Canadian Health Care

I apologize to readers who aren’t interested in it, but this Obamacare thing has really sucked me back into politics in a big way. Plus, I don’t know if you know this, but there’s apparently some kind of election happening this fall. (I’ll look into that and report back later.)

Since we’re talking about health care, it behooves us to take yet another look at our northern neighbor, Canadia. What’s their system like? I mean, besides being a socialist, communist, freedom-killing hellscape of a healthcare dystopia.

This Washington Post blog entry comes complete with answers to the top questions, plus neat-o graphs to illustrate them.

Here’s my takeaway.

Canada’s health care system has one real problem: they’ve suffered longer-than-desired wait times for services like seeing a specialist or getting medical imaging done. And apparently this shortcoming is being successfully addressed.

Aside from that, the piece reminds us that Canadian provinces aren’t required to, and apparently don’t, cover dental and prescription drugs. Everything else is free, but those are left to individuals to handle themselves, either out of pocket or with supplemental private insurance–something a majority of Canadians have.

So, weighing their issues (history of bad wait times, lack of dental and drug coverage) with our problems (1 in6 Americans with no insurance, private insurance industry abuses and costs double that of other OECD countries) it’s no comparison.

How anyone could hope to scare Americans with Canadian health care is beyond me. Who wouldn’t trade our set of problems for theirs? And besides, even if they had to spend more money to solve the small problems they do have, they’d still be spending tons less than we do. They have a lot of headroom before they even get into our neighborhood, cost-wise.

Obamacare: Not a tax after all!

I should have known better than to accept anything Republicans said at face value. Even I believed that Obamacare, or at least the part of it where people have to pay a penalty for not buying insurance, was “a tax.” So what, I said. So it’s a tax. It’s 1% of people who might pay 1% of their income for lacking personal responsibility and being “free riders.” I’m cool with this “tax.”

But it turns out not to be true at all.

Apparently if it were a tax, the SCOTUS would have thrown the case out due to lack of jurisdiction. They can’t actually hear a case on taxes until someone has actually paid the tax. The fact that they did hear and rule on this case proves that, at least according to the Court, Obamacare is not a tax.

Obamacare: so very American

It occurred to me today that Obamacare is so American.

What I mean is, we Americans bend over backward to include private interests in what should really be a public matter. Consider student loans. The kind backed up by the federal government. Why does one have to go through private lender, one who takes all the interest, when it’s the feds who take all the risk? What value is the private lender adding? None that I can see.

Take military contractors. We end up with Blackwater scandals.

Take Medicare Advantage, the system whereby private insurers get to dole out Medicare benefits–after skimming off the top, of course. What value are they adding? None, apparently. Which is why Obamacare did away with it.

Then there’s Obamacare itself. We regulate the coverage, we insist that everyone has it, we penalize those who don’t, we subsidize those who can’t afford it–all done by the government. Yet who gets a piece of the action? Private insurers. Why? I can’t think of a good reason, other than to preserve their jobs. Medicare has proven quite well that the government can do a more efficient job at handling the tasks of running an insurance company.

I bet you can you think of other examples. Is the government really so deep in the pocket of business that they can interject themselves into every public affair? It seems so.

Priorities

2,997 people died as a result of a terrorist attack? Let’s sacrifice thousands of American lives and spend $1.2 trillion dollars having a couple of wars.

500,000 Americans have died since that day as a direct result of not having health insurance? Let’s not get crazy, 1% of taxpayers might have to pay 1% of their income as a tax penalty for not buying insurance!

Health care: what are the problems?

Recent health care events are so contentious that it makes me wonder how far down toward first principles we’d have to go to find common ground. Could we maybe agree on what the chief problems in the US health care system are? Let’s try. I’ll go first.

1. Fifty million uninsured. That’s 16%, or 1 in 6 Americans, with no health insurance. It’s estimated that 45,000 Americans die every year as a direct result of being uninsured.

