13 myths about health care reform

Myth #1 Congress is voting on a bill that is proposing “socialized medicine.”

Insurance company shills like to throw this term around a lot without ever defining it. Essentially a socialized plan would mean that the government would own all hospitals/clinics/rehab centers/pharmaceutical companies etc . . . and employ all doctors, surgeons, physical therapists, psychologists etc . . . NO ONE in congress has proposed such a plan, and not even the most radical of us on the left (yes I said us) supports such a plan. Some of us on the left and a handful of people in congress support a single payer system which would eliminate insurance companies and place the government in charge of one large, non-profit, single payer insurance system. The hospitals, clinics, and doctors would all still be privately owned and employed. None of them would be government employees in any direct way. There are many merits of single payer which I have already explicated in prior posts, but as such a system has not been proposed in congress I will move forward.

(As a caveat to that Denis Kucinich with the support of a handful of republicans has managed to include a provision in one of the bills in the house which would provide for states to have the option of creating their own single payer system. This, however, is not a provision for a federal single payer system).

So what has been proposed?

The extent of new government involvement in the health care system consists of two key provisions of several of the health bills that are currently under consideration in congress. The first of these is an employer mandate which would require larger corporations (like Wal-Mart for example) to provide health insurance options for their full time employees. The second of these is the often misunderstood and misrepresented “public option.” A public option basically means a government run insurance company which would compete against already existing insurance companies. They would be limited in the sense that they would not be able to exclude people for pre-existing conditions but they would also be non-profit freeing them up in theory to lower the cost of insurance premiums. This public option would therefore provide competition for already existing insurance companies forcing them to lower their own costs. In theory, however, the fact that the public option would be required to cover pre-existing conditions could cancel out the profit aspect of the private insurance companies making the cost difference between these two options negligible. The appeal of the public option is that it would essentially provide a market for insurance in places where there currently is none thereby providing consumers with greater choice in their health care options. Other types of public options have also been proposed including co-ops which would be privately run but would be non-profits that would be highly regulated by the federal government.

Myth #2 The proposed legislation has provisions which would require patients with certain conditions be euthanized.

This bold faced lie has been most recently propagated by none other than the former lame duck executive of Alaska herself—Sarah Palin. The idea that euthanasia among the elderly or disabled will be encouraged or mandated is absolutely untrue and has been proposed no where in any of the legislation in either branches of congress. This notion is utter nonsense and has been recently included in the health insurance public relations campaign to kill health care legislation in order to scare you. The only bill in congress which comes remotely close to anything of this sort (and it’s really not close at all) is a bill proposed by a couple of republicans in the house which essentially makes it easier for individuals to create a living will. Once again the public option would function in essentially the same was as an insurance company does. It cannot dictate life and death for the customers of the service.

Myth #3 The proposed health care legislation would limit your choice of doctors more than it is already limited.

Again, the public option is essentially an alternative insurance plan, and like any insurance plan there will be doctors that chose to participate and doctors that do not. Anyone who thinks that you can have any doctor of your choice under our current system has never gone to the doctor. Under the current system insurance companies cover the doctors that are on their panels and do not cover the doctors that are not. This will change one way or the other under the proposed pieces legislation under consideration in congress.

Myth #4 The proposed legislation would eliminate private health insurance.

Again, the public option is an OPTION not a mandate. This means that if you want to keep your private health insurance you are FREE to do so.

Myth #5 The public option will be subsidized by taxes.

The public option works the same way an insurance company does, meaning that you pay a monthly premium. Thus the program will not be payed for by taxes in the long run (in the short term I imagine that some tax money will be used to establish the system, but it will not be subsidized to lower premium costs).

Myth #6 The public option would be oppressive to small businesses.

Quite the contrary the public option will not only relieve small businesses of the inability to provide health care to their employees but will also free up more people to start their own small businesses because they will be able to (in theory) purchase their own affordable health insurance via the public option.

Myth #7 The public option will place bureaucrats between you and your doctor where there are now none.

