My column today about California not having the political will to pass a decent health care insurance plan set off several readers. They all gave reasons that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan won't work. And that's the point of my column. Any plan -- the governor's or a Democratic alternative -- won't pass because it will get picked apart by critics. Here's a link to today's column.
There are 6.5 million uninsured Californians, and we all pay for them through our taxes and in increased insurance premiums. The uninsured will get their health care at hospital emergency rooms, and taxpayers subsidize that care. That is the most expensive way to deliver health care. It is estimated that California families pay a "hidden tax" of $1,186 every year to cover the uninsured.
This is a big problem for our society. Too bad the special interests will get in the way of significant reform in California.
We need to start with a requirement that the uninsured pay something at the emergency room. The profile of the uninsured is not poverty. Like the insured, they have disposal income, which they use to buy Ipods, concert tickets, cell phones, cars, homes, electronics, attend county fairs, soccer games, football games and most of all, send back to Mexico (about 10 billion). Reform must start with making the uninsured pay for services.
John Edwards has said public funded elections will be at the top of his platform...too bad, it's the kiss of death for a politician to advocate for this, even though every poll indicates the people also desire an end to the corruption that is inherant in the current system. The insurance industry has an obligation to it's shareholders...the public health has never been better,...for them!
Jim: You are absolutely correct. The current system is an outrage, and someone must have some vision. One doubts if that vision will come from Sacramento! I am afraid this will need to go to the Initiative Process. An activist friend of mine so indicates. His proposal is the single payer proposal which has much merit at first blush.
Jim you hit the nail on the head here. As a person with medical/medicare I enjoy public health insurance. That's not sarcasm if I did not have the medicare part it would be much harder to get my medications or see a doctor.
Besides legislation be it initiatives or politicians fixing it I do not see a solution.
I myself have been at the emergency room when I get to the point that I need medications now as opposed to 6 weeks from now. Sometimes I simply forget how to plug myself into the system and stay there. We have a doctor that the whole family sees. She is near our dentist. Normally I can not plan ahead to when I am going to need to see her. Wife has diabetes and daughter is anemic. She takes walk ins from 9 am to 1 pm Monday through Thursday. We or I get in line by being there at 7 am. I usually am seen by 12 or so. It is better then the emergency room.
In order to get my medications I need to stay plugged into Fresno Mental Health. I screw that up normally. So I go talk to people down there. I am told that they have an orientation twice a week. I can not remember the time. So in the orientation they tell me that I do not need medications and let us all know that they offer group therapy 3 times a week. At the end if you are still convinced that you have a real medical problem they schedule an appointment with a social worker. Possibly a psychologist but every time I read her name plate it says social worker with a bachelors degree. If I have convinced her that I truly need to just get my medications and move on she will schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist. Anyway that's about a two month procedure to get medications. Sometimes the emergency room just makes more sense. I know its more expensive, the people at the E.R. let me know it.
Well I am going to email Walgreen's and hope my medication is ready and covered because I have 3 days left on the old stuff. Wish me luck ^^
Does anybody really think the government is the answer to health insurance? It started out as a perk to draw top employees and has become a socialist movement trying to create a new entitlement. I do not want anyone connected with government making decisions about my health care and only want them to help create an atmosphere where competition not lawsuits affect costs.I understand though where those that wish to be coddled would find government sponsored health attractive. What next in the entitlement grab bag?We are truly becoming a welfare nation.
Government-run health care works very well in western Europe and Canada. Private insurance companies exist to make money, not to make sure everybody gets the health care they need. The other alternative is health care only for those who can pay (which seems to be the position of some people).
As for not trusting government, in a representative democracy, the government is us. If we don't think democracy works too well here, why are we so hell-bent on exporting it to other nations?
(And I have nothing to say to those who think taking care of sick people is "coddling" them.)
A Chicago.edu article offers an excellent analysis of how special interests have framed public policy concerning health care for 100 years. http://www.chas.uchicago.edu/documents/MD0506/JHSB04ExtraQuadagno.pdf The 'socialist' movement was an excellent scare tactic the AMA employed to defeat President Truman's universal health care initiative during the McCarthy era. We're still living the hang over. I like the old Gieko commercial were the lizard tells an applicant if you're so rich, why don't you just stay in your chair and continue paying high prices for low service. Universal insurance, similar to Khuel's proposal, actually takes 'shared responsibility' seriously, more so than the other plans on the table. We'd pay for insurance based on income rather than set rates for a group. Regional boards would allocate resources that are currently being duplicated and driving up the cost of care. We have an excellent model with State Fund that has provided worker's compensation in California since 1915. The business community blocked Governor Wilson's attempt to privatize State Fund, and business does vote with their feet. Toyota chose Canada over Alabama for a major manufacuting facility because health care costs per car are much lower in Canada, and millions of cars make a subtantial savings. Health care is an essential public service on par with police and fire protection and public school, entities that used to be private firms. Communities long ago decided it was in their interest to publicly fund community safety. Individuals were told community safety trumps their desire to opt out of police and fire protection and public health is certainly one aspect of community safety. I encourage readers to view a 22 minute video on publicly funded health insurance that's proven successful around the world. http://youtube.com/watch?v=jB0Vn_BppwM
It is a very tough problem. The solution is probably to set impractical goals, then compromise into an agreement. As it is, each group will try to shift the burden to others in plans like Schwarzenegger's (or Hillary's attempt, or whatever specific example you're considering).
I am interested in seeing where the center of the new consensus is-- in 1994 any universal health care was liberal dreaming, while today it's Republican governors who are proposing it.