We All Care for Health Care
I attended my first town hall this morning in Lebanon, PA, for Democratic Senator Arlen Specter. I drove nearly an hour to get there, and arriving on time meant I couldn’t get in because it was a full house (250 seats were all that was available, though there were perhaps nearly 1,000 people there outside). But I was really there to investigate what these town hall meetings were about. After reading a Christian blog slam the motives and methods of what they claim are “so-called ‘protestors’,” and after reading thoughtful critiques aimed at conservative Christians with regards to their disagreement over the health care debates, I thought attending one of these would be educational (even though I had planned to attend before reading those reports). On all stations but FoxNews, anchors and commentators are linking the protestors to organized big business fronts who have an interest in keeping back the current version of reforms.
Brian McLaren’s own blog (linked above), says this:
As a result, I sometimes think that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Fox News may now influence many conservative Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Catholics even more than Billy Graham, Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes, Pope Benedict, or even the four gospels.
First of all, I highly doubt McLaren tunes into Rush, Hannity, or Beck; maybe he’ll tune into O’Reilly, since O’Reilly is a bit more moderate than the other three. But that would require him to turn on the FoxNews station, which is likely against his oath of being a progressive Christian. Anyway, I’m absolutely certain he’s never listened to Glenn Beck, because I do listen to Beck, and Beck begs and pleads with his listeners every day to be civil, polite, and peaceful in everything we do. The last thing we need, says Beck, is for us to behave like children and riot in the streets. It’s one thing to disagree; it’s quite another to be disruptive. Beck calls for peaceful action; McLaren ignores that aspect.
But this isn’t about Beck, McLaren, or Right-Wing radicals pulling strings behind closed (or open) doors. This isn’t about Barack Obama’s health care plan. This is about the American people, who voted for change, realizing that what they’re getting is more of the same (big, intrusive government) and not much in return (hence the “keep the change!” chanting I heard). This is about real people voicing real concerns.
I’ll be honest. There were some misinformed people there. There were some rednecks who probably only listen to Rush Limbaugh. There were right-wing groups handing out signs and posters to wave around. And there was ACORN and SEIU there handing out their signs as well. Everyone was cordial toward each other (although there seemed to be a silly competition over who could get everyone else to chant their cliché slogans). There were signs saying Obama was evil. So if somebody wants to say that these radicals and extremist sort of people are attending these protests, they are right.
But the few people I talked to were genuinely concerned and worried about the government’s current proposals for health reform. What I took away was a profound sense that this is so important to people, we all care about health care. We all want reform. And most people want good things for their fellow citizens. What they don’t want is to be told exactly what to do with their earnings.
The Obama administration, Nancy Pelosi, and other groups who are in favor of the variations of current reforms have gone on the offensive by calling dissenters misinformed, and the conclusions they are making as “simply false.” But what bothers me is that the information dissenters are receiving is not from the talk shows, it is directly from Obama himself. When there are videos showing Obama on record saying he wants single payer health care, and that in order to get to such a point there are steps to take in between, there’s no doubting what Obama’s intentions are.
The problem of the anti-dissenters is they believe the lie that “That couldn’t happen here!” They believe that government medical control, euthanasia, long lines for surgeries, or other nightmarish conditions that happen elsewhere simply won’t happen in America. Unfortunately, that line of reasoning is patently naive. Make no mistake, Obama will never implement a single payer health care system during his tenure as president. He’s promised us otherwise. But that does not mean he is not willing to take the steps necessary for later administrations and congresses to enact laws toward that end. The so-called “public option” created under the guise of competition is oxymoronic. It is designed to slowly eek away at the private options, just like in the United Kingdom.
Further, the problem with the bigger government reform proponents is that they falsely assume that those dissenting believe that things are fine with the health care industry and that reform is not necessary. Everybody agrees that there are problems. Everyone agrees there should be reform. I’ve met ZERO people pleased with the health proposals being made.
The point is this: people who believe strongly in the causes they are fighting for have every right to be angry, upset, and worried that their life and liberty is at stake. They are standing up for what they believe the rights of the American people should be. They are standing firm on their beliefs. When Jim Wallis’ Sojourners blog claims that Ralph Reed “got to ‘em” only serves as poppycock and asinine name-calling on the part of the proponents of the current reform proposals. What this amounts to is identifying people with deeply held beliefs and realistic fears to robotic copycats or pawns of another, larger organization.
The reason ordinary citizens feel threatened and worried is because after all the talk about progress, it makes you wonder why it feels like 1984.
Related Posts
View Comments to “We All Care for Health Care”
Leave a Reply
The other scary thing is that environment of fear causes the public to “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” so to speak. People seem to be arguing against things they either don't understand, or that they actually agree with.
As I said on the Sojo blog, what frightens me is that my doctor tells me he is being paid less for the same procedure than he was five years ago because my insurance company's mission is to make money for its stockholders, not to provide health care. What frightens me is that my wife, who through no fault of her own is a cancer survivor, could be denied any health insurance at all if she weren't married to me.
This *is* a matter of human rights and dignity, and the free market *isn't* going to take care of it. That's why we're talking about reform.
If doctors today are being paid less because of insurance companies' need for profit, what makes anyone think that government control or influence won't do the same? The government is obviously aware of and concerned about costs; even Obama said it should be “deficit-neutral,” an impossibility with the federal government's state of financial affairs. So costs are always going to be a factor, whether from a profit perspective or from a government spending perspective. Insurance companies enjoy a pseudo-monopoly in many states, where (at least in PA) competition is virtually absent. And it takes zero government expense to increase competition (aside from the time spent debating what laws to repeal). There are many ways to decrease costs to make health care more available to more people, and they are proven methods. Once medical care is as inexpensive as possible, then we should talk about social provisions and caring for those who still aren't covered. But as it is, more and more people cannot afford services because the paradigm of insurance payments has driven the costs upward instead of downward. In the laser eye surgery sector of medical procedures, prices have come down dramatically since it was introduced, in large part because of natural competition because insurance companies do not pay for the procedure. There's no reason to believe that in other areas this couldn't be the same way.
