now would He?
5
It always amazes me how accepting people in this country are of the lack of general health coverage - to say nothing of the people who are rabidly opposed to it. My favorite part - the US spends more GDP/capita on health care than any other country. The insurance companies are massive leeches on the economy.
It seems to me that people ought to be rioting in the streets about being screwed this badly by their government.
It seems to me that people ought to be rioting in the streets about being screwed this badly by their government.
6
Mark your calendars for MAY 30th. there will be a major rally and march in Seattle for Health Care for All. Details here: www.May30March.org
7
Dan, health care is socialized in our country to the benefit of the employer (tax deductions shift their costs to taxpayers) and to insurance companies (laws shift their risks and costs to the taxpayers), but not to the benefit of the actual people (who are supposed to be the actual sovereigns under our constitution...could you image the Queen of England being told she didn't qualify for health care, but the prime minister did???)
8
The United States has the highest percentage of its population in prison and you know what prison inmates get: healthcare from the taxpayers of this country.
9
Very well said, indeed, Dan.
We should be on the offensive and start calling the anti-family positions and policies of the Republicans and the Right for what they truly are – and stop giving them a free pass.
We should be on the offensive and start calling the anti-family positions and policies of the Republicans and the Right for what they truly are – and stop giving them a free pass.
10
Hmm... that bit about people starting new businesses is interesting. I'm going to add that one to my national health care debate repertoire...
Like I said in my earlier comment today, I usually just focus on the economic arguments (the way we structure health care in this country is not sustainable for our businesses, makes them less competitive globally, we spend the most on health care, etc.), since it seems like there's a lack of empathy on the part of many anti-socialized medicine folks. Empathy meaning both the ability to read a story like the Walkers and think that it shouldn't be so, but also the ability to realize that, hey, that could easily happen to me. Because it could, even if you have a good job and insurance.
Like I said in my earlier comment today, I usually just focus on the economic arguments (the way we structure health care in this country is not sustainable for our businesses, makes them less competitive globally, we spend the most on health care, etc.), since it seems like there's a lack of empathy on the part of many anti-socialized medicine folks. Empathy meaning both the ability to read a story like the Walkers and think that it shouldn't be so, but also the ability to realize that, hey, that could easily happen to me. Because it could, even if you have a good job and insurance.
13
I agree 100%, as someone who went through a similar, although not as life threatening (I am diabetic), situation, it is utterly inexcusible how our country's health care system works. I am fortunate enough to have money to pay for health insurance when I became unemployed, but was denied coverage because of a pre exisiting condition.
14
Finally, a post that makes sense. How can making sure that a nation has a healthy and strong populace not be pro family if it's precisely the family that benefits from having easy access to universal health care. Opponents of socialized medicine can't even sell their opposition to the most red neck conservative state because even they get it. Universal health care is something that crosses all ideological and political lines and that every american wants to see happen.
15
One other point: in our current health care system, we all pay for the uninsured, through taxes and through raised rates and high emergency room usage. You already are paying. Single-payer just means you'd be paying less for more efficiency. The only people who will be against it will the medical industry who will claim to be a grassroots organization called "Concerned Health Care Providers of America"
16
@12. Pay attention. Our health care system is already screwed up. The way it's currently structured is bad for individual, businesses, and out country.
17
Insurance is already a tax on the healthy. Group insurance works by forcing everyone to get it, and healthy folk are effectively taxed to pay for the unhealthy. Expanding coverage to make it universal wouldn't do anything we aren't already doing. It would just do it better.
18
@12
Removing civics education from the curriculum has yielded a nation of idiots who have no idea how to restore, maintain and leverage the full power of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
If you do not rule your government, those who do will rule you.
Removing civics education from the curriculum has yielded a nation of idiots who have no idea how to restore, maintain and leverage the full power of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
If you do not rule your government, those who do will rule you.
19
Don't you see that what we all really should be angry about is a 3% tax raise, and money used to bail out companies so that our country/currency would not become insolvent. Yes, those are the issues we should protest about. Not healthcare or Iraq or freedoms being taken away.
20
Very true, Dan.
You know, if we just borrowed Canada's system wholesale, we'd spend half as much on medical care and live 8 to 10 years longer.
And that scares the America haters on the right somehow.
You know, if we just borrowed Canada's system wholesale, we'd spend half as much on medical care and live 8 to 10 years longer.
And that scares the America haters on the right somehow.
21
"We've already got socialized fire departments, police forces, public schools, state universities, roads, defense forces, air traffic control systems and on and on."
Yes, and all those things are BAD!
Yes, and all those things are BAD!
23
As a Canadian who's lived in the States I have to say that (if you have insurance) there's certainly something to be said for both the speed and quality of care available in the US.
That being said, it's surreal to walk into a Hospital with sprained wrist and be ushered to front of the line --in front of a little girl who fell of a roof-- because your employer offers superior insurance.
I wouldn't trade socialized medicine for anything... When I was 18 my younger sister died after a long and protracted illness, the care of which my family certainly wouldn't have been able to afford under the US system.
I couldn't imagine the attentional pain of being forced into financial ruin so that your loved one might have a slightly prolonged life or easier death.
Dan's right, it's perverse.
That being said, it's surreal to walk into a Hospital with sprained wrist and be ushered to front of the line --in front of a little girl who fell of a roof-- because your employer offers superior insurance.
I wouldn't trade socialized medicine for anything... When I was 18 my younger sister died after a long and protracted illness, the care of which my family certainly wouldn't have been able to afford under the US system.
I couldn't imagine the attentional pain of being forced into financial ruin so that your loved one might have a slightly prolonged life or easier death.
Dan's right, it's perverse.
24
It's not just anti-family. It's anti-human. Or, anti-american. Or inhumane. Whatever you want to call it.
Look what happened to Elswinger.
Speaking of Elswinger...is The Stranger going to do a proper Obit? That would be cool.
Look what happened to Elswinger.
Speaking of Elswinger...is The Stranger going to do a proper Obit? That would be cool.
25
@12, our out-of-control health care costs are already driving businesses out of the country. More than a few companies who have moved jobs to Canada have mentioned the outrageous cost of hiring people in the USA because of health care; companies pay most of it, which actually shields individuals from seeing the true cost. In Canada, the tax is higher but the cost to business is much lower -- as is the overall cost, of course, because our health care is so insanely inefficient.
Between health care and the payroll tax, it's a miracle there are any jobs left in this country.
Between health care and the payroll tax, it's a miracle there are any jobs left in this country.
26
Government should be there when the private market fails. If the private market fails to insure X number of people the government should be there to make sure they get whatever life saving treatment they need. Our government already spends over $7,000 per person on health care each year while every other industrialized nation spends under half that per person providing full coverage.
The private market needs a competitor that's focused on the customer rather than just profits. If you can't make what's necessary profitable then you have no right being in business (because that's when the government should do it), if you can't compete with the government, who is normally notorious for being wasteful, then what right do you have in the private sector?
The idea that anyone should go into bankruptcy to save their life is inexcusable. I had swollen lymph nodes once and couldn't breathe, I went to the ER because I was inbetween jobs and they tried to charge me almost 4 grand. Fuck that shit, let me fucking die, but now I can't get a $500 line of credit because I wanted to breathe. If only I wasn't so selfish that I wanted oxygen to keep hitting my lungs I could easily be trusted with $500, but so long as I want to breathe don't you dare give me a credit card, I might get the crazy idea of continued life in my head and want to live again.
The private market needs a competitor that's focused on the customer rather than just profits. If you can't make what's necessary profitable then you have no right being in business (because that's when the government should do it), if you can't compete with the government, who is normally notorious for being wasteful, then what right do you have in the private sector?
The idea that anyone should go into bankruptcy to save their life is inexcusable. I had swollen lymph nodes once and couldn't breathe, I went to the ER because I was inbetween jobs and they tried to charge me almost 4 grand. Fuck that shit, let me fucking die, but now I can't get a $500 line of credit because I wanted to breathe. If only I wasn't so selfish that I wanted oxygen to keep hitting my lungs I could easily be trusted with $500, but so long as I want to breathe don't you dare give me a credit card, I might get the crazy idea of continued life in my head and want to live again.
27
So she's had three years to prepare for this possibility... and did what? Lack of planning on her part does not constituent and emergency on mine.
She has a safety net. Cobra is there, she should have saved to cover it. Having failed to do that, it sounds like she has equity in her home, and will become eligable for government assistance when that runs out.
Why should I pay her son's medical bills while she can do so her self (sell the house). Is it more important to protect her investment in her house for than it is to protect my investments?
If everyone is entitled to own a home no matter what happens to them, what else are we entitled to own? A car? Why not a bank account?
And what about this 21 year old son... does he have a job? What's he doing to contribute to his well being? Why isn't he on his own insurance through his own employer? What about his father? (Maybe these questions are answered but I wont register with NYT to read the article.) Here's my guess though. Single mom, absentee (unknown?) dad and layabout bone idle son.
Sure it sucks, but like I said, he's had this condition for three years! I have my own medical problems that make insurance coverage a must have, so I have about 5 different contingency plans in place. The last one is sell my house the first one is keep enough in savings to cover Cobra for a reasonable period of time.
What about a moderate level of personnel responsibility?
She has a safety net. Cobra is there, she should have saved to cover it. Having failed to do that, it sounds like she has equity in her home, and will become eligable for government assistance when that runs out.
Why should I pay her son's medical bills while she can do so her self (sell the house). Is it more important to protect her investment in her house for than it is to protect my investments?
If everyone is entitled to own a home no matter what happens to them, what else are we entitled to own? A car? Why not a bank account?
And what about this 21 year old son... does he have a job? What's he doing to contribute to his well being? Why isn't he on his own insurance through his own employer? What about his father? (Maybe these questions are answered but I wont register with NYT to read the article.) Here's my guess though. Single mom, absentee (unknown?) dad and layabout bone idle son.
Sure it sucks, but like I said, he's had this condition for three years! I have my own medical problems that make insurance coverage a must have, so I have about 5 different contingency plans in place. The last one is sell my house the first one is keep enough in savings to cover Cobra for a reasonable period of time.
What about a moderate level of personnel responsibility?
28
For anyone checking, the Times posted information on how to send money to the Walkers:
The Walker family has set up an account at their local bank to accept donations. Danna Walker said the funds will be used to pay for Jake's medical and insurance costs, and that any money left over will go toward college expenses. Contributions may be sent to:
The Jacob Walker Assistance Fund
c/o Bank of America
9460 FM 1960 Road West
Humble, TX 77338
The Walker family has set up an account at their local bank to accept donations. Danna Walker said the funds will be used to pay for Jake's medical and insurance costs, and that any money left over will go toward college expenses. Contributions may be sent to:
The Jacob Walker Assistance Fund
c/o Bank of America
9460 FM 1960 Road West
Humble, TX 77338
29
Health care cost increases are real, which is why the spending has gone up in that realm. With unemployment nearing 10% statewide (we're already there in Tacoma alone), do you really think that un- and underinsured residents of our state can afford the astronomical cost to pay COBRA benefits that are hundreds a month (which eventually run out)? Also, the argument that business owners will be deterred to hire additional workers if their taxes are increased is suspect. I have a friend who is going to lose his high-tech job at some point this year because the owner of this company kept virtually all the profits and neglected to invest in his own company nor give cost of living raises annually. Fiscal responsibility falls on said business owners as well, generally speaking. You know if you are or not.