2. Private health insurance industry abuses and inadequacies. This includes dropping your coverage when you become ill. It includes the practice of not covering “preexisting conditions.” It includes charging women more than men. It includes the practice of denying random legitimate claims knowing that a certain percentage of the denials will not be challenged. It includes the practice of imposing annual and lifetime caps on policies. It includes incentivizing in-network physicians not to treat patients. It includes the practice of using over 20% of our premiums for overhead, executive bonuses and advertising instead of for actual care.

3. Cost. And by this I mean something very specific. The price tag on items like doctor visits, prescription drugs, hospital stays and medical equipment is just too high. Higher than anywhere else in the world. It isn’t that we use more of these things, it’s that they cost too much.

I could list many more issues, but I think these are the big ones. Any reform that significantly improved these issues would be terrific, am I right? If it insured the presently uninsured, curbed industry abuses and brought down costs wouldn’t that be a pretty decent piece of reform?

I’m sure that there are people who think–somehow–that I am wrong about this. So fire away. I’m hoping for lots of interesting comments.

In defense of Obamacare “tax”

Republicans think they’re going to get a lot of traction with the “Obamacare is a tax” thing? Really?

Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision, ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. I’m going to be a free rider.’ And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government’s going to pay for me. That, in my view is the big-government solution we have right now. The alternative – there are a couple of alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said, ‘No, I don’t want to do that. That’s going to kill jobs.’ And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don’t buy it you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan.
Mitt Romney

Republicans: U Mad?

I guess nobody should be surprised that American conservatives are boiling over with rage right now. You know how they can get. Irrational. “Death panels,” “the antichrist,” birtherism and stuff. They freak out. I know.

But still. Don’t they see that this is the best possible outcome for them? It was either this individual mandate-driven reform involving the private insurance system or it was going to be Medicare-for-all. Period. This is the most marketiest, least governmentiest way this could have ended. If you look around the world, I don’t think you can find any other civilized nation on earth that has a smaller role for government and a larger role for private insurance companies in their solution. You do find quite a few more government-heavy ones, though.

And, come on. The current system is so awful. It’s hard to imagine it being worse. Tens of millions with no insurance? People with insurance getting dropped when they become ill? People who have been ill blacklisted from future coverage? Even children? Come on. The only people who had any kind of security in their health care at all would be those who already had government insurance: those on Medicare, Medicaid, military or VA. The rest of us paid through the nose, often for poor coverage. And we never were sure it was going to be there when we needed it, anyway. Even the best-insured could be devastated by one serious illness in the family. Retirement gone, home gone. Tens or even hundreds of thousands in debt. Bankruptcy. Financial ruin. For the insured!

So things were bad. Terrible. And getting worse every year. Solutions presented themselves from all over the world. This was the least government-heavy one out there. In fact, it was a policy advocated by American Republicans for nearly twenty years–right up until the time Democrats said “ok, we’ll do it your way.” Then they pretended like they’d never heard of it, this strange new plan to kill all liberty.

I guess what I’m trying to say to American conservatives is: this is about the best you could have reasonably hoped for. You got the least government-heavy solution out there. You managed to forestal any kind of solution at all for many decades beyond other civilized nations. You managed to make the law unpopular, even though Americans like the provisions of the law. You even managed to get the Supreme Court to hand you ammunition for the post-game squabble: it’s a “tax.” (Heaven forfend!)

What more did you really think you were going to get? Another decade of descent into horribleness? By then we’d be living The Hunger Games, for Christ’s sake.

I shouldn’t ask such a reasonable, reality-based question of people who think “death panels” was a meaningful contribution to the health care debate. But I want to ask it anyway, even if I know I won’t get a rational response.

Obamacare SCOTUS ruling tomorrow

Most folks think the SCOTUS will strike down the Affordable Care Act tomorrow, or at least the individual mandate, the part that makes the rest of it work. Not all smart people think this, it should be pointed out. Robert Reich remains optimistic. I hope he’s right, but I fear he isn’t.

And what will happen after?

