Should we go back to the old sailing ship days in health care???

ADD 1:

Sometimes I post a blog and then think: “what I should have said is this…”

That’s the case here. What I should have said is the fact that some seem not to care if other folks can get health care reminds me of reading both fiction novels and true accounts of the old sailing ship days when hearty sailors were out to sea for years at a time. Back then if you were an able bodied seaman and you were injured you were no longer worth anything to the ship’s captain and its owners. You lost your pay and had to depend upon the pity of your fellow sailors, even for a scrap of food (a good reason to get along with your fellow employees for sure). Seems like a hard core and hard-hearted way of doing things to me. But I suppose some would prefer that method for today’s society, maybe on the grounds that too many take advantage of the generosity and compassion of others while failing to do what they can for themselves. But somehow I have to think many of the so-called tea party protesters either do or will at some point find themselves in need of help from public programs and will think nothing of signing up. And of course I know what they will say in their own rationalizations: “I paid for it.” Yes, and so do we all. You’re welcome. 

————-

I wish the health care reform issue was over. From the news reports it appears as the most contentious issue ever to face the public in my lifetime (60 years).

Nearly everyone wants excellent health care, but people just don’t agree on how it should be paid for and what their own responsibility, if any, should be outside of themselves and their family members. And most agree that the cost of health care is a problem but there seems to be no consensus on what to do to control costs.

While I am not one of those who thinks the so-called “free market” solves all problems, it is kind of hard to tell because we seldom have a “free market” in anything, due to government regulation on business, much of which is, truth be told, promoted by business to get advantage in the marketplace. It occurs to me that the black market may be the only free market (because there is no government control).

While I do not know if government-sponsored health care is always the best way to go, I kind of think it would have been better had this nation (the United States) done so a long time ago. We did not, totally, anyway. We do have Medicare and Medicaid and military insurance and so on, though, and it seems to work for those involved – yes I know, Medicare is running out of money. But I think anytime one says Medicare or Social Security has a funding problem, it is more an issue of priorities than anything else. It is no secret, for instance, that Social Security funds have been robbed over the years for all types of things other than the intended purpose.

And as in the private sector, the public sector has depended too much on borrowing as if the day would never come when it had to be paid back or when revenues dropped too far down to pay the cost of interest on all that borrowing.

Maybe what we need for health care is indeed a free market. But there would have to be government oversight. I mean what good does it do if you are asked to pay health care premiums but can have your coverage denied or dropped because of pre-exiting conditions? And how can you say there is a free market when you can’t buy private health insurance across state lines – and who put that provision in the law in the first place?

As I have stated several times before on the subject, I think President Obama would have done better to simply put forward a program in which two things would happen – health care coverage would be made available to all with consumers expected to pay the cost of premiums, and in cases where people truly could not afford coverage (and that is sometimes subjective, but there has to be a legal cutoff point) the government (yes, the taxpayers) would step in. In some sense that is what we already have, but the problem is that there are cracks people fall through or loopholes. People often have to end up liquidating their own hard-earned assets to pay for health care and/or to qualify for assistance.

And there really needs to be a law that health insurance is mandatory. Why? Because so many people without health coverage flood the emergency rooms and the law does require that they be attended to (a hospital in my town has been under fire by the government for supposedly failing to meet that obligation to the full extent to the law). To cover the cost of the uninsured, hospitals and other medical providers have to charge those who do pay at a higher rate to offeset the costs of those who don’t, and the government of course has to raise taxes to cover the cost too.

I get the impression now that health care reform or at least some type of adjustment is coming. It will be watered down from what ultra liberals want and it may be too restrictive for conservatives, but if it at least meets the goal of offering – and mandating – coverage for all, I think that would be an improvement.

A truly free market in health care coverage would have the advantage of allowing people to decide just how much they want to be covered. Do they want to pay extra for a plan that pays nearly all costs or do they want to be more economical by simply protecting themselves from catastrophic incidents? I know if I or my family members had to pay for the full cost of my own bout with cancer none of us could meet it.

And a free market where consumers decided about and had the responsibility to pay for coverage would free employers of the burden of offering health care coverage and would allow small employers to feel free to take on more employees, not having to consider that if they do they might fall within one of those proposed mandates that employers of a certain size provide coverage.

In fact, the system in which so many have or had generous coverage is a large part of what led to so much inflation in health care costs in the first place. When those who offered services – hospitals and doctors and others – knew that consumers did not directly deal with or even see the costs, they tended to inflate the bills.

And one more thing: while the president may be to the left of many, his willingness to compromise but at the same time his insistence to get something done plays just right with me. To those who feel he is ramming something down their throats (so to speak), I say elections have consequences. Your guy won last time, the other guy won this time.

P.s.

In my previous post I wondered if Obama would present a little more clarity to his proposals. I think he did. That is he presented a clear outline of what he wants. It apparently is still a work in progress, and even though congress often does not read all the details of what it votes on – who would? And to the tea party protesters: if you are sincere and if there are enough of you – and it’s not just charade orchestrated by the ditto head Rush Limburger or Glen Heck or Hannity Insanity (not their real names) blowhards — you may well have an effect. Public pressure – even outside of actual elections — also has its consequences.

Health care reform under protest — I give up

I don’t know whether to be proud of all those citizens showing up at the town hall meetings, many to voice their protest over proposed health care laws, or whether to be disgusted with all the demagoguery going on, such as that from those Republican lawmakers who voted for a provision in 2003 they now claim to be against and further claim is a measure promoting euthanasia.

I know there is legitimate concern over proposed revisions to our health care laws but there is so much lying on all sides concerned that it is depressing.

Facing my own health care insurance problems, I feel nearly helpless and hopeless – although not quite.

But I know I am not in a unique position, and that only further confuses me. Surely so many others must be facing the bewildering position of being between insurances and knowing that if you let one lapse a new plan may not accept pre-existing conditions. I might be going on Medicare if due to my medical condition (cancer) I cannot work, but that would put me into poverty,that is not being able to work,  but without help I can’t possibly pay private insurance on my own. And reading over all of the terms and restrictions of private insurance is bewildering. One would have to be the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer to understand it all, and even that would not help, unless one specialized in health care law.

While I fully appreciate anyone taking part in the protests if they know what they are talking about or at least have legitimate concerns based on some semblance of fact, I have nothing but contempt for the know-nothings who simply spout off FOX News or right-wing Republican talking (propaganda) points.

And I am not afraid to say something else about all of this: there is a lot of greed among the health care providers, to include doctors, and insurance companies.