If the proposed referendum to raise the state sales tax for health care is struck down either now or in November, how do we ensure that all Washington State residents get the care and services they need to keep them healthy and, yes in some cases, alive? Taxpayers still have to pay for emergency hospital visits for those who cannot afford it in many cases, so it's in our best interest to find solutions to minimize this reality responsibly and in the public interest.
What other options do we have to fund health care in this state without a sales tax hike? Do we lobby to make health car uber affordable and treat it like auto insurance, where you can buy the maximum full-coverage or the very minimum (i.e. emergency hospital visits), with the cost per month $150 max? Other thoughts?
If the proposed referendum to raise the state sales tax for health care is struck down either now or in November, how do we ensure that all Washington State residents get the care and services they need to keep them healthy and, yes in some cases, alive? Taxpayers still have to pay for emergency hospital visits for those who cannot afford it in many cases, so it's in our best interest to find solutions to minimize this reality responsibly and in the public interest.
What other options do we have to fund health care in this state without a sales tax hike? Do we lobby to make health car uber affordable and treat it like auto insurance, where you can buy the maximum full-coverage or the very minimum (i.e. emergency hospital visits), with the cost per month $150 max? Other thoughts?
30
@27...you are an idiot.
Three years to prepare for what? Getting laid off? Getting fired?
And, what exactly would she have done?
That's the whole point you witless fool. There is nothing this woman could turn to. No guaranteed health insurance plan, no affordable COBRA, no public assistance that is adequate. Nothing.
So, stop with the "how about some personal responsibility" argument. It's baseless. I take personal responsibility for the healthcare of my family by maintaining a job with good benefits. I keep my end of the bargain by doing my job well and responsibly. And, I could get laid off tomorrow. Then what? I guess my disabled child with a "pre-exsisting condition" would just be shit out of luck then, wouldn't he?
Three years to prepare for what? Getting laid off? Getting fired?
And, what exactly would she have done?
That's the whole point you witless fool. There is nothing this woman could turn to. No guaranteed health insurance plan, no affordable COBRA, no public assistance that is adequate. Nothing.
So, stop with the "how about some personal responsibility" argument. It's baseless. I take personal responsibility for the healthcare of my family by maintaining a job with good benefits. I keep my end of the bargain by doing my job well and responsibly. And, I could get laid off tomorrow. Then what? I guess my disabled child with a "pre-exsisting condition" would just be shit out of luck then, wouldn't he?
31
27
Ah, yes the old, hooray for me and fuck you crowd has spoken. I think the word you are missing is "compassion".
Ah, yes the old, hooray for me and fuck you crowd has spoken. I think the word you are missing is "compassion".
32
@27 How about thinking about the well-being of someone else besides yourself for two fucking seconds? Man, Julie in Eugene is 100% correct: you people lack the capacity for empathy.
And maybe if you actually read the article rather than just launching into a "holier than thou" tirade, you would know the facts: two working parents, blindsided by sudden unexpected job loss, son is in college trying to make a better future for himself, the college will only provide benefits through May 16th. No layabouts, no absentee fathers, but hey, go ahead and keep assuming that they're irresponsible, bad people if it makes your black little heart happy.
And maybe if you actually read the article rather than just launching into a "holier than thou" tirade, you would know the facts: two working parents, blindsided by sudden unexpected job loss, son is in college trying to make a better future for himself, the college will only provide benefits through May 16th. No layabouts, no absentee fathers, but hey, go ahead and keep assuming that they're irresponsible, bad people if it makes your black little heart happy.
33
Right.
Too bad Obama isn't for single payer.
Too bad he has not done jack with that 11 million e mail list to organize anyone -- instead it's the right that's out there on the street.
Too bad Obama isn't for single payer.
Too bad he has not done jack with that 11 million e mail list to organize anyone -- instead it's the right that's out there on the street.
35
Wow, YGBKM has managed to shock even me. Yes, YGBKM, your investments are more important than a kid's life.
Do the world a favor and kill yourself.
Do the world a favor and kill yourself.
37
"And we'll get it if Democrats go on the offensive and start calling opposition to socialized medicine exactly what it is: anti-family."
No, we won't, because
--Obama's not even for single payer.
--you gotta say we are pro family not they are anti family. Oh btw helps if you say this over and over for about 30 years, too. Saying "my opponents are anti" isn't the same as carrying your own message.
--we gotta orgnize not let them tea baggers be only ones angry and organized -- oh wait that would be Obama's fault, too, he's letting his 11 million strong e mail list sit there, unused.....
--nothing will pass until dems stop voting for dumb cloture rules that empower GOP minority to halt all votes.
No, we won't, because
--Obama's not even for single payer.
--you gotta say we are pro family not they are anti family. Oh btw helps if you say this over and over for about 30 years, too. Saying "my opponents are anti" isn't the same as carrying your own message.
--we gotta orgnize not let them tea baggers be only ones angry and organized -- oh wait that would be Obama's fault, too, he's letting his 11 million strong e mail list sit there, unused.....
--nothing will pass until dems stop voting for dumb cloture rules that empower GOP minority to halt all votes.
38
If someone wants a further argument to use in favor of of universal coverage, I'm a good example of what's wrong with things now. I need a job with with good insurance to cover $30,000 a year in rheumatoid arthritis treatments. My husband's job does not offer insurance, so I work full-time even though after taxes and daycare expense my take home pay is only about $5000 a year. I could do better for myself, my family and my community if I could work part-time and do volunteer work, but without medications I would be in excruciating pain all day and disabled within 10 or 15 years.
I thought the conservatives wanted me to be a stay-at-home mom, guess not.
I thought the conservatives wanted me to be a stay-at-home mom, guess not.
39
Dan, I completely agree with you.
For the last year, I’ve been experiencing personally how anti-family our healthcare system is. In early 2008 my wife got pregnant. At the time we were living in Poland, where she had full health coverage as a Polish citizen. However, we wanted to return to America for the birth. While searching for healthcare plans, we soon discovered that not only is pregnancy a disqualifying “pre-existing condition”, so is CONCEIVING a child within the first year of purchasing a policy. So we were more than a year too late to buy a plan.
My wife and I were both born in America. We wanted our child to be an American. What were we supposed to do? The American healthcare system was essentially forcing us to stay out of the country. We finally found a way to come back when my wife discovered that enrolling early in grad school would give her access to Aetna Student Health, a plan that doesn’t exclude pre-existing conditions. We spent all our savings – over $2000 – to buy her (not me – totally unaffordable) a year-long plan. But she had to be an enrolled student the entire time. So throughout her pregnancy, she was a grad student taking internet classes. She had to write her teacher begging for an extension on a paper WHILE SHE WAS IN LABOR. She was doing assignments in the hospital after giving birth.
My daughter is now five months old. Since then I’ve been battling Aetna Student Health to cover what they are supposed to cover. I can’t tell you how many times they have “lost” documents, how many times they have “mistakenly” denied claims that should have been covered, how many times they have made us feel like beggars and leeches for asking that they cover what we paid them to cover. Opponents of universal healthcare like to make disparaging comparisons between potential “socialized medicine” and the DMV. You know what? I will take the fucking DMV over Aetna Student Health ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. The DMV in my state has a phone hotline where polite customer service representatives answer any question you might have. The employees at the DMV are kind and professional.
My wife’s plan covered my daughter for the first month of her life. After that we had to add her separately to the policy. The cost: $8000 a year. And that was just for catastrophic, not for well visits. Which means the cost of immunizations and check ups would have been solely our responsibility. So we put her on Medicaid, a free government program that has been such a blessing. All of you reading this right now are paying for my daughter’s healthcare through your taxes while we struggle to become more than underemployed. So… thanks.
I’m sorry to write a book, but I just needed to get this off my chest. We’re a straight married couple in our late twenties, exactly the sort of family conservatives claim to represent. What would opponents of universal healthcare have wanted us to do? Abort? Stay the hell out of America?
Anyway, thanks for pointing out how anti-family our current healthcare policies really are. I hope you make it a regular subject.
More...
For the last year, I’ve been experiencing personally how anti-family our healthcare system is. In early 2008 my wife got pregnant. At the time we were living in Poland, where she had full health coverage as a Polish citizen. However, we wanted to return to America for the birth. While searching for healthcare plans, we soon discovered that not only is pregnancy a disqualifying “pre-existing condition”, so is CONCEIVING a child within the first year of purchasing a policy. So we were more than a year too late to buy a plan.
My wife and I were both born in America. We wanted our child to be an American. What were we supposed to do? The American healthcare system was essentially forcing us to stay out of the country. We finally found a way to come back when my wife discovered that enrolling early in grad school would give her access to Aetna Student Health, a plan that doesn’t exclude pre-existing conditions. We spent all our savings – over $2000 – to buy her (not me – totally unaffordable) a year-long plan. But she had to be an enrolled student the entire time. So throughout her pregnancy, she was a grad student taking internet classes. She had to write her teacher begging for an extension on a paper WHILE SHE WAS IN LABOR. She was doing assignments in the hospital after giving birth.
My daughter is now five months old. Since then I’ve been battling Aetna Student Health to cover what they are supposed to cover. I can’t tell you how many times they have “lost” documents, how many times they have “mistakenly” denied claims that should have been covered, how many times they have made us feel like beggars and leeches for asking that they cover what we paid them to cover. Opponents of universal healthcare like to make disparaging comparisons between potential “socialized medicine” and the DMV. You know what? I will take the fucking DMV over Aetna Student Health ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. The DMV in my state has a phone hotline where polite customer service representatives answer any question you might have. The employees at the DMV are kind and professional.
My wife’s plan covered my daughter for the first month of her life. After that we had to add her separately to the policy. The cost: $8000 a year. And that was just for catastrophic, not for well visits. Which means the cost of immunizations and check ups would have been solely our responsibility. So we put her on Medicaid, a free government program that has been such a blessing. All of you reading this right now are paying for my daughter’s healthcare through your taxes while we struggle to become more than underemployed. So… thanks.
I’m sorry to write a book, but I just needed to get this off my chest. We’re a straight married couple in our late twenties, exactly the sort of family conservatives claim to represent. What would opponents of universal healthcare have wanted us to do? Abort? Stay the hell out of America?
Anyway, thanks for pointing out how anti-family our current healthcare policies really are. I hope you make it a regular subject.
40
Here's the thing about socialized medicine: it's simply humane.
