Health Care Reform is a National Security Issue

To hear the Republican rhetoric, health care reform is not socialism: it's the first domino on the path to full-blown Marxist-Leninist hell. Their first cousins, the so called "Blue Dog" Democrats share many of the same fears. But at the end of the day, neither group seems concerned about the underlying political philosophy. Their opposition to health care reform is about elections.

The Blue Dogs come from states that are truly center right, which means that anything resembling a moderate Republican resurgence would be a threat to their 2010 reelection prospects. And for the Republicans, health care is just the sort of issue that they've been waiting for. Their one-time hero George W. Bush didn't lift a finger in this arena, so anything that goes wrong here can be laid at Obama's feet. In addition, the issue lends itself to the sort of simplistic platitudes at which Republican strategists excel. (I mention this last point with no little envy.)

Simply put, the status quo threatens the entire US economy and everyone within it. Today, $16 out of every $100 dollars created by the economy goes into our failing health care system. When that figure hits the $20 mark, we're all screwed. The sheer magnitude of the expenditure will pull down all the productive parts of the economy. And since even conservative estimates have health care expenditures growing at 6% annually, the point of no return is coming up very fast. (The Great Recession is hastening its arrival.)

If the status quo threatens our way of life, then fundamental change is the only alternative. Obstructionism teeters on being nothing short of unpatriotic, not a sentiment that I often raise. Elected officials have a right to their opinions, but hopefully voters will recognize that politicians who oppose reform are serving special interests over their constituents.

I'm not suggesting that the Republicans accept everything that the Democrats are pushing for in in the current effort. Some of it is deeply flawed. What I am advocating is that they engage in the finest tradition of an opposition party and develop their own, practical ideas for overhauling the system. (As some Senators and House Members now know, this sort of thing is actually very hard work.) Only then can we have an honest competition of implementable ideas. That would be best for the nation: the best alternative is, however, any change proposed by the Democrats. Even bad legislation will break the logjam and move us away from the abyss. It may not be perfect, but it's better than what we have today.

Follow Michael B. Laskoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mlaskoff

Comments

[davedave]

the insurance companies have a trump card. at the age of 65 every "uninsurable" becomes fully insured through medicare. if they can mumble, deny, delay, obfuscate, and generally move all of the people who need care onto the american taxpayer, they win. this means they collect the premiums and pay out benefits w a spread of around 20% in their pockets. whoah! medicare has an overhead of about 3%....

the trick is to get them and their money into the system before they become eligible for medicare. most of the "fix" for medicare is to involve us all in the system before we break it completely!

d

[noneIn2008]

In the manual, step one: create a crisis.
Step 2 mobilize a volunteer army to fight the crisis.

[Realization]

Whose manual? Sounds like GOP tactics.

[rationalisst]

Sounds like what the GOP tried to do with Social Security a few years back, eh?

[iskra]

They can't scare us with their Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD)

I lived for 40 years in Canada, had my father in-law have bypass surgery and a stroke, 3 months in ICU, my father had bypass surgery, my mother in-law broke her hip and was in the hospital for 4 months.
I've had a child there too and one here in the US. The care I got in Canada was by far superior to the quality of care I've received here in NYC, which should be one of the better places in the US.

The countless hours of fighting with insurance companies about coverage, waiting to see specialists, old run down hospitals and the huge amounts of deductibles, co-pays and other 'not covered' expenses have been ridiculous.

I'll take the Canadian system, warts and all, over my 'claim denied' very expensive health care here any day.

They can't scare me with their 'Socialism' paranoia.
They can't scare me with their 'government' between you and your provider.

BUT I CAN SCARE THE REPUBLICANS AWAY EASILY : SOCIALISM ---- BOO!!!

[jmpurser]

"Simply put, the status quo threatens the entire US economy and everyone within it."

The obvious yet generally unspoken truth.

"If the status quo threatens our way of life, then fundamental change is the only alternative."

A clear, common sense, even "conservative" statement describing not only our need for change but the magnitude of that change.

I thank you for both of those. Clarity is all to often lost in this debate so going over the fundamentals is appreciated.

However your assertion that any legislation will help "break the log jam" I find to be dubious. I think the truly horrible "public option" style plans before us are much more likely to be not the first step towards real health care reform but the last gasp. The all but foreordained failure of these plans, with their nearly complete dependence on the utterly failed foundation of our current system, is most likely to destroy any real hope of not only health care reform but the rest of President Obama's agenda. Worse, it's likely I think to cast a long shadow over any hope of real progressive change in this nation for a generation or more.

I truly hope I'm wrong. But I'm afraid my allotment of mistakes was used up when I thought Obama might be the right man for these times.

[taniacaa]

It is important to keep the good in our current system and correct the bad. For example, we should remove deductibles and co-pays (insurance pays 100% of allowable rates) for routine annual screening, preventative care exams and tests, and primary care visits. Then put the co-pays and deductibles for ER visits etc. instead of imposing co-pays and deductibles on everything.

