The Balls, Brains and Humility to Be Healthy
It's August, almost Labor Day. For a week, we've read little except about the death and pageantry surrounding the mourning for and burial of Ted Kennedy. You'll note that not even the right wing is going along with this. Why? Because they are all on vacation, just like their brethren on the left. So, too, are the Senators and House members who spent the first part of the recess getting a dose of democracy that will enliven more than a few nightmares. Like everyone else, they are taking refuge in the warm embrace of family and other -- less official -- loved ones.
Here, at the end of August, it's almost easy to forget that health care reform remains an urgent, national necessity. Whether the current effort has life in it or not is irrelevant: change must come. Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats should not confuse their impressive ability to mobilize their shrunken base in ways both shrill and frightening. True, they whipped fear and doubt into the occluded heart of fearful and reactionary voters, but preserving the status quo is no victory. It simply means that people will live shorter, less healthy lives. This sort of political victory literally makes us all sicker.
The Democrats, of course, bear plenty of blame. Quite simply, they provided us with 1,200 page bills, not rallying cries. They reminded us that the business of governing is often chaotic but did so without the a clear leader or message to make sense of it all. Maybe had Kennedy been healthy or Obama not so distracted with trying to save the economy and our collective asses, things would have been different. But Kennedy is dead and the president spent too much time staying away or playing defense to sell a nonspecific concept. Throw in the unwillingness to upset pharma or the insurance industry too much, and what should have been a difficult victory has turned into a quiet dissipation of opportunity.
Health care reform is still necessary to save the economy. Moreover, it's morally virtuous and patriotic and completely justifiable on purely selfish grounds. Currently, in more than 30 other countries everyone has access to health care and everyone lives longer, on average, than Americans. (That includes people who have already reached the age of sixty.) So the only question is do we change now or when things are much worse.
Now would be better. To get things done, I suggest that we simplify this debate. First, let's be clear: the goal is universal health care -- no ifs, ands or buts. Second, let's avoid the dread form of socialism by following in the footsteps of Germany, France and Japan. They all have universal health but no one could call their system's socialist. Three, let's have the balls, brains and humility to learn how these countries went from the concept of universal health care to functioning systems that cost half of what the status quo does in America. And finally, let's remember that exceptions don't prove rules. No system can prevent every tragedy, but that's hardly a reason to retain a system that will, for certain, lead to a lower standard of living. (In other words, the Canadians and British are still healthier than we are.)
The need is real. The way forward is clear. The message should be obvious: universal care benefits us all. Let's get on with it.
Follow Michael B. Laskoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mlaskoff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
GRUDGING RESPECT FOR HEALTH CARE PROFITEERS
In a way you have to be impressed by what Big Pharma and For-Profit Insurance has achieved.
They've managed to poison our politicians and the broader media. They've managed to entangle themselves everywhere.
They even gouge us with their side businesses...
For instance, you pay extra on your home owner's insurance in case somebody gets hurt on your property. Why? Because we don't have universal health care. Somebody has to go after you for their health care.
The same industry sells us both insurance policies! They have us coming and going.
What about Uninsured Motorist coverage. We wouldn't need it with universal health care.... Oh by-the-way, an insurance company sold you that coverage too!
They've dipped into our pockets three times all for the same FEAR! It's BRILLIANT!
I'm sure there are others examples of the insurance industry I haven't thought of.
How about STD and LTD insurance?
It boggles the mind.
It's time to end our "risky experiment" of "For-profit health insurance". It's a proven failure.
HR676 (http://hr676.org) Single Payer system that is proven, pro-business and pro-people:
* Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
* Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. Better able to compete internationally.
* Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn't compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
* More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
* Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
* Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
* Reduced system complexity. Greater efficiency due to fewer regulations.
* Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
* HSA and MSA dollars redirected back into the economy for goods and services.
* Additional money to spend from not having to carry "uninsured motorist coverage" on your auto policy.
* Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
* People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
* Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists...) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.
I believe you. If it were up to me, this would all happen. The problem is that 13 bullet points of true and well reasoned advantages of healtchare reform cannot compete with simple, incorrect concepts like socialism and "death panels." I wish that it were not the case, but it is amazing when you think about the fact that so many people at town meetings stood up and proclaimed their insistence that that Obama keep his socialist hands off their Medicare. The irony is so think that you could slice it with a knife.
Mind you, I don't think that Americans are stupid: I think that many people are afraid. Change is always difficult, but particularly when people are in a position of fear. That's why clear, dependable leadership is so important.