You've just been in a horrible accident, or you wake up bleeding in a scary way, or are sick and panicking because you've never been sick like this. These are not fun things, nor are they easy things. Your family is likely very worried, too. You're in an ambulance on the way to the hospital.
You should be thinking about getting medical treatment and getting better. These should be your only responsibilities. "How am I going to afford this?" shouldn't enter into the equation, but it does.
That some people would get so uptight about a very small amount paid in (here in BC, it's $54/month--less than any private premium I ever had in the US) is a shame on them and a shame on the rest of us for allowing it. Dear libertarians and their ilk: grow up. The rest of us got beyond "GIMME MINE, GO AWAY" in middle school. It's long past time to do the right thing.
You've just been in a horrible accident, or you wake up bleeding in a scary way, or are sick and panicking because you've never been sick like this. These are not fun things, nor are they easy things. Your family is likely very worried, too. You're in an ambulance on the way to the hospital.
You should be thinking about getting medical treatment and getting better. These should be your only responsibilities. "How am I going to afford this?" shouldn't enter into the equation, but it does.
That some people would get so uptight about a very small amount paid in (here in BC, it's $54/month--less than any private premium I ever had in the US) is a shame on them and a shame on the rest of us for allowing it. Dear libertarians and their ilk: grow up. The rest of us got beyond "GIMME MINE, GO AWAY" in middle school. It's long past time to do the right thing.
41
sure it begins with humanely high ideals..... and slowly dissolves into the beuraucratic nightmare that scars families. for generations.
42
Right on Savage. I've contemplated immigrating to Canada for years specifically because of single payer health care.
43
You Gotta Be Kidding Me @ 27,
Not everyone is able to save hundreds to extra dollars per month to cover those huge medical bills/Cobra premiums. Shocker, I know.
And sell the house... so they can pay the medical bills and be homeless? Missing the logic there.
I could launch into some long explanation about how Medicare for everyone is not only more sane and humane, but far more economically efficient as demonstrated in dozens of other nations, but fuck it, the real problem is that you're a stupid asshole with lots of like-minded company.
Not everyone is able to save hundreds to extra dollars per month to cover those huge medical bills/Cobra premiums. Shocker, I know.
And sell the house... so they can pay the medical bills and be homeless? Missing the logic there.
I could launch into some long explanation about how Medicare for everyone is not only more sane and humane, but far more economically efficient as demonstrated in dozens of other nations, but fuck it, the real problem is that you're a stupid asshole with lots of like-minded company.
44
are there are any plans to do a story on the late, great elswinger's struggle with Medicaid? by the way, I went to the memorial gathering for him on Saturday at Six Arms, and no one from the Stranger showed.
45
@39
Although the Child Citizenship Act in 2000 or 2001 makes the citizenship for children born to expats a little less murky, it doesn't fully resolve the mess that results from the fact that American citizenship largely follows the English common law rule of "right of soil."
As with health care, we might want to study how Canada has addressed these issues...as recently as last week several Americans woke up with their Canadian citizenship restored.
Although the Child Citizenship Act in 2000 or 2001 makes the citizenship for children born to expats a little less murky, it doesn't fully resolve the mess that results from the fact that American citizenship largely follows the English common law rule of "right of soil."
As with health care, we might want to study how Canada has addressed these issues...as recently as last week several Americans woke up with their Canadian citizenship restored.
46
Dan, I absolutely agree with everything you said, except for one thing: we really don't want Medicare for all. Unless you just mean "government run healthcare automatically covering or at least reasonably available to all legal residents, and maybe the illegal ones, too." Medicare is an absolute nightmare. If you can possibly get any other decent insurance, you want to. Hospitals and clinics routinely lose money on Medicare (and Medicaid, for that matter) patients. The government sets the price that Medicare/caid will pay, without regard to how much something actually costs. And the rules about how much (and whether) they will pay are ridiculously complicated. They'll cover a procedure only for certain diagnoses (which actually makes sense--if a procedure has been shown to be worthless for a certain diagnosis, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it) but which diagnoses are "good enough" to cover which procedure (a) is more granular than the procedure/diagnosis codes published by the AMA, and (b) varies from state to state. They also won't cover certain procedures if the patient has more than $n worth of assets. How exactly is the hospital, or Medicare, or in some cases even the patient, supposed to know the exact value of their assets?
So it definitely needs to be managed well (I'm actually really in favor of the public/private option--if private insurance is slightly more expensive but well run, people won't be forced to deal with whatever government nightmare might come into being), but even a nightmare that covered everyone would be better than the current nightmare that doesn't.
So it definitely needs to be managed well (I'm actually really in favor of the public/private option--if private insurance is slightly more expensive but well run, people won't be forced to deal with whatever government nightmare might come into being), but even a nightmare that covered everyone would be better than the current nightmare that doesn't.
48
i don't exactly qualify as one of your choir, but i do enjoy good writing. i also appreciate rational, intellectually honest analysis. this column demonstrates the best of both.
amen, dan.
amen, dan.
49
Last night a friend in Portland (from San Diego) and I (from Montreal) were chatting and we came to this conclusion:
Canadians *know* shit happens to everyone. Our system accepts this theory and we pretty happily weave the strands of social safety nets with every tax we pay. 'Cause that's life and Canadians seem to like the constant and confidence of knowing everyone's covered for the shit that's bound to happen.
Americans think shit happens and it's the individual's fault so let the individual get the fanload and the individual deserves to drown in it if they can't float. 'Cause that's life and Americans seem to like the morality of it.
Weird.
Canadians *know* shit happens to everyone. Our system accepts this theory and we pretty happily weave the strands of social safety nets with every tax we pay. 'Cause that's life and Canadians seem to like the constant and confidence of knowing everyone's covered for the shit that's bound to happen.
Americans think shit happens and it's the individual's fault so let the individual get the fanload and the individual deserves to drown in it if they can't float. 'Cause that's life and Americans seem to like the morality of it.
Weird.
50
@45:
You're right, but even besides the citizenship question, both our parents and all our siblings live in America and having the baby in Poland would have been lonely. We were only there for 10 months, it's not like we were ready to settle down there forever. But it certainly wasn't out of the question to stay and have the baby.
You're right, but even besides the citizenship question, both our parents and all our siblings live in America and having the baby in Poland would have been lonely. We were only there for 10 months, it's not like we were ready to settle down there forever. But it certainly wasn't out of the question to stay and have the baby.
51
@41
Yes, yes, the last thing we want to deal with in democratic republic is an unwieldy bureaucracy that is subject to the will of the people through a regular election process.
A government of, by and for the people is so overrated.
We should just trust in the magic of the mythical free market like our lords and masters, the monopoly corporations, tell us.
Thank heavens that the holy and sacred "free market" has created such responsive, private insurance companies that have somehow miraculously prevented those dreaded unwieldy bureaucracies that conservatives fear.
The health care that the magical free market hath provided is just so comprehensive, and the insurance is simply dirt cheap. For the life of me I can't imagine what all the fuss is about. Can you?
...moron.
Yes, yes, the last thing we want to deal with in democratic republic is an unwieldy bureaucracy that is subject to the will of the people through a regular election process.
A government of, by and for the people is so overrated.
We should just trust in the magic of the mythical free market like our lords and masters, the monopoly corporations, tell us.
Thank heavens that the holy and sacred "free market" has created such responsive, private insurance companies that have somehow miraculously prevented those dreaded unwieldy bureaucracies that conservatives fear.
The health care that the magical free market hath provided is just so comprehensive, and the insurance is simply dirt cheap. For the life of me I can't imagine what all the fuss is about. Can you?
...moron.
52
#27 doesn't care about what's rational, efficient, ethical or, least of all, humane. He (presumably he) only cares that some people are guaranteed to be worse off than him. It's that simple. Arguing with him by providing facts or trying to persuade with pleas of compassion WILL NOT WORK because the only way he feels like he has worth as a human being is if he can be reassured that others are below him on the hierarchy of life.
53
23 what was the little girl doing on the roof?
(ps- we don't believe your BS story about being ushered to the front of the line)
(ps- we don't believe your BS story about being ushered to the front of the line)
56
@27
The phrase
"layabout bone idle son"
is without a doubt the best way to describe someone with cancer.
The phrase
"layabout bone idle son"
is without a doubt the best way to describe someone with cancer.
57
35
Those were the exact words of the homophobic bigots taunting the 11 year old gay boy who killed himself...
Those were the exact words of the homophobic bigots taunting the 11 year old gay boy who killed himself...
58
I think there are more important priorities. First is FREE FOOD-why should anyone go hungry? Next is free housing: everyone deserves a good roof over their head, particularly those that have families. Free movies strike me as a good idea too. I'm sick of these limousine liberals in California getting my hard earned money. Finally, I'm tired of the politicians and bureaucrats having to put up with all this special interest criticism. We need to abolish advertising so these clowns can't prey on the innocents.
60
46
Don't bore us with the facts.
We want healthcare.
Now.
And we want somebody else to pay for it.
Don't bore us with the facts.
We want healthcare.
Now.
And we want somebody else to pay for it.
61
Anyone who doesn't have health insurance at work can buy their own.
What? It's too expensive?
OK, the rest of us who are struggling to support our families (and already buying our own health insurance if we are self employed) will gladly chip in and buy it for you.
Because you are special.
And we are made of money, anyway.
What? It's too expensive?
OK, the rest of us who are struggling to support our families (and already buying our own health insurance if we are self employed) will gladly chip in and buy it for you.
Because you are special.
And we are made of money, anyway.
62
@58 is right.
Food and housing are more critical needs; why does no one squeal for socialized food or expect someone else to pay for their housing?
Food and housing are more critical needs; why does no one squeal for socialized food or expect someone else to pay for their housing?
63
@46
Medicare is similar in structure to sub-prime mortgage securities.
If you only place the highest risk people with the most expensive acute and chronic care in the group, you're going to get a financial reality that is drowning in red ink.
Private insurance companies are allowed to have their cake and eat it too. They "cherry pick" the clients that have the lowest risks and lowest costs, but that have the best ability to pay those profitable premiums. The insurance company invests those premiums into the stocks of other companies to leverage your money to their financial benefit and political influence. They utilize their position as your proxy to lobby for more favorable laws and regulations for them, not you.
If we're going to insert a third-party payer system between the patient and their care providers, we need to have a fair and consistent framework that requires a standard set of rules and regulations and that requires that all patients/citizens be allowed to participate. In other words, any third party payer must take the good with the bad and spread the risks broadly through one common framework instead of shifting them to the taxpayers through the complex webs of back channels, disparate systems and unenforced regulations.
Medicare is similar in structure to sub-prime mortgage securities.
If you only place the highest risk people with the most expensive acute and chronic care in the group, you're going to get a financial reality that is drowning in red ink.
Private insurance companies are allowed to have their cake and eat it too. They "cherry pick" the clients that have the lowest risks and lowest costs, but that have the best ability to pay those profitable premiums. The insurance company invests those premiums into the stocks of other companies to leverage your money to their financial benefit and political influence. They utilize their position as your proxy to lobby for more favorable laws and regulations for them, not you.