It’s hard for me to criticize doctors because I have needed them so much and I know that taken as a group they do so much good for society and I know that to be a good doctor is a rare enough skill and talent that it has to be or should be well rewarded. But it also seems to me that doctors are the ones who could do more than most to help straighten out the health care crisis. But the doctors whom I have spoken with seem to feel they are too busy and someone else needs to handle reform and that in so doing whatever way it comes out they have to be compensated at the level to which they are accustomed. I have not had long and detailed discussions with doctors, but I have mentioned my concerns. And although they indicate concern and sympathy they also convey the attitude that they must be rather well compensated otherwise it is just not doable or worth the bother.

As to the issue of abuse in malpractice litigation adding to high medical costs, while I am sure there needs to be reform there, I imagine it is more of a red herring used by opponets of health care reform who prefer the status quo.

But at some point on an individual basis one has to face reality and go along with the program, such as it is.

And one more thing: I think a vast majority of the public wants FREE health care or at least health care that seems free, such as employer-provided. They do not want to think that they have to pay for it and they for sure do not want to be taxed for it. A big concern among many – and perhaps somewhat legitimate – is that their tax dollars will go to health care for others and not themselves.

It is true, I believe, that there is a class of people in our society who take public assistance for granted. They along with greedy drug companies and others in the health care industry are adding to the poison in the atmosphere against health care reform. Many are concerned that too much government involvement will throw us all into the government free clinic zoo. Many working people work simply to not have to live in that nether world of the “sick”, “lame” and lazy. They fear that Obamacare (and actually there is no identifiable program) would throw them into the community clinic.

And there most likely would have to be some type of health care rationing under a government program — how else to control the costs? There already is rationing in the private system anyway — it’s called cost, availability, exclusions and so on.

While President Obama may believe what he says, that he does not want to take away anyone’s insurance, I have to admit it does seem that a so-called government option would overpower what the marketplace could offer and would offer employers a way out of providing for their employees. And actually employer provided insurance is probably where we went wrong in the first place. When it really was free (to the patient) the medical community had a bonanza, they could and did, and heck, still do, charge anything they want. And they want a lot.

I give up already – I’ll go along with the program to the extent I can.

Health care: entrenched system hangs tough against change…

Soaking the rich for universal health care won’t fly. And it should not. Taxing existing health care plans via the employer deduction or through the employees’ individual income is counter productive and unfair, and borrowing more dollars from China is not wise, to say the least.

I’m not sure where that leaves things. But it seems that the cost of health care needs to be a shared thing, not left on the shoulders of just one group, because for one thing they will resist and for another they will get out of it, and soaking the rich is not really right anyway. If health care is to be provided universally then it should be paid for that way. Of course not everyone has equal means to pay.

And I should note here that there is a practical question as to whether there can be a system in which everyone gets identical care, that is everyone has the same level of care available. I personally have always assumed that those with means are going to have an advantage. They can pay cash and/or have better, more expensive, health plans.

And how much is too much to pay for health care? When it comes to your own life or that of a loved one, you can’t come to that ultimate figure, except by what you have available or can raise. But what if someone else is in dire need but has to get help from you through your taxes? As big a heart as you may or may not have, that is where one is liable to think a little more rationally (and ration, as in rationing, is part of that word).

This question becomes especially troublesome when we are only prolonging life for a limited amount of time.

And here’s a problem on a personal level. I’m weighing my options (if I have any) as to whether I can go back to work after being out on disability with cancer (that is not cured and cannot be). My COBRA plan (the federally-mandated program that allows one to keep group health insurance from a job by paying the full premium) is due to run out three or four months before I would be eligible for Medicare. I can extend my insurance beyond COBRA but it will not cover as much and it will cost more, my insurance carrier has told me (what a deal offered by private enterprise).

If I am able to go back to work, I can have a company-sponsored plan (not entirely free for me as in my last job that is no longer available) that will cost me less, but will my employer continue to offer the now tax deducible plan if my employer would have to pay taxes on it as some are proposing? Not likely, especially in this bad business climate. Will the government cover me then? And what hoops and how much waiting is involved in getting on a government plan? It’s two years for Medicare. Taxing health plans as one current Democratic plan seems to be calling for contradicts President Barack Obama’s campaign promise not to mess with anyone’s existing insurance plan while offering some type of government option.

I keep thinking that the point of this whole thing has to be availability and then cost, which sometimes amount to the same thing.

As much as I distrust and even resent at times the health care industry, I think messing up the current system where the majority of people have private or so-called group plans through their work is not the way to provide universal care, if for no other reason than the offering of a universally available plan from the government would probably wipe out private plans, especially if the government plan was free or at a much-reduced price to the consumer, even if it was more bureaucratic and not as good as private coverage (and I don’t mean private coverage is not bureaucratic – it is). Employers are not likely to offer health plans if they know everyone can be covered by the government.

The way to provide universal care – and here I go again – is to cover people who are not able (not just don’t want to bother) to buy their own insurance. While I would not be against in concept, say, a single-payer, government health care system, that seems unlikely when a different system is so entrenched and accepted by the majority.

Yes, Medicare is said to being going broke. But, it would seem the most cost effective and quickest way to extend coverage would be through Medicare, a system already in place.

And now we are being bombarded with the story that people in Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden and other places that have what is often called “socialized medicine” (provided through the government) have to wait for critical care or procedures for months or years or are flat out denied and sometimes resort to going to the U.S. to get care. That’s interesting. You still have to have the money to pay and if you have the money to pay, what’s the problem? The whole problem is people cannot afford medical care without health plans and health plans, whether they be privately run or run by the government, have to have some means of cost control or they would go broke. Waiting can be part of that cost control, as well as outright denial. I am not sure why just because some other country might have a plan that is not consumer friendly why the U.S. cannot improve upon that plan, but still offer universal coverage.

Medicare needs to be improved, to include offering broader coverage (vision, dental), and it needs more funding. Of course that will put a larger strain on the budget. But doing any improvement will necessitate spending more money. Improving an existing and quite workable program would seem to offer the most cost effective solution. 

We face two major needs: one is for everyone to be secure that he or she has health coverage. The other is for everyone to realize that he or she has a responsibility to help fund that coverage to his or her ability. As it is now, we who pay for health insurance share in the cost of health care for all in that we pay higher premiums to help medical providers help defray their mandated care of the indigent and others who do not pay and we are taxed for Medicare and the other public health programs. We need a simpler and more efficient and more equitable way to do all of this.

It’s estimated that current legislation on health care change going through congress could cost $1 trillion over a decade. Strange that it matches with the projected cost of the Iraq War. That war has been rightly called, I think, a war of choice. One wonders why the health of our citizenry was not considered the better choice. Our health care system is pricing people out of the market and people are losing coverage each day due to the current economic catastrophe. It’s estimated that as many as 14,000 people a day lose their insurance due to job cuts (from and article out of the Wall Street Journal online).