The bureaucrats which currently stand between you and your doctor consist of people who’s only incentive is to make a profit off of you. In other words health insurance bureaucrats have every insinuative to deny you the expensive care that you may need. A government on the bureaucrat, on the other hand, has an incentive to be re-elected by you. With a public option you would have the option of choosing the type of bureaucrat you would like between you and your doctor. One that is accountable to you or one that is accountable to his/her bottom line.

Myth #8 There is legislation currently in congress that will provide insurance coverage for everyone (universal coverage).

This is untrue. The public option still requires people to sign up for it. It is not a universal health care solution.

Myth #9 Barack Obama has a health care plan/bill.

The Obama administration has proposed no health care reform whatsoever. They have been very outspoken about the IDEA of health care reform but they have only tentatively backed certain ideas being discussed in congress regarding health care. Congress is where the legislation has been (or is being) proposed. The Obama administration has little to do with it other than the fact that President Obama is likely to sign whatever health care legislation (no matter how wimpy it is) congress decides to pass.

Myth #10 The public option will raise costs.

In theory more people will purchase insurance with a cheaper public option. The more people have insurance the more people will participate in preventative care rather than just showing up to an emergency room when small things turn catastrophic. This will reduce costs overall because less people will be forced to use only the most expensive kind of health care—emergency care.

Myth # 11 the public option will lower the quality of care.

Again the public option is simply an additional insurance option and will not affect the quality or timeliness of care. Our health care system is ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization, and we have the highest infant mortality rate (as in more babies die in child birth) than any other industrialized country in the world despite the fact that we pay more for health care than any other country in the world. Things are already very bad.

Myth # 12 The public option will replace medicare or medicaid.

Again, there is little else to say other than this is simply not true. The public option is simply another insurance option and has not been proposed to take the place of medicare or medicaid in any way shape or form.

Myth # 13 A public option will eliminate innovation in medicine.

Insurance company profits do not fund medical studies (please if you know of a major innovation in insurance in the last 50 years other than the advent of the computer—which of course insurance companies were not responsible for—please let me know). Pharmaceutical companies and companies that make medical equipment along with the government are the major contributors to medical research.

Those are the most common myths that I have heard. If there are other things you have heard that you would like me to address please leave a comment in the comments section.

Also, a note to my conservative friends that appose the public option. Please do not continue to propagate the proceeding lies about the public option. If you oppose the public option, that is fine, but there are sensible and honest ways of having a debate on the topic. If you like our current insurance system and do not want to see it changed, just say so, there is no reason to make things up to scare people.

More Wendel Potter on democracy now!

Former health insurance exec comes clean.

Bill Moyers interviews Wendell Potter—a former health insurance executive—about the PR campaign against Michael Moore and sicko. Potter admits that Moore "hit it on the head" with his documentary, and that people should not be afraid of government involvement in health care because such systems have "been proven" to function better than our system.

Great News

It's nice to see BYU catching up to the times. BYU has finally decided to catch up to the times and remove their youtube ban. As a student at the afore mentioned institution I am glad to hear that BYU is no longer going to be resorting to such ss like tactics to prevent the free flow of information. Of course, the ban wasn't all that hard to subvert in the first place. Even so, I am glad to see that BYU has finally recognized the utility of the internet and the importance of real independent media. Now If only we could get them to allow facial hair—that would be real progress.

Bones leaves the American Medical Association!

Ok, it's Chris McCoy not Bones McCoy. Either way, being the star trek nerd that I am, any time a Dr. McCoy opens his mouth my ears perk up just a little. What is Dr. McCoy all out of sorts about you ask? Well, he's quitting the AMA due to their speaking out against a public option for health care. Dr. McCoy has some interesting things to say about health care policy and the American Medical Association here:

Letter to AMA

If you're too lazy to read, and you'd rather listen here is a link to an interview that democracy now! did with the doctor:



Democracy Now! interview

If I was the AMA and had insurance companies paying me millions of dollars every year, I would probably come out against policy plans that have the potential to lower their profit margains and petty cash as well. Too bad I'm a person that cares about my health care costs and not about Keiser's spending money.