If we're going to insert a third-party payer system between the patient and their care providers, we need to have a fair and consistent framework that requires a standard set of rules and regulations and that requires that all patients/citizens be allowed to participate. In other words, any third party payer must take the good with the bad and spread the risks broadly through one common framework instead of shifting them to the taxpayers through the complex webs of back channels, disparate systems and unenforced regulations.
64
how many people pay out of pocket? 12% Will we scrap every imperfect system?
how about 30% failure to graduate hs students. who runs that?
how about 30% failure to graduate hs students. who runs that?
65
@62
Not being an informed American, you may not realize just how much we subsidize food and housing in America.
You also may not realize how much we subsidize health care.
The actual question is not whether these things should be socialized (they already are), but why the primary benefit of the socialized food, housing and health care have been crafted ultimately to the benefit the prosperity of the few, rather than the many.
The problem is that we're using models of socialized markets and economics that are designed primarily to benefit monopoly corporations, not the American people - individually or collectively....unless, of course, you subscribe to the plantation economics theory that what is good for the master of the plantation is good for all the workers and servants on the plantation.
Not being an informed American, you may not realize just how much we subsidize food and housing in America.
You also may not realize how much we subsidize health care.
The actual question is not whether these things should be socialized (they already are), but why the primary benefit of the socialized food, housing and health care have been crafted ultimately to the benefit the prosperity of the few, rather than the many.
The problem is that we're using models of socialized markets and economics that are designed primarily to benefit monopoly corporations, not the American people - individually or collectively....unless, of course, you subscribe to the plantation economics theory that what is good for the master of the plantation is good for all the workers and servants on the plantation.
66
Commenter "Adam Smith's Invisible Hand" summed it up perfectly in a post about emergency room visits a while back (I've referred before to his/her comment, but it was so dead on perfect I'm going to continue beating that horse.)
Conservatives are so dead set against what they consider to be "hand outs" that they oppose preventative medicine, which would actually SAVE them money, and instead end up paying more in the long run because people are forced to go to the emergency room but are unable to pay for it... which means WE pay for it, at a premium cost.
Conservatives! Look around you! The world is not the way you wish it to be, stop trying to pretend it is and accept reality.
Conservatives are so dead set against what they consider to be "hand outs" that they oppose preventative medicine, which would actually SAVE them money, and instead end up paying more in the long run because people are forced to go to the emergency room but are unable to pay for it... which means WE pay for it, at a premium cost.
Conservatives! Look around you! The world is not the way you wish it to be, stop trying to pretend it is and accept reality.
67
Agreed, on Dan's political points. We need universal health care. But on to what jumped out at me: isn't "mountainous" a bizarre adjective for the nyt to choose for the son, no matter what his actual size?
70
What a bunch of ignorant numbskulls.
The WHOLE FUCKING POINT of universal health care is that EVERYONE pays into the system - everyone with a job, that is - which means there would actually be MORE PEOPLE paying in than currently, because there are literally tens of millions of American workers whose employers don't even offer health benefits.
The difference is that, instead of 10 or 50 or 5,000 employees paying into a veritable hodge-podge of individual plans, under scores of different providers, the federal government would be able to leverage the cumulative investment of roughly 150,000,000 working Americans, essentially eliminating the "middle-man" of for-profit insurance companies and putting the funds directly into the hands of medical providers. The net result would be that MORE PEOPLE WOULD BE COVERED, at a significantly LOWER COST to both employers, who would no longer have to pay for enrolling and administering plans on their employees' behalf, as well as to employees, who would wind up with better care, and more $$ in their paychecks to boot. We could quite literally cover ever single one of the 306,000,000 people living in this country with better care than almost all of them currently receive, and at less cost than we're paying right now.
The whole "ooh, we can't let the federal gubamint socialize health care!" canard is just a bunch of hooey perpetrated by the health care insurance industry, which would find itself going the way of the brontosaurus under UHC, as well it should, since the industry, despite what you've been told, isn't in the business of protecting the health of American workers, it's in the business of maximizing profit for its investors, as cases like our good friend elenchos clearly demonstrates.
The WHOLE FUCKING POINT of universal health care is that EVERYONE pays into the system - everyone with a job, that is - which means there would actually be MORE PEOPLE paying in than currently, because there are literally tens of millions of American workers whose employers don't even offer health benefits.
The difference is that, instead of 10 or 50 or 5,000 employees paying into a veritable hodge-podge of individual plans, under scores of different providers, the federal government would be able to leverage the cumulative investment of roughly 150,000,000 working Americans, essentially eliminating the "middle-man" of for-profit insurance companies and putting the funds directly into the hands of medical providers. The net result would be that MORE PEOPLE WOULD BE COVERED, at a significantly LOWER COST to both employers, who would no longer have to pay for enrolling and administering plans on their employees' behalf, as well as to employees, who would wind up with better care, and more $$ in their paychecks to boot. We could quite literally cover ever single one of the 306,000,000 people living in this country with better care than almost all of them currently receive, and at less cost than we're paying right now.
The whole "ooh, we can't let the federal gubamint socialize health care!" canard is just a bunch of hooey perpetrated by the health care insurance industry, which would find itself going the way of the brontosaurus under UHC, as well it should, since the industry, despite what you've been told, isn't in the business of protecting the health of American workers, it's in the business of maximizing profit for its investors, as cases like our good friend elenchos clearly demonstrates.
71
The GOP's been operating on a jingoistic platform that runs contrary to their actual policy for some time now. Here are some links that explain it all very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_valu…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_sto…
Repeat after me, everybody: USA! USA! USA!...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_valu…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_sto…
Repeat after me, everybody: USA! USA! USA!...
72
Spend some time in an emergency room. Who is there?
FAT
LAZY
UNEMPLOYED
UNINSURED
AMERICANS
USING
THE
MOST
EXPENSIVE
HEALTHCARE
POSSIBLE
TO
TREAT
THEIR
SNIFFLES,
ALL
AT
TAXPAYERS'
EXPENSE.
But god forbid we have a national healthcare system that regulates costs and makes sure that people don't use the most expensive option possible to treat the most minor of illnesses. Because that would be un-American.
FAT
LAZY
UNEMPLOYED
UNINSURED
AMERICANS
USING
THE
MOST
EXPENSIVE
HEALTHCARE
POSSIBLE
TO
TREAT
THEIR
SNIFFLES,
ALL
AT
TAXPAYERS'
EXPENSE.
But god forbid we have a national healthcare system that regulates costs and makes sure that people don't use the most expensive option possible to treat the most minor of illnesses. Because that would be un-American.
73
It's always interesting to me how conservatives preach this dogma that federal bureaucracy is so utterly inept that national healthcare would be a disaster. The military is a massive bureaucracy and it seems to work pretty well. The Social Security Administration gets those checks out every month, for the most part, without a hitch. The postal service, for the most part, gets the mail delivered, etc.
Poll the nations that have universal healthcare and you'll find their citizens would not do without it, whatever imperfections may exist. The empty argument of conservatives is that universal healthcare would not work perfectly, so therefor, we shouldn't do it.
Now is the time. We must get this done. Congress must create single payer healthcare and Obama should just get out of the way if he is unwilling to lead.
Poll the nations that have universal healthcare and you'll find their citizens would not do without it, whatever imperfections may exist. The empty argument of conservatives is that universal healthcare would not work perfectly, so therefor, we shouldn't do it.
Now is the time. We must get this done. Congress must create single payer healthcare and Obama should just get out of the way if he is unwilling to lead.
74
@ 22: "We already have socialized medicine; It's called the Emergency room."
UUUUGGGH! I hate this so much!
I work in an ER and, sadly, Sargon is right. I think socialized medicine will help more people than it hurts, but the idea that everyone will suddenly start going to a regular physician for primary care is a pipe dream.
People WITH insurance come to the emergency room all the time, because (a) we're required to see everyone who comes in, even if they are not having an emergency, and (b) we're generally a lot faster than going to the doctor's office. Sure, people wait for hours, but we get all the results back that same day for the most part. Try getting a chest x-ray from a general practitioner and see how long it takes for you to learn the results. Does it make a life-and-death difference? Almost never. But takes days and days, and nobody wants to wait.
Socialized medicine will not change the ER one iota. So many people who already have insurance show up for the craziest things because it's just easier than taking a tiny bit of responsibility (two days ago we had a 22 year old call 911 for an AMBULANCE because he was constipated). At least 50% of the patients who have a primary care doctor can't tell you his or her name. People are clueless, and they basically want a version of the McDonald's drive-through window as their model of health care.
@ 22: "We already have socialized medicine; It's called the Emergency room."
UUUUGGGH! I hate this so much!
I work in an ER and, sadly, Sargon is right. I think socialized medicine will help more people than it hurts, but the idea that everyone will suddenly start going to a regular physician for primary care is a pipe dream.
People WITH insurance come to the emergency room all the time, because (a) we're required to see everyone who comes in, even if they are not having an emergency, and (b) we're generally a lot faster than going to the doctor's office. Sure, people wait for hours, but we get all the results back that same day for the most part. Try getting a chest x-ray from a general practitioner and see how long it takes for you to learn the results. Does it make a life-and-death difference? Almost never. But takes days and days, and nobody wants to wait.
Socialized medicine will not change the ER one iota. So many people who already have insurance show up for the craziest things because it's just easier than taking a tiny bit of responsibility (two days ago we had a 22 year old call 911 for an AMBULANCE because he was constipated). At least 50% of the patients who have a primary care doctor can't tell you his or her name. People are clueless, and they basically want a version of the McDonald's drive-through window as their model of health care.
76
Same hell a lot of people are trapped in. I got laid off in December and had to buy short term insurance that doesn't cover my meds. Had to switch to cheaper meds to make ends meet, since without coverage my previous stuff cost 200 bucks a month.
COBRA has to be the cruelest damn joke of it all. Even with all the new discounts, Cobra would have cost me a couple hundred more than the short term private insurance plus the meds.
My mom was really worried about Obama taking over and forcing socialized medicine on people, but I'll tell you, after seeing what I've gone through, she's starting to come round. Something's gotta give, or we're gonna start seeing whole swaths of people dying simply cause they can't afford any treatment.
COBRA has to be the cruelest damn joke of it all. Even with all the new discounts, Cobra would have cost me a couple hundred more than the short term private insurance plus the meds.
My mom was really worried about Obama taking over and forcing socialized medicine on people, but I'll tell you, after seeing what I've gone through, she's starting to come round. Something's gotta give, or we're gonna start seeing whole swaths of people dying simply cause they can't afford any treatment.
77
THank you, Dan!
My sentiments exactly.
You can work hard your whole life, but then lose everything at the worst possible time -- sick and unemployed.
What a fucked up position. What a lurking danger.
I agree that we should have Medicare for all. And, I'm a person with EXCELLENT PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE and a good job.