An oft cited figure for the uninsured is about 50,000, but a significant part of that is young people who earn enough money but don’t want to pay for insurance, figuring, I guess, that they are healthy. So when something bad happens the rest of us have to pay. We also pay for people who are in this country illegally. One study estimated that insurance ratepayers fork over some $1,000 extra per year to cover the expenses of the uninsured (from an article in the Wall Street Journal online).

Stories like the one I heard today on CNN do not help support the public option. It was revealed that Medicare pays at least one private company a thousand dollars to rent a wheel chair for a year when the same model can be bought for $300 or less from that same private company. That’s because when congress made the deal it was lobbied by the industry on price schedules and bidding procedures. So the same private industry that rails against public health care realizes when it is inevitable and profits from it.

I appreciate the president’s even handedness and willingness to negotiate, but sometimes leadership calls for putting together a workable plan and not letting it be diluted or emasculated by allowing the opposition (which likes the status quo) to get its hands on it, and then sticking to your guns to support your own plan (you have to have your own plan too).

One problem in all of this is that no one seems to identify exactly what the proposed plans supposedly being debated in congress would look like. And most people, quite understandably, do not want to lose what they have if they have it. Another problem that I see is that the president does not seem to offer an identifiable plan, other than in broad generalities, and his own party, the Democrats, have various plans afloat. The Republicans, as far as I can tell, are mostly pretending to be concerned or to want health care reform, but are primarily interested in carrying the water for the health insurance industry (to be fair, sadly many Democrats seem to be in the pocket of the health care industry lobbyists too).

Health care is such big business. There is so much money to be made. It is hard to fight the establishment, even for the yes we can man.

P.s.

Have you noticed that the Harry and Louise ads on health care from the 90s are back but this time that concerned upper middle class couple wants change? (Things have deteriorated somewhat in their formerly protected world, apparently.)

Raise tariffs, re-tool America, lower retirement age, and go for universal health care…

I watched Charlie Rose last night and heard Bob Woodward say that President Barack Obama has not really been tested by his own crisis yet. He said that he did not know what crisis might be in the offing, but perhaps unemployment might be it. And today I read that unemployment has reached 10 percent in 15 states. I know it is higher than that in my local area, and maybe in yours. If unemployment remains high, I think the Obama administration will be seen as a failure. Actually we are already in an unemployment crisis — so let’s see how Obama handles it.

Raise tariffs and provide tax incentives to U.S. industry that employs people right here in America, lower — not constantly raise — the retirement age to increase job opportunities for younger folks, and relieve businesses of providing costly health plans and thereby at the same time free up workers to more easily go to better or more suitable jobs by providing some type of universal health care scheme not tied to employment.

And so the doctors, and others, will not gripe that government bureaucrats (as opposed to private health insurance bureaucrats?) are dictating health decisions, let doctors serve on public boards to oversee the government-guaranteed health care. Notice, I have not written “government-sponsored”. Actually I assume that under any scheme to guarantee that everyone has health care coverage there will be government funding.

How about those ideas to put America back to work and get the economy going?

And while I don’t want to just concentrate on health care, I can see from my own personal experience that health care rules so much in our lives (it’s the cost and availability).

So I will address health care and then go back to some of the other economic recovery ideas.

The only way I can see that there is ever going to be health care for everyone is for the government to be involved, the free market can’t seem to do it.

I watched part of a documentary on PBS some time ago about how other nations handle health care, but it was kind of hard to follow or at least remember, except that it seems to have a lot to do with attitude of the public. For some reason maybe the rest of the world is just crazy, but they see a role for their governments to serve the interests of their citizens. For all the need and talk about health care reform in this nation, I sometimes get the idea that the general public is not into it as much as one might imagine, that is until something bad happens in one’s personal life, but then you’re so mired in your own mess, it’s hard to see the forest for the trees. But if the public really cared as much as it is reputed to, I think we would have had reform long ago. I keep hearing that Teddy Roosevelt ( a Republican – a progressive one) pushed for some type of national health care. That’s a century ago.

I’m extremely surprised the business sector has not pushed for national health care, seeing as how providing health care coverage for employees is such a major expense. And if employees don’t have coverage they will eventually be less productive and certainly it would seem more vulnerable to worker’s comp claims, which really can cost employers a lot.

Right now with so much of the work force out of work, huge numbers of people are without or soon to be without health care coverage or are trying to figure out how poor they have to let themselves get to become eligible for government programs.

Health care has become so expensive but is so necessary that it has become one of the most important, yet hard to meet, requirements in life, darn near beating out food and shelter.

Unless you have the fortune required to pay out of your pocket for all health services you might need, you generally have to join together with others in some type of group plan. So why can’t virtually the whole nation join together as a group? Yes it is going to cost, and everyone should have to pay a fair amount according to their means. And the amount of taxes raised for health care cannot be unlimited. So, yes, that means that decisions as to what is covered and how much the insurance will pay will have to be made. They always are, even in private insurance.

Taxing the rich (and who figures out what rich is?) to pay for health care is a bad idea. Social Security, the one program with “social (ism)” in its name that seems to have near universal support or at least acceptance, was designed so everyone (almost) pays for it and everyone is eligible and everyone has a stake in it.

A doctor who writes a column for my local newspaper said he dreaded any type of public option because the government would be telling him how long or what kind of treatment he can give his patients. Not any more than private or so-called group insurance does. And no one would tell him how long he can spend with a patient. That is up to him. He’s talking about his reimbursement. He can spend longer with his patient than the reimbursement covers (the government or other insurance entities only limit the money, not the time), and he can charge the patient the difference (and that is what is often done). Whether the patient can pay that extra amount is always in question (and do doctors consider themselves mere hourly employees?). And it might seem nice to compare the medical care market with any other consumer offering, but, you know, there is just not much competition. In fact, a lot of doctors do not accept new patients.

There is a concern that the number of family practitioners is dwindling because there is just not the money in the field there once was (still better than when they used to accept chickens from farmers). Maybe there needs to be more incentives to create new family practitioners, such as subsidized training for promising students. And maybe if the private sector cannot offer enough services, there needs to be government clinics staffed by well trained doctors and support personnel.

Such clinics would have to be well funded, because if not, you get the stereotypical zoo.

And then there is the problem – who wants to go to a cut rate doctor?

I got off the track on this medical thing. I was really wanting to put another pitch in for the re-industrialization of America. I know all the learned economists and political historians will tell you that raising tariffs is “protectionism” and protectionism is a bad thing because it leads to retaliatory protectionism from other countries and stymies world trade and leads to even more economic hardship and that there is precedent that proves it – the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 and the Great Depression. But that notion has been brought into question by some. And besides, that was then and this is now. I love history, but we live now and maybe things are slightly different today.

