absence

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.