Much of this could have been avoided if Obama had sounded more precise when answering questions of "cost" when this was first raised. Had that been the case, the forces of the status quo would have moved on and found another point of attack. As it is, most people, I think, believe that covering everyone must cost more. And since, unfortunately, people would rather listen to pundits than read the facts, that's the enduring belief.
I honestly don't see how we can fight the right on this issue when they've given up any attempt to be constrained by truth. It's a lot easier to tell a lie than to debunk one and the right have been lying their collective butts off 24/7 about healthcare for weeks. Why they're doing it is easy to understand, it's a combination of determination to destroy Obama; being the political arm of big business and ingrained hatred of any form of government.
The right are fully intent on turning the USA into a cross between Bill Gibson and Ayn Rand: An impoverished majority who live and die completely at the whim of giant corporations, giant corporations who are beyond the law. Razing the civility of public discourse is just one step along that path and this centreist (if not centre-right) president, so in love with false equivelency, seems determined to meet them halfway.
Upon occasion, truly evil spring up in the world, but I don't think that most of the opposition is evil. They are simply fighting for their continued relevance and reelection bids. At the moment, they have found traction with the healthcare issue and defense of torture. On the surface, this doesn't make any sense, but it has clearly tapped a vein with the American electorate. Much as you or I may feel that they healthcare reform is a critical necessity, it seems that a large minority of Americans have come to feel that it stands for something sinister.
In addition, Obama has proven to be a centrist: both out of necessity and political philosophy. I do not always agree with the results, but I think that his impulse is basically appropriate for a democratically elected president. He is trying to build mainstream consensus. That's not a bad impulse. It gets derailed only when minority interests receive too much weight, as may be the case now.
Frontline on PBS did an excellent program on the healthcare systems of five capitalist democracies, what works well and what the weaknesses are. Each system is different and at least one has been designed from scratch. The entire program can be seen online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
The program is highly informative.
Thank you. As I understand it, this is based on Reid's research. I didn't realize that it had aired yet.
I clearly haven't read how those countries' health care systems work or came to be, but it was my understanding that they all were created in the wake of WWII out of immediate necessity and almost completely from scratch. I agree that we need universal health care, but with the current established private insurance stranglehold would you not support a public option as a first step? And how in your opinion would a true universal system be put into place given our current political makeup?
I really am trying to educate myself on the subject, do you know where I can find information on those foreign health care systems?
On Friday, I saw T.R. Reid of The Washington Post talk about some of these other countries. He has written a book called The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care (Hardcover). I have not read it, yet, so please don't take this as a blanket endorsement. Nevertheless, it does seem clear that this man has done his homework in a very serious way. Personally, I look forward to reading it.
As to how one brings about change when so many entrenched and well-funded companies would prefer to see things change, I think that we have to look to Congress for that. What I do wonder is whether term limits would breed a little courage in people who seem more concerned with protecting their jobs.
I just watch the T.R. Reid documentary. I was very impressed with what I saw. I asked myself why is it so difficult for Americans to do what other countries have been able to do. I concluded that it s because of a combination of the following:
1) None of the countries were a melting pot. That is to say that for the most part, all of the countries don't have a mixture of different kind of people.
2) The people in that country appear to be less SELFISH (READ LESS GREEDY) than most Americans.
3) Those countries seem to have better leadership than we have had in America. Their leaders were willing to take Health Care head on. Other than President Obama's campaign promise, most other persons in leadership seems to give a flip. America's other Presidents who fought for Health Care failed because of the other reasons that I have cited.
4) The leaders of the countries who have taken this head on care more about their citizens than our leaders do. Looks like Christianity is wasted on most Americans.
5) These other countries understand that the health of their people is the WEALTH of their countries.
6) Their systems work well because they are not like ours.
If you need balls to be healthy, than what are the ladies going to do?
Metaphor... it's a metaphor...
It's funny, but I think that they get reelected by implying that universal healthcare equals coddling of people who aren't pulling their weights. Obviously, that's not the case. The current healtcare systems fails the working middle class as well as people of lesser means. This is not a conservative or liberal issue: it's actually one in which one can both compassionate and individualist. Helping the many also helps the individual. It's just not more complicated than that.
And yes, it would be interesting to see how fast this debate moved through Congress if all the lawmakers had their own coverage placed in jeopardy.
"Balls, Brains, and Humility" -- that's an excellent rallying cry. Good job, Michael!
It is simple. The decision makers HAVE good health insurance. It is the rest of us who have no choice, inferior policies, and inferior care. The decision makers could care less. But, they need to get reelected so they can retain it. So, they screw the rest of us and lie, lie lie.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