What so-called free trade has brought us is unbalanced trade where the U.S. competes with nations with a much lower standard of living and it continues to drag the U.S. down. Free trade was sold partly on the idea that other nations would prosper and come up to our standards. And I have to admit that in my ignorance I once thought if something can be made cheaper elsewhere, so be it, I’m generally for it. But there is such a thing as buying value (something that is hard to find these days – except in foreign cars), and there is such a thing as keeping the wealth in one’s home country. In our own greed we may have been tricked into giving up the store by becoming a nation of bargain hunters rather than a nation of those who produce or support in the production of quality products  and who share in the wealth that the demand for quality brings. Developing nations may develop, but they also may surpass us while we are not paying attention.

And even though a lot of money is made out of war, our current wars are a net drag on our economy and it is morally wrong to base our economy on war anyway. We should work to get out of war situations as quickly as possible and avoid wars when we can. And we are finding out that in today’s world rapidly moving events all over the globe can cause us to be overextended easily.

Kind of a scatter shot approach here. But just some thoughts.

P.s.

I heard someone mention on a TV news talk show that even with all the hubbub about whether a health care plan will make it through congress this term, even if it did it would be five years before anything went into effect. That’s absurd.

I still think everyone is trying to make this whole thing too complicated. Complication is not what we need. And it is hard to shop for health care, especially when you need it (think about it).

Just expand Medicare for those who cannot afford to pay for private plans now on the market. The market has no interest in providing health care for those with no means to pay. In fact, left to its own devices, the private health care industry would avoid offering coverage to anyone who might actually want to use it.

The great chicken 2,000-mile bird monopoly or how health care becomes a crisis when an employer shuts down…

Read a story about a chicken plant in a Georgia town closing down and something caught my eye.

The local medical center in Douglas, Georgia stands to lose the annual $2.3 million in revenue from the plant’s employee health insurance. Now it is facing the prospect of a huge spike in uninsured patients. The plant employed 1,000, but total employment in the town linked to the plant is estimated at 2,000, and I don’t think that counts the local chicken farmers who went out of business. Actually nearly the whole economy of the town is linked to the chicken plant, the story indicated.

So the quick points here are that there is a big problem in having health insurance tied to employment and having a town’s economy so intertwined with one employer.

But on the health insurance, I just thought of something. Maybe employer-sponsored health insurance is not such a bad idea (I know, who said it was?). Having employers pick up the tab (or at least a large part of it) for health insurance is kind of like a tax. I think I’m correct is saying that businessmen in general are opposed to government-sponsored universal health care because it would create the need for higher taxes.  (ADD 1:  Walmart is now reportedly supporting part of President Obama’s health plan that requires large employers to provide health insurance, but that is a tactic that other heretofore opponents have adopted in the face of  likely changes  — they want to at least be part of the program if change is to come.) Thus far at least the larger employers have evidently considered offering health insurance a cost of doing business. So if they are comfortable or at least accepting of that cost, which as I said is essentially the same as a tax, maybe that is the way to go – but with one caveat, since people need health insurance even if their job disappears or especially when they lose their job due to health problems, then the employer ought to be obligated to continue that health insurance. But that could be quite a burden on an employer. So maybe at that point the government could step in and help subsidize continued insurance.

Employers began offering group health insurance way back when premiums were not nearly as high and when there was more competition for labor. And that is in large part what led to the mess we have today. So many people at one time had what they called “free” health insurance from their employer that medical costs skyrocketed, maybe from overuse, and so did the services that could be offered. All folks had to do was show an insurance card, and voila! Everything is paid for. That was then and this is now. Nowadays there is not much “free” insurance left. Even most employer-sponsored insurance costs a huge amount to employees. And many have lost that insurance along with their jobs anyway.

The good thing these days is that we have so much more technology in medicine, financed of course by patients and their insurance. The problem is that the costs are exceeding the ability of people to pay and are absorbing an ever-increasing share of the gross national product.

There is much talk to the effect that any change in the system to make it more efficient will lead to health care rationing. Well of course it will, to some extent. Isn’t that the problem we have already? that is to say everyone wants everything no matter what the cost. The insurance companies could not stay in business if they simply doled out everything that anyone wanted at any time. So they deny certain things and figure out ways to get out of paying (a little too much emphasis on that, I think, to say the least). But that is rationing. It has been taking place for a long time. You can’t get care unless you can pay for it or someone else pays for it. That’s rationing.

So, bottom line, we have a inefficient system, but it works for those who are covered. So as I have been blogging lately, maybe the best idea is to cover those who are not and move on to other things, such as improving the economy.

The whole issue of health care is confusing in that recent polls show a vast majority of people support some public option and it is thought that pressure from the public option would force private plans to become more competitive in cost. But for some reason the health insurance lobby seems to hold more sway in congress than voters (so far). Why is that? I don’t really fully understand that. The only thing I can figure is that polls are suspect in that respondents are liable to be responding to leading questions. And never underestimate the power of propaganda put out by lobbyists.

Originally, after reading the article on the chicken plant I wrote the following:

I think having a home-cooked chicken dinner was cheaper in grandma’s day. And I’m going way back in time because my parents were older than most when they had me and grandma was gone by the time I was born.

But the way dad told it, down on the farm in the early 1900s grandma had a cane and would pull in one of the many chickens that ran around the yard, the unlucky one of the day I guess, and whack its head off with a hatchet, pluck it and cook it. I said cheaper, not easier.

But today more than likely you buy what here where I live in California is a dead bird that has been hauled maybe 2,000 miles or more to the supermarket having been processed by some chicken conglomerate. And judging by a story I just read in the Wall Street Journal online version, that conglomerate is doing its best to control the price of chicken by trying to stifle competition.

Seems the demand for chicken is not what it had been so one of the major conglomerates, Pilgrim’s Pride, has filed bankruptcy and closed down plants, but is refusing to sell the closed plants to competitors in order to cut down the capacity, thereby keeping the price of chicken up. And it has apparently worked to some extent. Prices are up slightly (the power of the agribusiness monopoly).The creditors are supporting that scheme because they feel it will help make Pilgrim’s Pride a more viable company and therefore they stand a better chance to get their money back.

But not only is this manipulation of the market not helping consumers it’s not helping all the laid of chicken plant workers in places such as Douglas, Georgia where a plant has been closed down. Not only the plant workers are affected, but so is the rest of the community that depends upon the dollars those workers made and that was otherwise circulated in the community from the chicken plant operation. That includes the area’s chicken farmers too.