Which begs the question to all the social justice advocates out there who believe health care is a right: Why are you even worried about calming the fears about costs if health care is a basic human right? Why not pay whatever anybody needs or wants that they believe will increase their health quality of life? Should we not value human need and health rights over silly things such as costs? Aren't human beings invaluable, and therefore deserve any amount of money to be spent on their well-being?
Well, yes, we should. Human need and rights are the important thing here; cost is secondary.
“But as it is, more and more people cannot afford services because the paradigm of insurance payments has driven the costs upward instead of downward.”
So why are prescription medications so much less expensive in countries with “socialized medicine?” Because the drug companies know they can't get away with charging the outrageous prices that they charge in the US.
I'm not sure what mechanisms are in place in other countries. What I do know is that competition drives prices down naturally, without government mandates and regulation, and that in our nation we do not have a competitive market for prescription drugs. Patents protecting a pharmaceutical company's newly-created drug is a government monopoly, and they are legally allowed to charge whatever they want because they own the patent. What if there were no government-sanctioned monopolies in the drug industry? What if drug companies actually had to compete with each other for more consumers in order to stay in business and recoup expenses by providing the best drugs at the lowest possible cost to consumers?
As for costs, the simple fact of saving money, whether by buying at a discount, or simply refraining from spending, is a “profit.” Government could indeed be the single-payer, but it still needs to keeps costs under control, or it would be economically damaging. But the federal government cannot and has not done that. Medicare is broke. The Post Office is broke. Amtrak has been in the red since the dawn of time. Social Security (a legal Ponzi Scheme) is broke. Cash for Clunkers went broke in four days. What makes any of us believe that the government actually will spend tax money on health care and not run that “business” into the ground as well?
I'd be perfectly willing to concede that if we let the market drive and keep prices low in the health care industry, and there are still some falling “thru the cracks,” so to speak, that the government can help them out. But the key to any of this is putting patients in charge of their own care, and keeping it that way. But nothing in any of the bills protects patients from outside decision-making; it simply permits more government influence and intrusion. Hence why I wrote the other entry, “Just Write it Into Law.”
Now, regarding heathcare/insurance. Here's a thought:
If someone wants to “punish” the insurance companies, how about de-regulating it and allowing for more honest ones to compete? To think that the ‘big” insurance companies are cozy with top officials is naive. They take the hit in front of the camera, but get special treatment and keep the scam going on the American people. Without greedy politicians that not only allow but participate in this, the insurance (or banks, manufacturers, phamaceuticals, etc) could never get away with what they do!
The more big government and big business get together, the worse off all of us are… and the “Free Market” is the whipping child all the while!
Also, I'm not sure your example of the cost of laser eye surgery is a good example of competitive pricing in healthcare. This is an elective surgery that nobody *needs* – as opposed to, say, emergency open heart surgery, which is done with great urgency, sometimes on unconscious patients. Where is the opportunity to choose between competing pricing schemes?
I think the eye surgery is a good example in spite of its elective nature. In fact, it may be an even more appropriate because if it is indeed elective, then why would prices have fallen? If there is more need for other surgeries, and if they are indeed more appropriate to quality of life (cuz glasses are cheap compared to eye surgery), then the higher demand should indeed bring prices down in a competitive market. There are zero examples of it otherwise.
Again, I think we're asking the wrong questions, and we're making an improper diagnosis, so our treatment for the problem will be off. Bloodletting was the “right choice” at the time because of the diagnosis. Science has shown us that the diagnosis was not correct. Health care is not immune from economic laws.
Some excellent points XFREE made, and including the opening for this blog by Doug . Medicare does this now XFree . Already doctors in many areas refuse patients who are on Medicare . The assumption government will now step to the plate after failing to do so worries me .
Also living in a state where there is much of live and let live culture , state of Washington, we have had government control by the very liberal element of the democratic party . We have seen insurance companies flee the state because of mandates and regulations. The democrats have not caused availabilty of health care to beoce cheaper or more available with their ideas , and the view the President will make it easier for the desire of reform I find to be an accurate understanding of the situation. The syatem is broke with out the democrats making it worse and the republicans basically going along for political gotchas. The free market is anything but in our system , we have insurance make the competition basically go away . There is no incentive to shop around for doctors or pharmacies for a monetary savings . Deductibles aere the same on a 500 dollar doctor visit or a 200 . Mandates and regulations cause a person who is single to pay for the insurance options available for materinity , and other medical options the person will never need . But they pay for that deluxe coverage anyway .
What did Reagan use to say , , the nine words he feared most were ” I am with the government and here to help”. Also the news coverage of the side bar of the disruptions at the Town Hall Meeting and the organized mob rule seems almost like the DNC Talking points got to the mainstream media , except FOX of course . I got some local Jeff beck Emails asking to go to Town Hall meetings , interestingly they ask everyone to be polite but ask questions . The attempt to make people who are concerned about health care , and changing the way things are done and put them into a neat little anti government mob backfired . Stopping what could and should have been a good debate and causing the democrats to run for cover , the far left pick up their rhetoric, and republicans sit back and try to figure how many seats they will not pick up in 2010.
Political parties hurt this needed reform . The folks blaming FOX or the ones talking about death panels just got in the way.