Some say it will be decades before Washington takes the issue up again in a serious way. While that sounds sober and reasonable and historically informed, part of me can’t imagine the nation suffering for another ten or twenty years of the current system. Things are pretty horrendous now. Think what they’d be like in, say, 2027 if we keep going down the present path. No. Surely we wouldn’t stand for it.

However long we wait for another go at it, what form will it take when we do get around to it? It’s hard to see it going anywhere but Medicare for all. I mean, what options have Republicans given us? We tried compromise. Hell, we tried just agreeing with their very own ideas. They didn’t just say no. They said hell no and accused us of being communists and Nazis. So what will they say when we propose single payer? “Wait, we’re willing to work with you”? Who’d believe that?

Yeah, I guess Democrats might.

We’re well and truly fucked, America.

Update: This is why smart people listen to Robert Reich and not to me. Also: Yay!

Sheep, wolves and democracy

Internet pal and noted libertarian Nick Schweizer tweeted a familiar quote today:

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

I’ve heard it before. Usually in a very specific context: conservatives whining about being taxed for a social safety net they don’t want. The “wolves” in this scenario are the recipients of government spending. The “sheep” are the hardworking taxpayers who foot the bill. Democracy, they would have us believe, is always at risk of being nothing more than the have-nots taking advantage of the haves through government action.

Nick seemed a little nonplussed when I expressed exasperation. He apparently didn’t mean it in the way I’m used to. Nevertheless, here’s my reaction to its more common use by American conservatives.

First, we have a constitutional democracy. Not everything can be decided by a vote of our representatives. The Constitution sets the limits of what the legislature can do. One presumes that having the sheep for dinner would violate his civil rights and be disallowed–no matter what the vote tally came to.

But more specifically, I find the conservative’s use of this quote puzzling. It seems as if they live in a world where wolves are voting the sheep dinner left and right. That is, a world in which the have-nots are taking from the haves to an alarming and unfair degree.

That’s not the world I live in.

Taxes are lower today than they have been in my lifetime. And wealth concentration at the top is greater now than it has been in many decades. Does that sound to you like the rich are being overtaxed by recipients of social programs? So much for the wealthy being cast as mutton dinners.

And the middle class taxpayer? They’re people who themselves rely on things like Social Security and Medicare, so the fact that they have to pay for it can’t really be considered unfair.

To the point that social programs like Medicare are experiencing great cost increases, well that goes directly to the heart of our health care system problems. Specifically, it’s not that people have too much health care–it’s that health care costs too much in America. Control the costs like other civilized countries do and Medicare becomes pretty manageable.

Anyway, the sheep and wolves quote always annoys me. What do you think?

Subterfuge

I have previously written that the pro-life movement isn’t really about abortion, but about punishing sin and advancing a certain puritanical view of sexuality. I still believe that.

I’m reminded of it as I watch Republicans in my state and in others take measure after measure to curtail not only abortion, but birth control as well. The number two guy running for the GOP presidential nomination came right out and said birth control is “not OK.” The frontrunner has said he was going to “get rid of” Planned Parenthood. Here in Wisconsin, Republicans not only made it illegal for private health insurance to cover abortions, they have again made it OK for Wisconsin schools to teach “abstinence only” sex education and totally forgo any mention of contraception at all.

Why all the controversy about contraception, anyway? You’d think that anyone who wishes to prevent unwanted pregnancy (and thus abortion) would be all for it. And yet they aren’t. When I have confronted conservatives about this in the past, often they flatly assert that it isn’t true, that they are “fine with” contraception. But they are liars. Just take a look around you.

This is why it’s so hard to engage and work with these guys. They aren’t about what they say they’re about. They are not dealing in good faith. They say they’re about saving babies, but when push comes to shove they’re really about stepping on women’s faces and making sure that they bear unwanted children as their due consequence for having sex. The subterfuge is so airtight that I think large numbers of them do not admit the truth to even themselves.

The differences between Republicans and Democrats may be marginal on economic issues. Both parties seem to be entirely owned by wealthy corporations and individuals (although the Republicans are strangely proud of it.) But on social issues like these there is a huge difference. Vote accordingly.