[georgewetherill]

Do you all agree we should cover the 12 million illegals also. The Heller amendment would have not allowed national healthcare to non citizens. The Ways and Means Comm. voted straight party lines and the Dems crushed it. So the say outright that illegals wont be covered but throuhgh another amendment docs and hospitals wont be allowed to ask for proof of citizenship. I feel this will open the floodgates for people seeking free healthcare from other countrys. Its gonna be bad enough if all this comes to be law and will ruin , possibly a bankrupt the economy. People really need to know what thier so excited about getting into law. I work hard and pay my own way so all this is just more goverment that we dont need. Reform yes. This NO.

[Aaror]

We cover the illegals now, they go to the ER and get medical care. Of course, it costs a lot more than covering them normally, but I guess making a point is more important than saving everyone money?

[rationalisst]

And if you have ever spent any length of time in an ER (these days, any time spent in an ER is generally a LONG time, as I can personally attest - in the past year I had two visits with a loved one that were 9 hours and 13 hours, respectively) you'll know that people use the ER as a one-stop health care provider these days. Got a sniffle? Take it to the ER! Tummy ache? ER! Bladder infection? ER! Meanwhile, people with serious problems go through triage and then have to simply wait because there is no space available. Sure, they take the actual emergency cases seriously, but even those can be shuffled aside because there just isn't anywhere to put them. But people keep coming because it's the only health care they can get without insurance. The ER legally can't turn them away.

It's a truly broken system. Anyone who disputes this fact ought to take it upon themselves to go sit in an urban ER for a day and get a dose of reality.

[Echoing]

For those of us who are concerned about Health care in this country, we need tot ask the following three questions of our President, United States Senate and our Congress.

1) Why should you have a different and much more comprehensive health and pension plan than your constituents?

2) Regarding the current health care legislation that is being worked on; will you and your family go on this plan? If not, why?

3) If it is good enough for the American people, why is it not good enough for you (please remember we are also paying for all your benefits too)?

I encourage you to pick up the phone and call your representatives to ask these questions.

[Mixpixlix]

The really sad part is that entrenched interests haven't come up with anything really important or useful to the American public in decades. It seem their one and only interest is to maintain their power and use it to gurantee their financial security.

An opposition voice is important. The voice of obstruction is useless, waste time and , as is the habit these last 20 years, spins facts into fiction.

How anyone in this country can think it's OK for hardworking men and woman, people who have made their own way most of their lives to face losing EVERYTHING do to an accident or illness is incomprehensible to me.

We talk about how important chidren are then why do we care so little for the parents and other family members who provide a stable secure environment. What does this FEAR of medical castastrophe due to the national psyche? It's a deep, seeping , infected wound that has been ignored too long.

But healthcare won't get fixed unless we demand it. CAll, write, e-mail all the members of Congress who are being obstructionists. Start with Mitch McConnel who represent Kentucky one of the poorest states in the union with a very high preventable disease percentage. Then go after Grassley whose advice to those who wanted healthcare insurance was "get a job!" He recommend John Deere seeming to forget that comany has and is laying off thousands of workers.

[textynn]

I have a question for people and Im serious. If I was walking in the woods one day and found someone laying in a field dying and they asked me to get help and I said "Well, how much money have you got to pay me to go get help?" And the person didn't have any money, so I said, "sorry, but no, I wasn't going to help them if I wasn't paid x amount of dollars, etc." Then the person died. What would happen if the whole scenario was witnessed and reported. Don't you think I would probably be sent to jail for this kind of action. Im pretty sure I would be. How is what the Medical Insurance Industry does everyday any different? I mean, is it okay to act this way just because it's done with Denial letters and so called protocol of a self proclaimed authority.

[urweatherman]

I have paid enough taxes on my cigarettes to pay for health care for the rest of my life. Demand these taxes only be used to pay for my health care related to smoking....since I have been the one paying the taxes!

[usna73]

You are going to be very disappointed to find out that someday when those "taxes" are used up, as I can assure you they will be if you somehow make it to 80, you will experience a very unpleasant death from suffocation. Will you switch the machines off voluntarily?

[jmad]

Take a look at end of life care. Huge portions of health dollars are spent in the last two years of life. Do we need to keep the dying alive at any cost? Why are drugs cheaper in other countries? What other nation prevented drug price negotiations in their health plans? In what other country do the poor use hospital emergency rooms as a primary care facility because there is no alternative? On and on.
Welcome to the USA

[Opygollopy]

The first step in this is curbing the waste and repetitive tests.. Forward medical information to each step of care - that alone would save thousands for each patient. Cut the waste and needless tests.

We have single payer system here in Canada. We pay premiums once a year on our taxes for full coverage, no deductible. No waiting for specialists, excellent hospitals. Recently I was referred to a specialist in another city. My records were sent to him through computer - Cat Scan, blood tests, recent and long term history. When I got there, I got results, prognosis, etc. Everything was done, moved on to next step without having to go all througn the tests again. Saved the system money. We are organized to save the system money. I didnt have to go through it all again & am on the road to recovery. Didnt cost me a dime and the distance travelled for medical is deductible on my taxes.