We do have a couple of major chicken producers in California, but it’s a big state with millions of consumers, so that conglomerate’s actions affect us.

Douglas and its economic development authority would like to attract another chicken plant operator but Pilgrim’s Pride sometimes won’t even let others look inside the plant, citing trade secrets, and has turned down bids to buy the operation.

Seems like to me the laid off chicken workers should pool their resources (except they probably don’t have enough) and get the city to condemn the shut-down plant and buy it themselves and operate it as an employee-owned business. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo vs. New London decision of 2005 in which a Connecticut city condemned private property for use by another private owner but for the economic development of the city might work here.

Pilgrim’s Pride’s actions in closing their plant and not allowing anyone else to buy it so they can hold down the production of chicken is what gives free enterprise a bad name. You could say it is none of the government’s business, but does not the business depend upon the governmental-run system of bankruptcy protection?

And not only that, but the the Douglas Development Authority, a public entity, gave the land to Pilgrim’s Pride and bought its equipment in the first place to lure it into town.

You’d think that in this time of recession and high unemployment chicken, usually a low-priced meat, would be in demand without the great chicken monopoly resorting to OPEC tactics.

Maybe a better idea for the displaced workers would be to move onto something else. Too bad they can’t raise chickens like grandma did, at least they could put dinner on the table.

Obama caught (kind of) on claim his health care plan (what plan?) would not eliminate private plans or force doctor changes…

I’m not an anti public health care (or anti socialized medicine) partisan, but I noticed that President Barack Obama got caught in Tuesday’s news conference on his long-offered promise, all thorough his campaign and all through his young presidency, that you won’t have to give up your own health care plan or your doctor if you’re satisfied under his proposed health care plan.

And let me just inject here, we still don’t know what the actual Obama health care plan is (except if you are a Republican and call it socialized medicine).

In answering a question he all but conceded that in fact you might end up losing both your plan and doctor if private insurance decided it could not compete with a public option and/or if your doctor decided he or she could not afford to accept the provisions (payments) under the public option, or if your employer decided to drop a private plan and let you take advantage of the public plan. He tried to slip out of the trap by saying it would not be the government putting the kibosh on your plan or dismissing your doctor, that would be up to the insurance companies and doctors and employers.

The idea that has been put forward lately (or I guess for a long time) is that any public option would have too much advantage over private health insurance – patients would get care for too low of a cost – can’t have that.

But despite any sarcasm I might have concerning the poor private health plans and the doctors who might suffer, I do see the point that indeed a public option and a continued private option might not be able to co-exist because they would not be on a level playing field. The government can raise taxes and promulgate rules to lower costs.

Surprisingly, even with all the money thrown at the anti-public option movement recent polls show something like 72 percent or even more of the public supporting a public option. And polls indicate support for higher taxes to pay for it, to an extent. Not surprisingly people are apparently somewhat hypocritical because there seems to be less enthusiasm when specific cost figures are mentioned. Well of course any option no matter what, unless you just deny health care to anyone who cannot afford it, is going to be expensive. In case you haven’t noticed, people who go to medical school expect to make some big bucks. And we keep developing expensive new procedures that require expensive equipment and we have to pay other highly trained and skilled medical personnel along with not so highly skilled and highly paid folks (but a lot of them). And it does cost a lot of money to get a new medicine on the market and the investors want to recoup their investments and then some.

Of course if we have large numbers of sick folks we cannot be as productive of a nation as we should be, and right now it is apparent that we need to start being more productive. Also, since we at least have laws that require folks to get emergency medical service those emergency rooms will continue to be clogged and the costs will mount if we don’t do something.

No one actually knows how much the Obama plan (which is not really spelled out — being a continued work in progress) would cost, but figures of $1 trillion and even $1.6 trillion over ten years have been suggested. Gee what a waste. We could fund a war with that kind of money (sarcasm again).

Costs concerns notwithstanding, the public does seem to be coming around. That’s probably because health care even with employer-sponsored insurance has become so expensive and the fact so many people don’t get employer health insurance either because it is not offered or they have lost their jobs.

Another strange thing is that lawmakers seem to listen to lobbyists more than average people (probably because average people don’t generally make big campaign donations). It’s sad that the voters have to take a back seat to lobbyists. Of course if campaigns were more sober presentations of proposed policy rather than highly expensive glitzy propaganda wars, and if voters were willing to listen to fact rather than empty or misleading rhetoric that would not be such a problem.

What I would be for, most would call socialized medicine (there I’ve said it – please don’t call me a communist – or does anyone use that epithet these days?). But I’d settle for some type of plan that simply provides health care benefits to those who truly don’t have access to a private plan or resources to pay for one.

I think we may be trying to do more than we need to. I begrudgingly admit that we have a system of sorts in place and probably don’t need to mess it up.

So for the umpteenth time I ask the question: why can’t we just extend the Medicare and Medicaid programs to those who need coverage they can’t pay for?

I’m waiting for the answer.

——————

Clarification:

In the original version of my last post I incorrectly spelled the name of a Huffington Post blogger, but I corrected in a later version. The blogger is Nico Pitney.

Those who have medical coverage may be biggest obstacle to universal care…

I think the biggest stumbling block to universal health care, by which I mean not necessarily what people used to decry as “socialized  medicine”, but simply access to all for care, is not the private health insurance industry or the pharmaceutical companies (although they together are a close second), or even the AMA.

No, the biggest stumbling block to everyone having adequate health care is those who smugly clutch on to their own coverage but would deny it to others. Why should they who have worked for it or paid for it or otherwise “deserve” it pay for others who are perhaps too lazy to get a job that offers health insurance? And aren’t welfare recipients covered by the government anyway? they ask. Or why should they have to pick up the slack for for those who do not have the good sense or a sense of moral responsibility to make sure on their own that they have coverage?

And I was just expressing what I think people must be thinking. What a lot of people do not realize is that if they have job-sponsored health insurance, if they lose their job, they probably will no longer be able to afford it, and if they get sick they may lose their job and find themselves without insurance (tying insurance to a job was a crazy method all along). And there is some truth to the notion that the unemployed and disabled often have some type of government insurance. But there are a lot of ways for people to slip through the cracks, such as being just over the income limit for assistance or having a job that does not have health insurance or premiums that you can afford, being cut down to part-time work and losing your benefits, long waiting periods before government insurance, such as Medicare, kicks in, and the list goes on.

I used to think the so-called single-payer insurance by the government would be the best way to go, and I still don’t know but that it would not, but there is so much automatic opposition to it in this country that it seems unlikely it would come to pass.