See, I'm smart, just like you are, Mr. Savage.
We both see that just because things are hunky--dory for us now, it could all go to shit.
Even if it never goes to shit for us, it would be fucking lame if we had to see a family member or friend go through it.
Shit, I'm enraged when I read about that lady in the NYT story you posted, and she's a stranger!
To the dingbats who rail against single payer because it's "socialist": who gives a fuck if it is socialst? It PROTECTS YOUR ASSETS FROM BEING ANNIHILATED IF YOU GET SICK AND LOSE YOUR JOB AND THUS YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE, AND THUS YOU ARE LIABLE FOR TENS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN MEDICAL BILLS. If that's socialism, I'll take it! I'm all about protecting my assets.
Man, Savage's got me so jubilant with his refreshing total common sense on this matter, I'm misspelling shit and whatnot...
My sentiments exactly.
You can work hard your whole life, but then lose everything at the worst possible time -- sick and unemployed.
What a fucked up position. What a lurking danger.
I agree that we should have Medicare for all. And, I'm a person with EXCELLENT PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE and a good job.
See, I'm smart, just like you are, Mr. Savage.
We both see that just because things are hunky--dory for us now, it could all go to shit.
Even if it never goes to shit for us, it would be fucking lame if we had to see a family member or friend go through it.
Shit, I'm enraged when I read about that lady in the NYT story you posted, and she's a stranger!
To the dingbats who rail against single payer because it's "socialist": who gives a fuck if it is socialst? It PROTECTS YOUR ASSETS FROM BEING ANNIHILATED IF YOU GET SICK AND LOSE YOUR JOB AND THUS YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE, AND THUS YOU ARE LIABLE FOR TENS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN MEDICAL BILLS. If that's socialism, I'll take it! I'm all about protecting my assets.
Man, Savage's got me so jubilant with his refreshing total common sense on this matter, I'm misspelling shit and whatnot...
78
@74 -- I would never have gone to the ER with a bladder infection if I had had health insurance. I had an infected cat bite, and I did call around to doctors like the Country Doctor, but was told to go to the emergency room then, too.
I managed to get most of my bill marked 'charity', and probably paid only 25%, which was still a lot and took me a year.
Both these problems needed a 5-second look, and a prescription for anti-biotics. They made me get x-rays for the cat bite on my thumb. Strangely, at harborview, that's done by the UW, and it cost like $30. Student-teaching hospital??
My point is, not all of us would waste time and money in the ER. I promise.
I managed to get most of my bill marked 'charity', and probably paid only 25%, which was still a lot and took me a year.
Both these problems needed a 5-second look, and a prescription for anti-biotics. They made me get x-rays for the cat bite on my thumb. Strangely, at harborview, that's done by the UW, and it cost like $30. Student-teaching hospital??
My point is, not all of us would waste time and money in the ER. I promise.
79
#70 is absolutely 100% correct. Thank you for summing it up so nicely. Would you consider running for office or at the very least, please tell you are part of Sebelius' team. :)
80
This "socialized medicine" sounds attractive.
But, wait--is there a chance that I might pay in less than I receive in benefits for any given year? Or that someone else might benefit from my contributions more than I will? And if so, might that person be of non-white ethnicity? THAN OMG!!!! I WILL FIGHT IT WITH MY LAST DYING BREATH!!!!
But, wait--is there a chance that I might pay in less than I receive in benefits for any given year? Or that someone else might benefit from my contributions more than I will? And if so, might that person be of non-white ethnicity? THAN OMG!!!! I WILL FIGHT IT WITH MY LAST DYING BREATH!!!!
81
You'd think with our exorbitant fees and gee-whiz medical gizmos, we'd be living years and years longer than the people in those benighted places with socialized medicine.
Nope.
We pay more and get less.
Nope.
We pay more and get less.
82
80
We already pay 3X what we will ever use.
Under Obama it will rise to 6X+.
Those calling for socialized medicine are the freeloading mooches of the world who are and will not be paying anything.
We already pay 3X what we will ever use.
Under Obama it will rise to 6X+.
Those calling for socialized medicine are the freeloading mooches of the world who are and will not be paying anything.
83
Don't Canadians wait weeks to see a doctor? My grandfather goes through the VA to get his medical care. Takes forever. He's been waiting 7 months now for one procedure that he needs and it still keeps getting pushed back. The government can't run anything. Not medicare/caid not the VA hospitals. Why would they be able to run this? Our healthcare will go down the drain, well, at least mine will. I pay a fortune for my healthcare, but I guess everyone deserves to have what I pay so dearly for.
84
@78 -
I hear you on that one.
I guess my point should also include that a lot of general practitioners also "dump" patients by sending them to the ER. "Can't see you today! It's already 3:30 PM."
They were actually right to get the xray of your thumb - those cat fangs can occasionally chip off a piece of bone in a finger, or (even worse) if a piece of the tooth breaks off inside there's a waaaaay huger risk of infection.
I hear you on that one.
I guess my point should also include that a lot of general practitioners also "dump" patients by sending them to the ER. "Can't see you today! It's already 3:30 PM."
They were actually right to get the xray of your thumb - those cat fangs can occasionally chip off a piece of bone in a finger, or (even worse) if a piece of the tooth breaks off inside there's a waaaaay huger risk of infection.
86
@83 - You're mistaken. I'm Canadian. We do not wait weeks to see doctors. I can call in the morning to see my doctor the same day.
My daughter was born 3 months pre-mature. She was perfect, just too small. She stayed in the hospital, in the NICU with round the clock care, for two and a half months, and I was able to stay with her. When we left, all we received were cheery goodbyes from all the nurses, and other moms I had gotten to know.
My father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer a little over a year ago (no he doesn't smoke). He had a surgery to remove his esophagus, they turned half of his stomach into a new esophagus, and due to complications after the surgery, they had to induce a coma for 12 days. Then after he woke up he was still there on a feeding tube for another couple of weeks. And he now goes for regular MRIs. When he left the hospital, there was no bill. When he goes in for follow ups, there is no charge.
If he lived in the US, he'd either be homeless, or dead because who can ever plan for a surgery that costs thousands of dollars.
I listen to your stories, and I feel sad that the richest country in the world can't or won't take care of it's citizens.
My daughter was born 3 months pre-mature. She was perfect, just too small. She stayed in the hospital, in the NICU with round the clock care, for two and a half months, and I was able to stay with her. When we left, all we received were cheery goodbyes from all the nurses, and other moms I had gotten to know.
My father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer a little over a year ago (no he doesn't smoke). He had a surgery to remove his esophagus, they turned half of his stomach into a new esophagus, and due to complications after the surgery, they had to induce a coma for 12 days. Then after he woke up he was still there on a feeding tube for another couple of weeks. And he now goes for regular MRIs. When he left the hospital, there was no bill. When he goes in for follow ups, there is no charge.
If he lived in the US, he'd either be homeless, or dead because who can ever plan for a surgery that costs thousands of dollars.
I listen to your stories, and I feel sad that the richest country in the world can't or won't take care of it's citizens.
87
If the indy media started to report daily trends in mortality rates the same way the corporate press reports the DOW, then there would start to be pressure on politicians when their constituents are dying, rather than thriving. Even during times when capital is thriving.
Could you imagine: "Today the mortality rate spiked, primarily due to a sudden increase in suicides." Or, "The year over year trend in the mortality rate is up, mainly due to uninsured treatable illnesses."
Could you imagine: "Today the mortality rate spiked, primarily due to a sudden increase in suicides." Or, "The year over year trend in the mortality rate is up, mainly due to uninsured treatable illnesses."
88
But if we had socialized medicine, then -- correct me if I'm wrong -- wouldn't fewer of those yucky poor people die from those poor-people diseases they get? That means we would have more of them, like all over the place! And they might not even BE so poor because the treatment for their poor-people diseases wouldn't bankrupt them and make them homeless so much... so there'd be, like, whole NEIGHBORHOODS full of healthy not-rich people! I mean, think about it. Is this *really* what we want for our children?
89
@87: Good point. I don't need to here about the fucking DOW in every NPR news headline; I'd much rather hear about something important. Like, you know, life and death...
90
Religious conservatives believe that if you are sick, and don’t have the means to pay, you are getting what you deserve. God rewards the good, with money, good health. If you have neither…you are being punished by god, for sin or laziness, and who is man (or government) to interfere with the will of god? If the US were to provide everyone with care, or cheap housing, what would then motivate the masses to work? It is the same argument as no morality without religion…..no threat of hell = no good behavior.
91
@82:
But you're already paying right now for those "freeloading mooches" (i.e. people, both employed and not, who are too poor to afford the already obscene premiums "offered" by the health insurance industry - assuming they don't have those pesky "pre-existing conditions" that allows insurers to flat-out deny them coverage altogether). That's why you pay 3X what you'll actually use in coverage, because, among other things, the industry dings everyone who pays in a little extra to make up what they lose to the uninsured, who generally wind up using the most expensive forms of health care services, like ER's for example, because they hold off on being treated for injuries and illnesses until their conditions become so acute they have no other choice but to go to a hospital.
As @70 pointed out above, under a Universal system, you'd still be paying a little for those "freeloaders", but not as much as you do now: A of all) because there'd be a lot less of them, since more workers would be paying into the system who aren't currently, and; B of all) because the costs would be greatly reduced, even though service overall would increase, in no small part because poor people wouldn't have to resort to using hospital Emergency Rooms as their primary health care provider, which, if you want to talk about inefficiency, is the absolutely worst way to go in terms of costs-for-services.
I just don't get this attitude among you not-rich conservatives, who seem to think that the the idea of the federal government providing you with better health care for less money is somehow evil, yet being gouged for grossly inflated coverage - when it isn't outright denied - and being forced into destitution by greedy, inefficient, and corrupt private insurance companies is somehow the height of virtue.
I mean, you can't ALL be working for the insurance industry, now can you?
More...
But you're already paying right now for those "freeloading mooches" (i.e. people, both employed and not, who are too poor to afford the already obscene premiums "offered" by the health insurance industry - assuming they don't have those pesky "pre-existing conditions" that allows insurers to flat-out deny them coverage altogether). That's why you pay 3X what you'll actually use in coverage, because, among other things, the industry dings everyone who pays in a little extra to make up what they lose to the uninsured, who generally wind up using the most expensive forms of health care services, like ER's for example, because they hold off on being treated for injuries and illnesses until their conditions become so acute they have no other choice but to go to a hospital.
As @70 pointed out above, under a Universal system, you'd still be paying a little for those "freeloaders", but not as much as you do now: A of all) because there'd be a lot less of them, since more workers would be paying into the system who aren't currently, and; B of all) because the costs would be greatly reduced, even though service overall would increase, in no small part because poor people wouldn't have to resort to using hospital Emergency Rooms as their primary health care provider, which, if you want to talk about inefficiency, is the absolutely worst way to go in terms of costs-for-services.