Troubling Times

I think the most troubling thing to me as I sit and watch the bailout news every night is not, surprisingly enough, the amount of money we are spending to get out of this recession. Most economists have acknowledged that the only way to stave off this disaster is to spend money. I think the really troubling thing is how we are spending the money. We have bailed out financial firm after financial firm with billions of dollars without making any changes to the financial industry itself. I recognize that some bailing out of the financial industry was necessary to avoid a devastating economic collapse, but the more we give to financial firms the more money we are throwing away into non-production industries. In addition, if we continue to allow these companies to legally operate at sizes that are too big to allow to fail, then we will be doing all of this again in 10 years. We need to bust up some of these companies so that when they take financial risks they are allowed to fail when they make bad investments.

One of the primary reasons all of the financial industry bailouts are so troubeling is that financial companies don't really produce anything. In order to make money you generally need to produce something that someone else wants to buy. In other words, in order for us to be able to pay back all of this debt we are incurring in order to save ourselves from the greed of the financial institutions that we are now sustaining we need to start building marketable things.

The building of stuff is also helpful in the sense that building stuff creates jobs. Sure, giving money to wall street companies may create a few high paying financial jobs, but that doesn't help the majority of people in this country that are losing their jobs. The people who really need the work, and who will quickly spend their money thereby stimulating the economy are low wage earners in fields like construction and manufacturing.

This brings us to the recent bankruptcy of General Motors. I don't know whether or not bankruptcy was necessarily the right move for GM or not, but what I do know, is that GM, unlike the financial industry, actually produces something. The problem with GM is that they have not been producing things that anyone really wants to buy. Sure, you'll hear a lot of people complain that it was the union that brought down GM, but the fact remains that even with union costs when I go to a car lot the cars from GM are still significantly cheaper than the cars made in Japan. GM's problem, however, has been that the cars are not just cheaper in cost than the Japanese cars, they are also cheaper in how they are made. Toyota is the leading seller of cars in the United States, not because they have the lowest costs, but because they have a reputation for making the most reliable cars. GM needs to learn that when someone spends thousands of dollars on an automobile they want something that isn't going to break down all the time.

GM's other problem is that they killed the electric car and the hybrid (even though they were actually the first company to come up with those ideas) in order to sell Hummers. This lack of forsight into the future of gas and oil has also been a disasterous move for GM.

I fear that the way we are handeling the company now may also be disasterous. Sure, major restructuring is needed, but when the restructuring involves closing plants in the United States in order to open plants in Mexico, I think that is problematic. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Mexico per say, but in order for us to get out of the recession we need to create and keep jobs in the United States first, and then we can worry about job creation in Mexico.

I think Ralph Nader addresses some important concerns with the GM situation in these letters to President Obama: Letter #1, Letter #2.

Judement Day

The other day I was getting my social networking fix, as I often do when I am trying to avoid doing any actual work, and I couldn’t help but notice many of my friends had status updates regarding the california supreme court decision to “uphold marriage” (as they like to put it—which is a little ironic considering that the ruling actually supported an amendment which took marriage away from people). During my facebook perusal I quickly noticed an interesting theme to much of the political twitter. For the most part these updates sounded something like: “Jack Buar—facebook status updates always begin with the person’s full name—is grateful that the california supreme court upheld the will of the people etc . . . “.

I should of course mention that Jack is a fictional name, and that I do not have any facebook friends named Jack—at least not that I know of. Somehow the number of facebook friends I have attached to my profile has managed to far exceed the number of people that I actually know.

Such statements could leave one to believe that my facebook friends don’t understand the role of the judiciary in the United States—seeing as how I didn’t see any facebook status updates which expressed gratitude at the supreme courts decision to uphold the rule of law, or delight that the highest court in california upheld the constitution. No, they were happy that the court “upheld the will of the people.”

Now, it could be that I’m reading way too much into facebook updates. I am all too aware that a casual misreading of facebook updates can lead to some odd assumptions about people. My facebook status today, for example, will likely say something about my plans to attend the X96 “Big Ass Show.” Sadly, such a statement is likely to be misinterpreted by one of my non-Utahn facebook acquaintances to mean a pornographical sir mixalot style fetish convention or a pagan style ceremony honoring donkeys. My status, of course, actually refers to an 8 hour rock show sponsored by the local alternative radio station which likes to screw with the excessively uptight conservative Utah population by giving events salacious names. So I tend to take facebook status updates with a grain of salt.