Your system as it stands is geared to make the provider/h­ospitals/p­harma money. Get rid of the middleman, lobbyists and concentrate on care for the people. They will still make money and the sheer volume of people paying premiums for health care will turn a profit. You are 57th in the world for health care. It is hard to think of the U. S. as a third world country but there you are.

[textynn]

Its true. I was sent to different specialists because of a complicated shoulder injury. I had to get a new MRI and x-rays for every single specialists which all did nothing. It was weird. I was starting to get worried about my thyroid etc because of all the radiation exposure. Then after I went through about 5 MRIs and uncountable xrays in one year, my health insurance denied everything that was suggested, but not after collecting hundreds in co-pays for all of this.

[Harrier]

It's really no secret what needs to be done to make this work:
1) Everyone pays into it, except those that cannot afford it
2) The doctors and hospital agree to rates for services and drugs
3) Everything is covered

The insurance and drug companies, lawyers have been perpetuating a system to benefit themselves. Exorbitant CEO salaries are taking away from the medical care that should be provided. Their own greed has priced their services out of the market because of the fleecing they've been doing for decades. The politics have nothing to do with Dems or Repubs, but only lobbyists trying to get even more and shave services from the middle class. Other countries have better medical care for 1/2 the price. We know how much of the GNP it will cost. And what hit the hospitals and Pharma and insurance will take. Workers for each will remain the same, but the executive staff for the most part will be replaced by real workers who monitor systems and crunch the numbers.

[TJCole]

If they cared about National Security really ever, they wouldn't have broken up and sold off our manufacturing base...!

[igotthis]

You got that right!

[r3768]

Let's not discuss this as if the Republicans actually have a responsible argument or proposal that they're speaking of. Their entire battle is to keep Obama from being successful on a major domestic policy, especially since the economic recovery is slow, if happening at all. Doing so would give them 2-for-2 talking points in 2010. They care little about their constituents or their responsibility to Americans.

The Democrats could implement every amendment they want and still, the goal is for 100 rejection in the vote.

What doesn't get factored in (because it's not a clear number than can be accounted) is how much stimulus will flow into the economy if individuals, businesses and families didn't have to spend 50%+ of their post-mortgage income on health insurance alone. How much more could I spend on consumer goods if my premium -- $770 as a healthy 52-yr old female -- wasn't going to Kaiser?

Republicans are quite happy keeping Americans sick, displaced and desperately poor ...or on the verge of it ...for the next 3 years and will stop at nothing to that end.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

It's a good point on the stimulus effect. In fairness, however, I believe that the Republicans are more afraid of the government and their constituents' lack of faith in it than they are of failing health. It's one thing to believe that the opposition is misguided; it's quite another to think of them as evil.

[IronValkyrie]

Ummm.. they do kind of bring that label on themselves with their speeches, actions and voting records.

Just saying... if it walks like a duck...

[Bernique]

Why don't the Chamber of Commerce types address this as a business issue -- we are the only country where employment and health care are so closely intertwined. Why should U.S. employers have to hire and maintain costly HR/health depts. with all the paperwork, expenses, headaches, etc.? U.S. businesses are at a disadvantage when competing abroad because other countries do not impose this burden on their businesses.

There is something very stubborn about this issue, like cutting off your nose ... because of entrenched ideology.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

That's why individual states are taking up this issue even when the Congress is losing its nerve. States, unlike the federal government, have to balance their budgets, so it's interesting that a number are moving forward on the path of reform, even while under huge economic pressure. As to your specific question, I would posit that the smallest businesses are the ones who feel the impact of health care gone wild and they don't carry much weight in the Chambers of Commerce.

[Realization]

You hit on a key point. I get updates from the U.S. Chamber which is firmly opposed to a real solution to the health care problem. Always find that curious. It seems obvious to me that taking the burden of health care off the backs of companies, large and small, would allow them to focus more on business and be a competitive advantage. We have long lectured foreign governments, like those in Europe, on the need for more flexibility in labor markets. Of course, that is often the idea that employers should be able to fire more easily but it cuts both ways. Universal health care makes it much more easy for employees to move - and to become entrepreneurs, something the U.S. supposedly values highly.

Seems to me that executives are afraid of government (or of offending the GOP which is afraid of government) and that the guys on top are probably influenced by HR departments trying to protect their empires. HR departments have been growing. They are not really productive.

The national security argument is important. There are different forms of national security - latent (mfg. capability, tech, healthy/educated population) and actual (tanks, ships, boots on the ground). The first is more important unless a country faces an immediate treat from a foreign army. We need to fix health care, eliminate the trade deficit and foreign borrowing, rejuvenate manufacturing and tech.

Rich Country, Strong Army - in that order. You might add Healthy Country to that.