I just don't get this attitude among you not-rich conservatives, who seem to think that the the idea of the federal government providing you with better health care for less money is somehow evil, yet being gouged for grossly inflated coverage - when it isn't outright denied - and being forced into destitution by greedy, inefficient, and corrupt private insurance companies is somehow the height of virtue.
I mean, you can't ALL be working for the insurance industry, now can you?
92
@27 and @58 and everyone else who think that sick people 'deserve' it for some reason: I was 25 years old and in excellent health - I walked 5 miles and swam for 45 minutes every day, watched what I ate, worked hard [and played hard]. Then I was hit but a drunken idiot who ran a red light at 70 miles an hour. Now I'm crippled for life. I've had 11 operations and am in chronic pain. Still I managed to drag myself to work for 20 years. Then my condition deteriorated so suddenly that I was forced to retire [thank God I had an understanding employer! They could have just as easily fired me.]].
So tell me, what great moral sin did I commit to "deserve" this? I actually dragged myself to work with a broken pelvis once, so I'm not lazy. I saw my father die of heart disease when I was a teenager, so I was super careful about my health [still am]. It seems to me that the guy who hit me is the one who should be suffering, but that isn't the way it worked out.
Shit happens, even to good people - you have to accept that. You may not want to acknowledge it, but you, too, are just 1 major illness or car accident away from poverty.
So tell me, what great moral sin did I commit to "deserve" this? I actually dragged myself to work with a broken pelvis once, so I'm not lazy. I saw my father die of heart disease when I was a teenager, so I was super careful about my health [still am]. It seems to me that the guy who hit me is the one who should be suffering, but that isn't the way it worked out.
Shit happens, even to good people - you have to accept that. You may not want to acknowledge it, but you, too, are just 1 major illness or car accident away from poverty.
93
God is punishing you @92 for - something. Not sure what, but HE knows, and wing-nuts & fundies know, too, even if they can't really point to anything specific.
God doesn't make mistakes, so there must be some reason he's decided to make you suffer, and it probably has something to do with your lack of morals - or whatever.
God doesn't make mistakes, so there must be some reason he's decided to make you suffer, and it probably has something to do with your lack of morals - or whatever.
94
@88 The whole point of not having universal health care IS the yucky poor people. If they are not useful for menial labor (in which case they are more likely to have health care) they just consume space, resources and are unsightly. Trying to exterminate them is messy. It's much simpler to just let them die of their own accord. If they can't pull their own weight they are not wanted. SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!
95
94
which is also why we leave cigarettes and booze and twinkies legal. hastens the demise of the unproductive resource sucking slog posting underclass.
which is also why we leave cigarettes and booze and twinkies legal. hastens the demise of the unproductive resource sucking slog posting underclass.
97
91
You are right, but under Obama even more worthless mooches will get coverage and the same slobs who are paying now will just have one more added layer of coverage for someone else to pay for.
You are right, but under Obama even more worthless mooches will get coverage and the same slobs who are paying now will just have one more added layer of coverage for someone else to pay for.
98
@97:
But, that's not actually what would happen. As I said, those "same slobs" already pay for the "worthless mooches" - ALL of them, whenever they go to a clinic or E.R. - RIGHT NOW. Universal Coverage ensures that EVERYONE with a job would pay something into the system, even if they didn't previously have health coverage (of which approximately 20 million American workers didn't at last count - and that probably doesn't include the newly jobless, or those whose employers are about to eliminate benefits, so that number could go as high as 23 or 24 mm very soon).
And there's no "added layer of coverage", in fact, Universal Care ELIMINATES a layer, namely the insurance companies, which suck up large percentages of what gets paid into health care programs for their own benefit.
Again, what's the problem? Would you rather pay LESS for better care for yourself AND for those who don't have coverage, or continue to pay MORE for less coverage, while continuing to pay for the "mooches", just as you've been doing all along?
Really, this would seem to be a literal "no-brainer", particularly if your only objection is that you'd be paying to cover people whom you're ALREADY PAYING to cover right now.
But, that's not actually what would happen. As I said, those "same slobs" already pay for the "worthless mooches" - ALL of them, whenever they go to a clinic or E.R. - RIGHT NOW. Universal Coverage ensures that EVERYONE with a job would pay something into the system, even if they didn't previously have health coverage (of which approximately 20 million American workers didn't at last count - and that probably doesn't include the newly jobless, or those whose employers are about to eliminate benefits, so that number could go as high as 23 or 24 mm very soon).
And there's no "added layer of coverage", in fact, Universal Care ELIMINATES a layer, namely the insurance companies, which suck up large percentages of what gets paid into health care programs for their own benefit.
Again, what's the problem? Would you rather pay LESS for better care for yourself AND for those who don't have coverage, or continue to pay MORE for less coverage, while continuing to pay for the "mooches", just as you've been doing all along?
Really, this would seem to be a literal "no-brainer", particularly if your only objection is that you'd be paying to cover people whom you're ALREADY PAYING to cover right now.
100
Great piece, Dan. I thought this article in the Nation (somewhat similar to the NYT piece) was worth inserting into the debate, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090427/mi…. It's about a woman in a similar predicament.
I never understand the "but Canadians have to wait to see a doctor" argument about National Health. First, even if it were true, why would rah rah Americans assume that we can't do something better, or different, from the Canadian version? Second, I have "good" insurance issued by a university (my employer.) I call my doctor for an appointment and there is at least a 3-month wait, unless I claim that something is an "emergency," and then I can get in in about two weeks. How is that not waiting to see a doctor? We employed, insured people wait plenty to see a doctor in the US.
I never understand the "but Canadians have to wait to see a doctor" argument about National Health. First, even if it were true, why would rah rah Americans assume that we can't do something better, or different, from the Canadian version? Second, I have "good" insurance issued by a university (my employer.) I call my doctor for an appointment and there is at least a 3-month wait, unless I claim that something is an "emergency," and then I can get in in about two weeks. How is that not waiting to see a doctor? We employed, insured people wait plenty to see a doctor in the US.
101
Where is this rumour about Canadians having to wait to see a doctor coming from? This is patently untrue.
102
I can't stand to read all of the comments, but I know everyone has unique experiences with health care in the US but all I know is that the medium sized nonprofit can afford to provide the best health coverage I have heard of besides people that work for a health system that gives them free care. So if we can do it others could but don't want to. On the other hand, even if you own your house you can get state care. I guess I dont understand why people are so upset by the idea of having to spend lots of thier own money to save thier life. Why should some one else pay to save your life when you could do it yourself, but it would mean selling your house. I would sell everything I own to save my son. If I had to.
103
Well, let's turn that question around @102:
Why should you have to sell everything you own to save the life of yourself or a family member - if there is an alternative available that would allow you to not only save that life but also NOT have to sell everything you own?
Again, where does this perception come from in this country that, unless people are willing to wipe out every dollar of investment/retirement security they've worked their entire lives to acquire, they don't DESERVE the sort of high-quality health care that just about every other industrialized nation on the planet offers to their citizens without forcing them to go into penury in the process?
And I really hate to break this news to some of you, but complaining about Universal coverage being "socialized medicine" is the height of absurdity, because you're already paying into a socialized system. That's what insurance is by its very nature: a large group of people pooling their individual resources in order to leverage their cumulative investment, with the understanding that some will eventually take more out of the system than they put in, while others may take little if any at all. The only difference in our system (as we've seen recently from examples in the banking & investment industries) is that the company doing the pooling of those resources takes an enormous sum of money off the top for their trouble, and then does everything in its power to pay out as little of what they've raked in as possible, even if it means denying coverage to you for things for which you've already rightfully paid!
And @102, how do you KNOW how good your plan is until you actually tested it? It might seem pretty good right now, but what happens if you or someone in your family REALLY gets sick or injured? Do you have any guarantee from your insurance provider they won't disallow coverage or even drop you completely for some previously unreported "pre-existing condition" for example? Or that they'll not fight you tooth-and-nail for every procedure, every hospitalization recommended by your physician? That's what many of the horror stories we read about on a daily basis boil down to: insurance companies denying medical coverage, fighting with the insured, second-guessing physicians, and generally dragging out the process for as long as they can (and all too frequently with great success) in order to NOT pay for things people have every reasonable expectation to think they should.
In all seriousness, if your plan is truly as good as you say it is, I'm sure EVERYONE commenting here would love to find out what company provides your coverage. I sure as heck would want to send a referral off to my H.R. Department straight-away.
More...
Why should you have to sell everything you own to save the life of yourself or a family member - if there is an alternative available that would allow you to not only save that life but also NOT have to sell everything you own?
Again, where does this perception come from in this country that, unless people are willing to wipe out every dollar of investment/retirement security they've worked their entire lives to acquire, they don't DESERVE the sort of high-quality health care that just about every other industrialized nation on the planet offers to their citizens without forcing them to go into penury in the process?
And I really hate to break this news to some of you, but complaining about Universal coverage being "socialized medicine" is the height of absurdity, because you're already paying into a socialized system. That's what insurance is by its very nature: a large group of people pooling their individual resources in order to leverage their cumulative investment, with the understanding that some will eventually take more out of the system than they put in, while others may take little if any at all. The only difference in our system (as we've seen recently from examples in the banking & investment industries) is that the company doing the pooling of those resources takes an enormous sum of money off the top for their trouble, and then does everything in its power to pay out as little of what they've raked in as possible, even if it means denying coverage to you for things for which you've already rightfully paid!
And @102, how do you KNOW how good your plan is until you actually tested it? It might seem pretty good right now, but what happens if you or someone in your family REALLY gets sick or injured? Do you have any guarantee from your insurance provider they won't disallow coverage or even drop you completely for some previously unreported "pre-existing condition" for example? Or that they'll not fight you tooth-and-nail for every procedure, every hospitalization recommended by your physician? That's what many of the horror stories we read about on a daily basis boil down to: insurance companies denying medical coverage, fighting with the insured, second-guessing physicians, and generally dragging out the process for as long as they can (and all too frequently with great success) in order to NOT pay for things people have every reasonable expectation to think they should.
In all seriousness, if your plan is truly as good as you say it is, I'm sure EVERYONE commenting here would love to find out what company provides your coverage. I sure as heck would want to send a referral off to my H.R. Department straight-away.
104
Clearly, once someone who's insured gets a disease, the insurer should be responsible for treatment until that disease is cured.
That should not be dependent on whether or not they are able to continue paying a premium.
That should not be dependent on whether or not they are able to continue paying a premium.
105
I think that health insurance SHOULD be tied to employment. More incentive for the lethargic do-nothings to get their ass down to the employment agency already.
I hate to go all survival of the fittest on you, because in many aspects survival of the fittest is seen as inhumane or immoral....But, i have to. Because it's at least logical. In the wild, animals walk around all day long. You always see videos of animals walking. A child might ask where they are walking to. They are walking to LIFE. Really, what they are doing is not walking, what they are doing is looking for food. Food which will allow them to thrive and life. So like I said, they are walking to LIVE.