Even President Obama explained that in the U.S., unlike all other industrial nations where some form of government-sponsored health insurance took hold, the employer-sponsored private health insurance model took hold. And while it has worked well, too many people now have found themselves without access to health care, and that includes a lot of people who work at regular jobs. Some jobs don’t offer it, but the employees who work at those jobs don’t qualify for government health care, and some employers either quit offering it or premiums have gone so high that people can’t afford it.

The latest figures I could find indicated nearly 47 million Americans, about 15 percent of the population, are without health care, and a large portion of those are children (and with all the job losses the uninsured figure is likely much higher now). There are probably some cases where people go without it on their own volition and others in which they don’t realize that they are entitled to some type of government coverage, but I would think that is in the minority. And I have personally heard of cases where people have some type of labor union coverage or other type of employer-sponsored coverage and go in and out of it through the year because they do not work steady. How can that work? You can only get sick and get treatment at certain times? That’s absurd!

A real case: A friend and former co-worker of mine had company-paid (100 percent) health insurance, but was laid off and lost it. He then was hired back, but on what is considered a part-time (on call) basis, so he does not qualify for the insurance. He has chosen (or is forced) to go without the insurance because he cannot afford to pay the premium that would be required.

I think there is a dire enough need and possibly enough political pressure out on the hustings to force congress to come up with some type of health care reform, and maybe this year, from what I am reading.

The pressure is great enough that the health care industry is getting into the game to help save themselves and their profits. They’re funneling big money to the key players. I recently read an article, and I suppose anyone who reads the news regularly has too, that noted that many of the key people in congress on the health care issue are getting big bucks from the health care industry.

Among them is Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, who along with his own political action committee has received $3.4 million in campaign contributions over the past six years (or $1,500 per day) from various segments of the health care industry (this information thanks to the Independent Record newspaper of Helena, Mont.).

Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee, which is working on a health care bill.

I understand that Baucus has said that a single-payer national health care plan is “off the table”. There is a compromise proposal that would create some type of non-profit plan to offer lower-cost insurance to those who otherwise could not afford it, initiated by the government perhaps, but not run by the government. I understand Baucus has not expressed much enthusiasm for that either.

Now the way I see it, I believe anyone who now has good health insurance is one hundred percent right in wanting to hold on to it and should be able to. At the same time, we all have to have enough compassion and common sense to know that in the greater responsibility to our nation it does not make sense to deny coverage to so many and let so many continue to lose it. It’s not only compassion, it’s our own survival in a competitive world. If the trend in lack of health care continues it will make us weaker as a nation.

Obama promised in his campaign and still holds to the idea that he does not want to force anyone out of their plan, only to make health coverage available to everyone.

Everyone knows that no matter what way it is done or even if it is not done, health care will continue to eat up a larger and larger portion of the nation’s GDP.

At this point, I don’t know what the best plan going forward would be. Non-profits, if they could really offer affordable health coverage to the uncovered would seem like a good compromise between the strong opposition from vested interests in the private sector (along with vested policy holders) and a government-run plan.

And I don’t recall who it was, but not long before I sat down to blog this I heard either some Republican spokesman or the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (same difference) and he said, and I paraphrase, that providing health care just now with the recession and such is just too expensive. Let’s hold off on that till a few years from now. Tell that to someone facing a life and death situation. Tell that to the sick child. If  only the Republicans could have adopted the so-called “compassionate conservative” attitude that George W. Bush campaigned on — if only he had meant it.

And there is a lot of waste and abuse in the various government-sponsored programs, but so is there in the private programs, so do we punish the innocent for that?

I find it strange indeed that in all of this the medical community largely remains silent. Well except for the fact that the AMA lobby has fought against previous health care reform proposals.

The AMA website proposes tax credits to allow people to buy private health insurance. To the extent that would help, that sounds reasonable.

It also says that those who can afford insurance have the responsibility to pay for it. I could agree with that.

But all that does not solve the problem of escalating costs and the fact so many, even with tax credits, cannot afford health coverage.

P.s.

I personally have been without and with and without and kind of with health insurance. And while I certainly don’t blame anyone for wanting to hold on to their own insurance (they need to), I hope I personally would not be inclined to not vote for or otherwise not support some type of plan that would offer coverage to all.

Expand Medicare, stop bailouts, reinstate draft, support science, admit that to be gay is genetic…

Some more public policy suggestions from Tony Walther’s Weblog:

HEALTH CARE:

Expend a lot fewer resources and energy on the subject. Simply expand Medicare by extending it to those who cannot afford or are not eligible for private insurance, regardless of age. There of course would have to be a strict means test for this. And I don’t mean to suggest that it would be inexpensive to do this, but it might be no more or even less expensive and more practical than what we are doing now or what is being proposed (which is not clear at all). And it could be all done so much quicker (how long has congress faced the health care issue? Decades now).

It occurs to me that health care could be seen as a personal right in our modern society, but it might also be seen as a personal responsibility at the same time. I don’t think those two conditions are mutually exclusive. While it is a personal responsibility, if you cannot afford that responsibility, you need help.

And I realize we read that both the Medicare and Social Security trust funds are fast running out. But something will have to be done about that. I doubt that either program will be cancelled, so our elected representatives will have to, dare I say it, make some decisions and the electorate itself has to accept certain priorities. But it would seem that a secure and stable retirement system and some form of universal health care (I refer to a system in which no one is denied health care simply on the basis of cost) would be at least near the top of those priorities. 

ECONOMIC STIMULUS:

Give business back to business for the most part. Stop all bailouts. Let failing enterprises, banks included, go bankrupt. But at the same time offer incentives, such as tax breaks, to businesses that create American jobs (and these need to be jobs that don’t require further government subsidy to workers – such as the old Walmart approach of handing out how-to-get-government-assistance flyers to employees). At the same time apply penalties to businesses that ship jobs overseas, such as high tariffs on products being imported back in. And I was going to write simply, enact penalties for outsourcing (maybe a penalty tax on outsourcing). But I don’t know how practical or practicable that would be. But if there is enough incentive for hiring American, then maybe that would not be necessary.

Our government should encourage a return to the production of manufactured goods and consumer products, again through incentives such as tax breaks.

Also, renegotiate our so-called “free trade” agreements with other nations so that we are all playing on a fairly level field. Other nations subsidize industries and/or have labor forces that work at extremely low wages. We need “fair trade”, not so much “free trade”.

Instead of bailing out failing businesses, divert some of that funding to help displaced workers, but do not make this commitment open ended. The ultimate goal for able-bodied people should be new jobs.

DEFENSE:

Make our policy one of defense rather than offense. While I don’t think the United States, even under George W. Bush, has been an imperialist nation, we have long held the belief that we have to exert our influence all over the world. I think we should promote our form of democratic government by example more than by force. We should be supportive to the extent we can of nations who would model themselves after us, but leave it at that.