Unfortunately, however, I have heard Glen Beck and the Fox News crew echo the aforementioned sentiment. A sentiment which represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the courts. Of course, the fact that the crew at Fox News misunderstands the purpose of the judiciary is becoming abundantly clear with regards to their reaction to the president’s supreme court nominee, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

So what is the role of the court, if not to uphold the will of the people (we are after all living in a democracy—or are we . . . ?)? Well, let us turn to the constitution, specifically article 6 which deals with the role of the judiciary, for an answer:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

According to the constitution then, the role of the judiciary is to uphold the rule of law, but especially to uphold the US constitution as the supreme law. This refers to both state and federal judges.

If you say that the role of the court is simply to uphold the will of the people you could potentially get into some sticky situations. Say, for the sake of argument, that someone immensely popular committed a major crime. For this case we’ll say that Paris Hilton wants to rob banks. And we’ll also say she has become so popular that the star struck people of California voted to make a law that would legalize bank robbing for Paris Hilton.

It’s what the majority want. Power to the people right? So what’s wrong with it?

What about the bank owners, and their rights to property? What about the people that have
their money in the said banks that didn’t support the Paris Hilton Heist Initiative?

Hmmm, me thinks there is something wrong with the role of the courts simply upholding “the will of the people.”

Now, you could certainly argue that because the constitution states that the role of judges is to uphold the law, and that the people make the law (sort of), that the role of the court is therefore to uphold the will of the people. This argument, however, becomes problematic for two reasons.

The first reason is that the people don’t really make the law. This is because we live in a democratic republic, and not, as many people would have you believe—a democracy. And why do we not live in a democracy? Well, first of all the founders wanted to avoid the pitfalls of straight democracy which historically failed in ancient Athens.

Second of all, many of them feared the education level of the masses and the consequences of majority only rule:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
-John Adams

“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong”
- James Madison

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting that vote.”
– Benjamin Franklin

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison

This is why we elect leaders to make law for us, it’s also why we have the electoral college in presidential elections—as a safeguard against the control of the mob. This is also why the courts play a role in the protection of individual rights as outlined in the constitution. Alexander Hamilton explicates this in the Federalist Papers #78:

“This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.”

In addition, law is supposed to be created by elected representatives in the legislature as a check to majority mob rule by the people so that there is dual protection for minority and individual rights.

Yes, senators and representatives are people too (well, some of them are just barely worthy of the title of people—yes, that’s a little snarky, but come on, most politicians are lawyers, do you really want to argue for their humanity?) but usually, and at least in this case, when we say “the people” we are most often talking about the populace at large which is not in the government—or at least not in charge of government.

Of course, the state of California is a bit different because it is more democratic (I don’t mean in political affiliation, but they’re that too) than most states, and frequently requires its citizens to vote on a large number of propositions each election cycle. So you could argue that this stuff about democracy doesn’t apply as much in California.

The second, and most important problem with the argument that the judiciary should simply enforce the will of the people is what happens when you have contradictory laws?

The answer to this of course is that laws have a hierarchical order. Certain laws are subordinate to other laws and can thus be ruled unlawful. The supreme law in the country, is of course, the United States Constitution and its accompanying amendments.

This brings us to the central argument that us libs are trying to make against proposition 8 in California. We believe that laws denying people rights based on gender, race, or sexual orientation are unconstitutional. This belief is based primarily on our reading of the 14th amendment section 1 which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Our argument hinges upon the idea that civil marriage provides a protection of life and property particularly with regards to custody and property privileges in the event of the separation of a couple or death of one of the partners. There is precedent for similar interpretations of this amendment. Consider, for example, Brown vs. The Board of Education which overturned state laws which established separate schools for black and white students.