In America, and everywhere, we have two classes of people. One class of people are "walkers'. They walk around all day long, doing things which, in return, will get them food by means of money. They walk to live, and DO NOT drain the economy.
Then we have the other class. They are sitting down, and they are not finding food. But, somewhere....some farmer is breaking his back to grow them food. And somehow, they get the food. In the wild, this does NOT happen. Animals who "sit" in the wild will DIE. But, guess how many animals you see SITTING in the wild? You got it, NONE! Because they know that being lazy and "sitting" is not one of the options!
So, the things that piss me off about socialized healthcare
1) My hardworking father will, through taxes, be paying for 100 "sitters", but only receiving the care of one "walker" when he walks through those E.M.C. doors, whenever he himself actually has a problem.
2) Instead of getting his MRI this weekend or at least within a week, it might be scheduled for 3 months from now, because of terrible responsiveness due to lack of incentive on the part of the doctors
3) The medicine which he will receive upon diagnosis will not be the best, because of the same reason
I must sound SO terribly un-empathetic, but note that I am not directing this at any of the "walkers" If you are WORKING and at least giving an effort, I believe that you should not go bankrupt while in the hospital. I completely agree with you on the statement that this situation is inexcusable.
One underlying point I am trying to make, which I hope you realize, is that socialism IS like communism, in its disruption of the natural order (allowing sitters to live, and stopping walkers, or even runners, from thriving)
More...
I hate to go all survival of the fittest on you, because in many aspects survival of the fittest is seen as inhumane or immoral....But, i have to. Because it's at least logical. In the wild, animals walk around all day long. You always see videos of animals walking. A child might ask where they are walking to. They are walking to LIFE. Really, what they are doing is not walking, what they are doing is looking for food. Food which will allow them to thrive and life. So like I said, they are walking to LIVE.
In America, and everywhere, we have two classes of people. One class of people are "walkers'. They walk around all day long, doing things which, in return, will get them food by means of money. They walk to live, and DO NOT drain the economy.
Then we have the other class. They are sitting down, and they are not finding food. But, somewhere....some farmer is breaking his back to grow them food. And somehow, they get the food. In the wild, this does NOT happen. Animals who "sit" in the wild will DIE. But, guess how many animals you see SITTING in the wild? You got it, NONE! Because they know that being lazy and "sitting" is not one of the options!
So, the things that piss me off about socialized healthcare
1) My hardworking father will, through taxes, be paying for 100 "sitters", but only receiving the care of one "walker" when he walks through those E.M.C. doors, whenever he himself actually has a problem.
2) Instead of getting his MRI this weekend or at least within a week, it might be scheduled for 3 months from now, because of terrible responsiveness due to lack of incentive on the part of the doctors
3) The medicine which he will receive upon diagnosis will not be the best, because of the same reason
I must sound SO terribly un-empathetic, but note that I am not directing this at any of the "walkers" If you are WORKING and at least giving an effort, I believe that you should not go bankrupt while in the hospital. I completely agree with you on the statement that this situation is inexcusable.
One underlying point I am trying to make, which I hope you realize, is that socialism IS like communism, in its disruption of the natural order (allowing sitters to live, and stopping walkers, or even runners, from thriving)
106
You just don't get it do you @105?
Your hardworking father is ALREADY, as in RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, paying for those 100 "sitters". He pays through increased insurance premiums, and through higher overall medical costs, because the providers of those services certainly aren't going to take a cut in their profit-margins to get all altruistic on those who, for whatever reason, don't have insurance but still need medical care. So, they just pass along those extra costs to the people already paying into the system. At least under a Universal Care system, there'd be no middle-man to pay, which alone would save tens of billions of dollars annually, which could easily pay for improved services, and STILL PUT MONEY BACK IN YOUR FATHER"S POCKET.
But, you-all just go right on believing things would be worse under a Universal system, even though there are literally scores of examples of countries already using such a system, where the care is better, cheaper, and faster than here.
Basically, your attitude seems to come down to the fact that you-all will swallow any load of crap fed to you by the insurance industry, by for-profit health care providers, and by wing-nuts in the GOP, despite numerous and repeated refutations of all these horrifying "what-if" scenarios. Read the responses above from people actually living in countries where Universal Care is the norm; they're TELLING YOU what's real, and it doesn't involve waiting months for a routine procedure or test. Furthermore, if the drugs they're being prescribed are so crappy - why does practically every country with Universal Care have a longer life-expectancy rate than the U.S.?
The United States currently ranks 45th in the world for overall life-expectancy, and every European country with socialized medicine, with the sole exception of Denmark (which lags behind us by a mere fraction of a percent) has higher life-expectancy rates than we do. So, really, if the fact that their citizens all live longer, healthier lives is any indication, they must be doing something right, wouldn't you say?
The facts are simply irrefutable; you just have to take the minimal amount of effort to take your fucking fingers out of your ears anytime someone utters the dreaded words, "socialized medicine", and look them up for yourself.
Oh, and just to rub a little more salt into your open wound, Americans do currently have a couple of options if they want to enroll in a Universal Health Care Program: they can move to Iraq or Afghanistan. That's right, folks. It's not good enough for you here, but it's still good enough for you to pay for someone else to have it, courtesy of your hard-earned tax dollars.
Maybe those "sitters" aren't so dumb after all, eh?
More...
Your hardworking father is ALREADY, as in RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, paying for those 100 "sitters". He pays through increased insurance premiums, and through higher overall medical costs, because the providers of those services certainly aren't going to take a cut in their profit-margins to get all altruistic on those who, for whatever reason, don't have insurance but still need medical care. So, they just pass along those extra costs to the people already paying into the system. At least under a Universal Care system, there'd be no middle-man to pay, which alone would save tens of billions of dollars annually, which could easily pay for improved services, and STILL PUT MONEY BACK IN YOUR FATHER"S POCKET.
But, you-all just go right on believing things would be worse under a Universal system, even though there are literally scores of examples of countries already using such a system, where the care is better, cheaper, and faster than here.
Basically, your attitude seems to come down to the fact that you-all will swallow any load of crap fed to you by the insurance industry, by for-profit health care providers, and by wing-nuts in the GOP, despite numerous and repeated refutations of all these horrifying "what-if" scenarios. Read the responses above from people actually living in countries where Universal Care is the norm; they're TELLING YOU what's real, and it doesn't involve waiting months for a routine procedure or test. Furthermore, if the drugs they're being prescribed are so crappy - why does practically every country with Universal Care have a longer life-expectancy rate than the U.S.?
The United States currently ranks 45th in the world for overall life-expectancy, and every European country with socialized medicine, with the sole exception of Denmark (which lags behind us by a mere fraction of a percent) has higher life-expectancy rates than we do. So, really, if the fact that their citizens all live longer, healthier lives is any indication, they must be doing something right, wouldn't you say?
The facts are simply irrefutable; you just have to take the minimal amount of effort to take your fucking fingers out of your ears anytime someone utters the dreaded words, "socialized medicine", and look them up for yourself.
Oh, and just to rub a little more salt into your open wound, Americans do currently have a couple of options if they want to enroll in a Universal Health Care Program: they can move to Iraq or Afghanistan. That's right, folks. It's not good enough for you here, but it's still good enough for you to pay for someone else to have it, courtesy of your hard-earned tax dollars.
Maybe those "sitters" aren't so dumb after all, eh?
107
@105 Sums up the the most popular argument against universal health care perfectly, albeit unintentionally: Social Darwinism. She prefers a system where people she considers inferior die from lack of medical attention. Sure, she frames inferiority as laziness (because in the minds of social Darwinists, laziness is the only possible explanation for why a person might be unable to secure employment with full medical benefits), but it's basically a "let 'em die" argument.
It doesn't matter that the for-profit system is more expensive and less effective than a single-payer system, because the heart of this argument is "you should all die, you lazy bums." And the people who think this way are willing to pay premium prices for second-rate medical coverage if it furthers those ends.
It's sort of a reverse Hippocratic Oath, if you think about it: "First, offer no help."
It doesn't matter that the for-profit system is more expensive and less effective than a single-payer system, because the heart of this argument is "you should all die, you lazy bums." And the people who think this way are willing to pay premium prices for second-rate medical coverage if it furthers those ends.
It's sort of a reverse Hippocratic Oath, if you think about it: "First, offer no help."
108
The rumors about having to wait huge amounts of time to see doctors generally come from patients who need 'elective' surgeries in countries with socialized medicine. There's a lot of bullshit in these stories, but some truth to them.
What does 'elective' mean? It means that without the surgery, you can still live for months, even years.
In other words, people who have been in a horrible car accident or who have some form of cancer where the surgery needs to happen immediately or very soon are moved to the front of the line. For them, surgery happens at about the same speed it happens in the U.S.A.
People who may have a very inconvenient or painful condition (i.e. needing a hip replacement due to osteoarthritis) move to the back of the line. Similar elective surgeries include most joint replacements (except in cases of fracture), painful gallbladders that aren't infected, non-incarcerated hernias, hemorrhoids, etc. etc.
Now, a lot of these non-deadly conditions SUCK. Try gimping around on a bum hip for a few months, or having bad (but temporary) abdominal pain with every meal, a billiard ball in your scrotum whenever you cough, or giant hemorrhoids poking out of your ass and bleeding into your underwear. Or all of 'em at once. They can make life miserable, but you'll survive.
These are the surgeries that many people choose to come to the US to have corrected, because anyone with money can pay a surgeon to fix them. I may be wrong, but I believe that in Canada it's pretty much impossible to privately pay your own money to have an elective surgery promptly - so many folks come here. In some others you have the option of forking over the cash if you don't want to wait for the government system.
I actually think this idea of triage makes sense, but people hate it when they're in pain or humiliated because of a condition that needs surgical correction. Americans in particular are not used to being told they're just going to have to wait. I'm curious to see how it'll work here.
More...
What does 'elective' mean? It means that without the surgery, you can still live for months, even years.
In other words, people who have been in a horrible car accident or who have some form of cancer where the surgery needs to happen immediately or very soon are moved to the front of the line. For them, surgery happens at about the same speed it happens in the U.S.A.
People who may have a very inconvenient or painful condition (i.e. needing a hip replacement due to osteoarthritis) move to the back of the line. Similar elective surgeries include most joint replacements (except in cases of fracture), painful gallbladders that aren't infected, non-incarcerated hernias, hemorrhoids, etc. etc.
Now, a lot of these non-deadly conditions SUCK. Try gimping around on a bum hip for a few months, or having bad (but temporary) abdominal pain with every meal, a billiard ball in your scrotum whenever you cough, or giant hemorrhoids poking out of your ass and bleeding into your underwear. Or all of 'em at once. They can make life miserable, but you'll survive.
These are the surgeries that many people choose to come to the US to have corrected, because anyone with money can pay a surgeon to fix them. I may be wrong, but I believe that in Canada it's pretty much impossible to privately pay your own money to have an elective surgery promptly - so many folks come here. In some others you have the option of forking over the cash if you don't want to wait for the government system.