I do, though, realize that in some situations we may find that the best defense is a good offense. This would be in cases of true emergency when it comes to our attention that, say, a rogue nation or rogue regime in a nation might come within grasp of having the means along with the aim of destroying us. Strangely, that last sentence sounds like Bush 2’s rationale for going into Iraq. So, if he and Cheney had been honest about such, that is if Iraq would have really been in the position to attack us or supply weapons of mass destruction to our enemies, I might have seen the Iraq invasion as the necessary choice (although a more surgical choice might have been wiser). But the information that has come out points the other way (and some of this info was at least hinted at even before we went into Iraq). I believe Bush and Co. have even admitted they were wrong (if not that they knew they were wrong at the time). They had a predilection, that is they were predisposed to go into Iraq and then they manufactured an excuse.

Iran’s (reported) continued development of nuclear weapons capability might someday require an offensive, pre-emptive reaction, and perhaps more urgenty, the possibility of Islamic militants getting hold of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. But let’s hope none of that becomes necessary. But let’s also hope no potential adversary doubts our resolve to defend ourselves.

MILITARY SERVICE:

I think the all-volunteer professional military has big advantages and that we should maintain a large and highly-trained and motivated professional cadre, or really a permanent professional force that would be larger than the word cadre connotes. But along with that professional force I would be supportive of a mandatory military service of youth, beginning at age 18. Two years of active duty would seem appropriate, if a little bit arbitrary. There of course would probably be provision for conscientious objectors with some type of compulsory public service. I think with a new military draft or compulsory service you would find that we would be a lot more thoughtful and careful about using military force. We might also have more resolve once we did commit force. And why is it not everyone’s duty to defend the nation?

My reading of recent history is that the so-called neo conservative movement was disappointed with the nation’s lack of resolve in Vietnam and thought it endangered us by making us look weak. The liberals who had pushed for ending the draft got caught in their own trap. The neocons decided that the all-volunteer force would leave so many off the hook that it would be easier to commit forces where they desired. And I think it did make it easier.

But it seems to me we are all in this or should be all in this together. Not everyone serves on the local police force and that is understandable. But too many have come to view the military as a police force that they can simply expect to “handle it”. When only a minority is left with the responsibility to protect a nation I think we lose our sense of nation and one day might be in jeopardy of losing the nation itself.

 ENVIRONMENT:

We need strong public investment in science more than anything else. And it is the government’s job to protect the environment and to enact laws that support that. Environmental regulation needs to be based on science and not politics. We cannot afford to cut off our nose to spite our face by enacting unreasonable and over-reactive environmental regulations that stifle commerce, but at the same time we do not want to destroy our planet or our quality of life.

THE MORAL QUESTIONS:

Societies have rules, often called “morals”. The United States has been unique in that we are a blended society whose members may have similar, but not necessarily the same moral code. We are not all of the same religion and we are indeed not all religious, although for the most part our laws regulating social behavior are I suppose based on Judeo-Christian principles.

For the most part there is not a problem. We virtually all agree, for example, that it should be illegal to murder someone. We don’t all agree on the proper punishment, though. There has been a continuing debate over capital punishment. I think I am correct in saying that the anti-capital punishment forces seem to be holding the edge on this one. I have my own opinion, but I think this has to be left to voters and legislatures, and to some extent the courts (who seem to be frequently confronted as to the question of the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment – you can execute someone as long as it is not cruel? Unusual?).

Abortion and gay (or homosexual) marriage seem to be the hot moral topics now.

As to these two subjects, I have to ask whether there is a rightful governmental interest.

Abortion is a far more complicated topic than those on both sides of the argument make it out to be. But under current law, based on the Roe Vs. Wade decision, the Supreme Court has held that the intent of the constitution was to in the name of individual liberty leave such a personal decision up to the individual. The justices at the time had to reach for that decision by finding it based in part on what was not explicit but what they felt nonetheless was implicit in the constitution. But that is really often the case with decisions in courts. If literal meaning was always evident we probably would not need justices to render decisions (think about it).

As to gay marriage, the only government interest is that marriage is a contract and the government has oversight of contract law. As to the religious aspects, the government has no rightful role. It’s all more a problem of terminology and context and tradition. We have simply called these government-sanctioned contracts between, yes, what have been traditionally men and women, “marriage”. We might have been better off to call all of them “civil unions” from the beginning. Some religious people object to gays forming unions with each other and calling them “marriage”. They have been willing to compromise by accepting “civil unions” for gays. But civil unions are not always equal to marriage and not equally recognized within the 50 states. And if you legislate that only heterosexuals can have “marriages” and homosexuals must have “civil unions”, even if those civil unions were supposedly made equal to marriage, I think you would have something equivalent to the “separate, but equal” doctrine that was used to justify Jim Crow laws that forced black people to be discriminated against. Separate but equal was originally recognized by the Supreme Court, but decades later was struck down by the high court.

Those who oppose gay marriage argue that homosexuality is anti-social behavior. Most everyone else has come to realize by simple observation that homosexuality is apparently genetic and has come to accept it even if they are not always comfortable with it.

One solution would be to take the government out of the marriage business and have it issue civil union contracts to all, straight and gay. The churches could handle marriages as a religious and symbolic ceremony. That seems an equitable approach to me, but might be socially confusing (how would we refer to a couple now joined? they’re married, no they’re “civil unioned”, and how would you refer to already married people under the old rule, and it’s a whole can of worms).

As to the implications on our society moving forward if we fully accept the gay lifestyle under the law by granting gay marriage or unions, I actually think there is a question, but I do not think it is one government can resolve.

One of the problems is that government itself may have lost some of its moral authority.

Just some ideas.

Health care: costs are a problem, access a bigger problem…

It’s become an old saw that if the government were to offer universal health care there would be health care rationing.

Probably.

But health care rationing already exists. It’s called how much and what kind of insurance do you have or how much money do you have.

The pool of those not covered by employer-sponsored group plans and not eligible for government plans already offered to the poor and elderly or disabled is getting bigger in this distressed economy.

It is also argued that government-sponsored universal health care is terribly expensive – and the current system isn’t???

Back when the economy was humming along and larger numbers of folks had employer-paid plans the costs were high (and getting higher), but the employers passed much of those costs along to the public through the prices they charged for products and services. So nearly everyone was affected by health care costs even though not all enjoyed the benefits.

And I don’t dismiss concerns about rationing or increased cost efficiencies that would not be as consumer friendly as people might want. Some time ago I went through a round of chemo therapy. I was fortunate enough to have insurance. And I was also fortunate that the doctor’s office where I received my chemo was about a five-minute drive from home. I could easily see that under a government plan (this is just theoretical) it might be decided that it was inefficient to have too many chemo centers and that folks would have to go to one central one. I might have to drive, say, to Sacramento, which is about three hours away.