The appropriate counter argument to ours is of course that the 14th amendment does not say anything about sexual orientation—not that the courts ought to uphold the “will of the people.”

This brings us to the issue of judicial interpretation. In order for judges to uphold the law they must interpret the meaning of the law. Some would argue that the constitution does not provide a mandate for interpretation. However, in order to apply the meaning of any law to any given situation it has to be interpreted somehow. Otherwise we would have to have a laws which apply to every individual situation (e.g., stealing is illegal in a supermarket, stealing is illegal in a convenience store, stealing is illegal at an office supply store etc . . . ).

The issue of interpretation is why there is such a huge battle over the current supreme court nominee Sonia Sotamayor (that’s right Mike Huckabee, Sonia, not Maria). Many conservatives are worried that a supreme court member appointed by a democrat will have a progressive interpretation of laws like the 14th amendment which could render bans on gay marriage illegal. Or, more importantly many conservatives are concerned that progressive judges will rule in ways similar to Roe vs. Wade, which some have argued represents a time in which judges overstepped their bounds by creating law rather than interpreting it because of the specificity of the ruling (maybe some day I’ll write a post about why I think we shouldn’t legislate against abortion, but this post is already too long). Why they think only liberal judges are capable of this and that judges from a conservative ideology are immune to it is beyond me (actually it likely represents a form of asinine confirmation bias in the sense that they believe that any ruling they disagree with is judicial “activism” and any ruling they agree with is clearly a correct interpretation of the constitution).

This fear is at the crux of some of the criticism which has been hurled at Judge Sotamayor. Not the more racist and ignorant criticism that she is not very smart (from Karl Rove—she was summa cum laude at Prinston, received the highest award Prinston bestows in an undergraduate, and editor of the Yale Law Review), that she’s a single mother (from politico—she actually doesn’t have any children), that she audaciously asks lots of questions from the bench in a hot headed manner (from a whole slew of conservatives which ironically seem to have no problem with Judge Scalia doing the same thing), and that she is inexperienced (again from a number of conservatives—ironically she brings more federal judging experience to the nomination than any supreme court nominee in the last 100 years).

The actual criticism that matters has to do with two statements which have lead conservatives to believe she will not be objective. Unfortunately for them, true objectivity (as the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune once told me) is completely impossible. We all bring different things to the table, and if we think we’re being completely objective we’re likely just missing one of our blind spots. Which is why I make no pretension to objectivity in this blog (please see the quote to your right ----->).

The first statement which has come under conservative fire is one made by Barack Obama in his introduction of Judge Sotomayor. He said she was empathetic. This of course seems to be a major problem among conservatives.

We want a judge without empathy? Seriously? Well, I guess we should just get Bill Gates—actually we want it to work without crashing so Steve Jobs—to program a judgment computer program for interpreting the law. Oh wait, I just saw a movie about that. I think the program was called skynet, the ruling happened on judgement day, and the sentence was termination—for everyone. It’s a good thing Christian Bale is so passionate about giving a mediocre performance, otherwise a lighting guy’s carelessness could have caused the destruction of the whole human race.

The second statement which has come under conservative fire, is an out of context remark Judge Sotomayor once made in which she suggested that her experience with her race and sex may make her better able to reach certain rulings.

Of course white male conservatives have been quick to label this statement racist (or reverse racist, whatever the hell that means). First of all, racism is not defined by enmity between races but rather systematic limitations and threats placed on minority races by the majority race. Thus people in the minority race cannot be “racist,” as their enmity can be attributed to being oppressed. Secondly, for a judge not to take their collective life experience into account would be a travesty and impossible. Take for example a case the supreme court heard last month in which the rights of young girls to not be strip searched by their school principles was in question. A woman judge, is likely to have a very different perspective on this than a male judge based on her life experience and may come to a different conclusion. Incidentally this is the very reason we have multiple judges on the supreme court rather than just one supreme judge. We all have blind spots, and our life experience allows us to see things others may not.

Based on her vast amount of experience and the unique perspective she brings to the court Judge Sotomayor certainly seems qualified to uphold the courts mandate to uphold the law and the constitution as supreme law.