I actually think this idea of triage makes sense, but people hate it when they're in pain or humiliated because of a condition that needs surgical correction. Americans in particular are not used to being told they're just going to have to wait. I'm curious to see how it'll work here.
109
105;
Hopefully your hard-working dad is able to get the MRI. The insurance company might not wish to cover that, or worse, they will disallow it after the fact, leaving your dad to pay for it while fighting the insurance company about it since he won't want to ruin his credit rating.
That expensive medicine? There is a reason many people go to Canada to have their prescriptions filled. It's called cheaper medicine.
What would end up happening under a single payer system is that your dad would be paying much less than he is now. His payment would be in his taxes rather than him having to write a check to an insurance company and pay the millions in salaries that the CEOs make. That ceo money would actually go to health care costs.
Reality is though that nothing will convince the people who believe in "Social Darwinism". They would much rather be in thrall to people who make millions of dollars by offering as little service to them and their families as they can get away with on the off chance that someone they consider "lower than themselves" might get the same free medical treatment that they would.
Luckily they don't consider themselves Christians, so the whole "As you treat the least among you, so you treat me" doesn't apply to them.
Hopefully your hard-working dad is able to get the MRI. The insurance company might not wish to cover that, or worse, they will disallow it after the fact, leaving your dad to pay for it while fighting the insurance company about it since he won't want to ruin his credit rating.
That expensive medicine? There is a reason many people go to Canada to have their prescriptions filled. It's called cheaper medicine.
What would end up happening under a single payer system is that your dad would be paying much less than he is now. His payment would be in his taxes rather than him having to write a check to an insurance company and pay the millions in salaries that the CEOs make. That ceo money would actually go to health care costs.
Reality is though that nothing will convince the people who believe in "Social Darwinism". They would much rather be in thrall to people who make millions of dollars by offering as little service to them and their families as they can get away with on the off chance that someone they consider "lower than themselves" might get the same free medical treatment that they would.
Luckily they don't consider themselves Christians, so the whole "As you treat the least among you, so you treat me" doesn't apply to them.
110
Actually, now that I think of it@109, the "social Darwinism" folks are in fact following a consistent pattern: while they feel nothing but contempt for those below them on the pecking order, by the same turn they show nothing but deference for those above them. Whether it's instinctive or just due to decades of social conditioning, they recognize their relative status in the social order and apparently have no desire or inclination to change it.
I'm sure many also delude themselves with the notion they can somehow ascend to progressively higher rungs on the chain, but that must also come with an acknowledgment - if even subconsciously - of the possibility of slipping and falling even further down than they are now. In the end it appears not rocking the boat, acquiescing to ones betters (as represented by the wealthy), and conversely doing whatever they can to keep those below them from taking their place, seems to be their preferred survival strategies.
I'm sure many also delude themselves with the notion they can somehow ascend to progressively higher rungs on the chain, but that must also come with an acknowledgment - if even subconsciously - of the possibility of slipping and falling even further down than they are now. In the end it appears not rocking the boat, acquiescing to ones betters (as represented by the wealthy), and conversely doing whatever they can to keep those below them from taking their place, seems to be their preferred survival strategies.
111
That's because there are people in our society who equate money to self worth, COMTE. If you don't have money, somehow you're not hard working.
105 mentioned the hard working farmers who feed the lazy do nothings of the world.
And yet we hardly pay hard working farm workers anything. In fact, I'm willing to bet many of them have had to deal with the issues related to being uninsured.
In 105's mind, people who make minimum wage are less useful to society than those who make 6 digit incomes.
Nevermind that without scores of janitors, migrant farm workers, etc. doctors and business men couldn't do their job properly.
105 mentioned the hard working farmers who feed the lazy do nothings of the world.
And yet we hardly pay hard working farm workers anything. In fact, I'm willing to bet many of them have had to deal with the issues related to being uninsured.
In 105's mind, people who make minimum wage are less useful to society than those who make 6 digit incomes.
Nevermind that without scores of janitors, migrant farm workers, etc. doctors and business men couldn't do their job properly.
112
Most of the health care providers I've encountered who actually go into the field with the intention to help people support a single-payer health system.
115
Dan professes not to understand why we don't have universal health care in the US. I hope that was a rhetorical statement, because the answer is quite simple: health care in the United States has become what is essentially a protection racket, and the big players are suborning the media, the legislators, and the regulators to make sure no one stops the gravy train. Identify the big players and you've identified the source of the problem:
* Private health insurance companies, which siphon off roughly 25% of our "medical" expenditures in administrative expenses and profits.
* Private hospitals and nursing homes, which apply egregious markups and engage in extortionate, byzantine billing practices.
* Pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, which extract the full monopoly profit on their patented drugs and devices.
* Interventional specialists (specialist MDs) who demand dramatically higher fees than comparably trained and skilled colleagues in other first-world countries.
* Medical labs, which charge dramatically higher rates than comparable labs in other first-world countries.
(I've omitted some second-tier profiteers, like ambulance services, collection agencies, and bankruptcy attorneys, but I think I've covered most of the really big hitters.)
Every other first-world country has understood that health care providers have a great deal of market power: they are relatively few in number; they are organized; they have specialized skills and/or legal monopolies; and they impose political, legal, and economic barriers to entry to exclude competition. Other first-world countries have also understood that patients have very little market power: they are numerous, unorganized, frequently desperate, and sometimes literally helpless. Accordingly, the health care authorities in these countries set uniform price and fee schedules for all health care services and products (usually via annual concerted bargaining with the providers). Specialist MDs earn comfortable, not sybaritic livings. Pharmaceutical companies earn fair and adequate returns on their R&D investments, not monopoly superprofits. Private insurance companies, where they still exist, need to minimize administrative waste if they are to make a profit.
Government regulation of monopolies is a firmly established part of the American economic tradition -- notwithstanding shrill haranguing from Libertarians, Objectivists, Reaganauts, and Neocons to the effect that all regulation is evil. What evil has health care regulation done in our peer countries? Well, most of them have more doctors per capita than we do. (They find it cost-effective to subsidize medical education.) They live longer, healthier lives than we do (even the French, with all the smoking and drinking). In many cases, they get more high-tech procedures (like bone marrow transplants) per capita than we do. They don't go bankrupt or lose their homes because of an illness or injury. Many of them have thriving pharmaceutical industries. Oh, and they all pay around half (or less) per capita what we do for health care. Regardless of what form universal health care takes -- civil service, single-payer, multiple regulated private insurers -- uniform price and fee setting is the critical component that will make it possible.
If we had an effective democracy in this country, we would have universal health care with provider cost controls by now. Instead, we have a functional plutocracy, and whatever health care reform we get will likely be whatever makes the most money for the current system's profiteers. (They're the ones using the money they extorted from *you* to buy what *they* want in Congress so they can keep extorting money from *you*. Why do you think single-payer has been taken off the table?) I predict we will get an extension of the Massachusetts mandate to the rest of the country: we will all be required to buy health insurance from (mostly) private companies, there will be no effective provider cost controls, and we will continue to have by far the highest health care costs in the world.
Final note: In case it's not already clear, the only people who should be supporting the current system are sociopaths who are directly cashing in on it now or hope to be cashing in on it soon. Anyone else who supports it is either brainwashed, ignorant, or stupid. Even the "responsible," "self-sufficent," "fully insured" anti-socialist types need to be aware that they would be paying a lot less (and frequently getting a lot more) under any of our peer country's systems. And if the prospect of more money in their pockets every payday doesn't convince them, they should pay closer attention to what happens to other responsible, self-sufficent, "fully insured" people when they get hit with a major illness or accident. Bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings are full of them.
More...
* Private health insurance companies, which siphon off roughly 25% of our "medical" expenditures in administrative expenses and profits.
* Private hospitals and nursing homes, which apply egregious markups and engage in extortionate, byzantine billing practices.
* Pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, which extract the full monopoly profit on their patented drugs and devices.
* Interventional specialists (specialist MDs) who demand dramatically higher fees than comparably trained and skilled colleagues in other first-world countries.
* Medical labs, which charge dramatically higher rates than comparable labs in other first-world countries.
(I've omitted some second-tier profiteers, like ambulance services, collection agencies, and bankruptcy attorneys, but I think I've covered most of the really big hitters.)
Every other first-world country has understood that health care providers have a great deal of market power: they are relatively few in number; they are organized; they have specialized skills and/or legal monopolies; and they impose political, legal, and economic barriers to entry to exclude competition. Other first-world countries have also understood that patients have very little market power: they are numerous, unorganized, frequently desperate, and sometimes literally helpless. Accordingly, the health care authorities in these countries set uniform price and fee schedules for all health care services and products (usually via annual concerted bargaining with the providers). Specialist MDs earn comfortable, not sybaritic livings. Pharmaceutical companies earn fair and adequate returns on their R&D investments, not monopoly superprofits. Private insurance companies, where they still exist, need to minimize administrative waste if they are to make a profit.
Government regulation of monopolies is a firmly established part of the American economic tradition -- notwithstanding shrill haranguing from Libertarians, Objectivists, Reaganauts, and Neocons to the effect that all regulation is evil. What evil has health care regulation done in our peer countries? Well, most of them have more doctors per capita than we do. (They find it cost-effective to subsidize medical education.) They live longer, healthier lives than we do (even the French, with all the smoking and drinking). In many cases, they get more high-tech procedures (like bone marrow transplants) per capita than we do. They don't go bankrupt or lose their homes because of an illness or injury. Many of them have thriving pharmaceutical industries. Oh, and they all pay around half (or less) per capita what we do for health care. Regardless of what form universal health care takes -- civil service, single-payer, multiple regulated private insurers -- uniform price and fee setting is the critical component that will make it possible.
If we had an effective democracy in this country, we would have universal health care with provider cost controls by now. Instead, we have a functional plutocracy, and whatever health care reform we get will likely be whatever makes the most money for the current system's profiteers. (They're the ones using the money they extorted from *you* to buy what *they* want in Congress so they can keep extorting money from *you*. Why do you think single-payer has been taken off the table?) I predict we will get an extension of the Massachusetts mandate to the rest of the country: we will all be required to buy health insurance from (mostly) private companies, there will be no effective provider cost controls, and we will continue to have by far the highest health care costs in the world.
Final note: In case it's not already clear, the only people who should be supporting the current system are sociopaths who are directly cashing in on it now or hope to be cashing in on it soon. Anyone else who supports it is either brainwashed, ignorant, or stupid. Even the "responsible," "self-sufficent," "fully insured" anti-socialist types need to be aware that they would be paying a lot less (and frequently getting a lot more) under any of our peer country's systems. And if the prospect of more money in their pockets every payday doesn't convince them, they should pay closer attention to what happens to other responsible, self-sufficent, "fully insured" people when they get hit with a major illness or accident. Bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings are full of them.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (115) RSS