I also had a CT scan, again about five or ten minutes from home. And I think there is more than one facility here in town that does this. Under government insurance it might be decided that such was inefficient, again, off to Sacramento??

So, you see, I understand the rationing argument or concept. I would hope that universal health care could be offered that would be consumer friendly. I think current costs and the fact that so many people are being priced out of the market might eventually lead to more efficiencies anyway.

The bottom line should be to provide the best possible health care we can to all. I have also always written that I realize that there is no free lunch, or no free health care I should say. In some way it has to be paid for.

Interestingly the health care industry is spooked enough it is trying to jump on the bandwagon for health care reform (well in rhetoric at least). Apparently they see that public mood and political power is arrayed in such a fashion that the industry might not be able to forever forestall reform (make no mistake, it does not want reform – too much profit is involved) so it is going forward with the strategy that if you can’t beat reform, join the reform movement. I’d be a little suspicious of this.

It’s kind of like letting the bankers run the government bank bailout program (as they seem to be doing with their man Geithner in place).

If true reform and universal health care can come out of all of this, I say fine.

But I think everyone is making things too complicated. I say continue with private insurance for those who are willing and able to pay, military benefits too, and offer Medicare to the rest. The program is already in place and quite popular. And folks still buy private supplements.

Yes it will cost. It already does. But we either pay lots of money so fewer are covered or we pay lots of money so all are covered.

The reason health care reform seems to be getting more attention now is that so many folks who thought they would never have to worry since they had jobs and group plans that went along with them now are worried because they have lost their jobs (or fear they will) or health care plans or both or are just being priced out of the market due to never-ending premium increases.

If private enterprise could truly offer workable and affordable plans that would be good. But it’s hard to cover people via private plans if those people do not have jobs or high enough paying jobs to pay the premiums. And as I have blogged before, so what happens when you lose your job and still need the insurance you can no longer afford to pay?

I have always had moral misgivings about health care for profit. The ambulance rolls up and the first thing they need to see is your insurance card, not your condition (I’m not saying that really happens, but that is the bottom line, isn’t it? I have seen that much effort and expense in doctor’s offices and hospitals is expended in the name of medical insurance).

But there is also a contention that the profit motive in health care and medicine in the USA makes this nation a leader in innovation because of the incentive of profits.

Nonetheless, I think that it is only right that we come up with a universal health care system and I criticize all congressmen and senators for dragging their feet for so many years.

There does seem to be some real movement under President Obama’s leadership. While I applaud him for getting help (if it is help) from the health care industry itself, I hope he does not let them steal the show.

Harry and Louise and Joe Six Pack would sign up for government health care if it came to that, but of course they deserve it…

Was it Thelma and Louise? No I guess Harry and Louise, the concerned upper middle class couple who feared while sipping morning coffee and reading the Wall Street Journal that providing health care to all would eat into their 401K retirement investments.

Well their 401K went down the tube and their house, cash cow that it was, is not worth nearly as much as it used to be.

But the health insurance lobby is back. They’re warning everyone that government bureaucrats will be making life and death decisions and we’ll all be standing in line to get operations.

Well this is it folks: If you have money, lots of money, I mean whole bunches of money, you probably don’t need to worry (well actually medical bills can eat that up quickly). If you have a good insurance plan and can make the payments, or maybe if you are retired military, you probably are okay (until the government goes broke).

If you lost your job and your job-related health insurance along with it – oh oh. I know you used to gripe that so much of your tax money went to pay for health care for those undeserving slobs who don’t work for a living. But now you no longer work – although you’d like to. And you no longer have insurance – probably just when you needed it. Or maybe you did go back to work, but your company no longer offers that insurance, maybe because you were taken back on part-time.

Or maybe your company plan, whose premium goes up every year, has finally priced you out of the market.

Certainly now you feel you deserve some government health care. After all you paid taxes all those years. You’re not only needy, but you’re deserving. You’ll be the first in line for government health care. You better ask some of the more experienced at the game to learn the ropes.

I lost my job, not due to a layoff, but due to cancer. My company insurance ran out and then I had to start buying COBRA. I didn’t get in on the new Obama lower COBRA payments because I started too early (COBRA does not last forever, anyway). If you think you can get on Medicare, guess what, there’s a two-year waiting period. What you are supposed to do in the meantime is anyone’s guess.

Some people don’t worry. I sat next to a woman at a cancer support group meeting and she said her husband was self-employed and carried no insurance. He got cancer and needed an operation. The hospital “found” some program and performed it at no cost to him. No one’s offered me that. I wish him the best, though (it seems the polite attitude).

Health care and health insurance is a giant industry. The health insurance lobby probably has a point about government bureaucracy (but have you ever dealt with private health insurance and health care provider bureaucracy?).  And the lobbyists (they are the one’s running those commercials on TV against universal health care) are probably right that Canada and Western Europe and all the other modern industrialized nations that offer some form of what people like to call socialized medicine don’t necessarily offer the panacea that some might think, but when you have no insurance and run out of money, you’d probably take it (you might even like it).

Actually I think maybe the majority of the voters in those nations have felt that yes national health insurance does cost lost of money, but they also know that good health care costs no matter what. The important thing is that you get it. It may have seemed more practical to them to share the costs, kind of like businesses do when they form a consortium to purchase fuel or something like that.

Me, I just think everyone benefits from not only having good health care themselves but from everyone else having it. We can sit around and worry about who is paying their fare share and price everyone, including ourselves, out of the market or we can come to some kind of agreement on how to provide health care for all.

Filling up our emergency rooms with people who simply are looking for routine health care just makes everyone’s health care coast more. Maybe through some form of a universal system (that can still include private insurance) we could not only be able to have health care providers see everyone in a more orderly fashion but we could actually provide preventative health care to bring ultimate costs down.

And having large numbers of people unproductive in society does not help anyone.

Another problem we have had is that it seems that the so-called working poor (and that’s just a term) have been the most neglected class in health care. Those above have insurance and/or otherwise can afford it, and those out of the workforce are often on government programs that provide them with some regular form of health care (not necessarily top notch).

I think this current economic crisis has shown many that health care tied to jobs is not the way to go.

But Harry and Louise and the Joe Six Packs who still may have jobs with health insurance are probably still reluctant to support any form of universal health care, that is until theirs runs out.

But of course they deserve it.

P.s.

It would seem the simplest way to provide healthcare for all would be to expand the current Medicare program. We as a nation have accepted Social Security since the 1930s (just recall what resistance there has been to tampering with it), why is this different?