The Health Care Debate Translated into English: An Example

The problem with the health care debate -- versus the attempt to actually reform a broken system -- can be traced to three simple problems. The first is greed, and I'm not talking about corporate variety. I am referring to the current "haves" who are content to hide behind libertarian ethics so long as Medicare/Medicaid continue to pay in a timely fashion. The second is fear. As you may have noticed, people of all ages prefer the "devil they know" to any change, even if it would make their lives better. The third is lingo. People are batting around so much Kafkaesque sounding health-speak that most of us are simply too confused to react with anything resembling reason.

To illustrate my point, I offer you a letter written by Bill Lehr, CEO of Capital BlueCross of Central Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley to The Morning Call, which is presumably something that people are familiar with in the middle of the Keystone State. He starts out clearly enough, reminding us that BlueCross is a private, not-for-profit and that reform without cost control is meaningless. (We already spend 16-17 percent of GDP on health care.)

Clear as all this is, Mr. Lehr soon enough leads right back at the Tower of Babel. Before you can exclaim 'huh', he's snapping off bits of health-speak, e.g., "Patient-centered medical homes" and "inappropriate lifestyle behaviors." And this guy is better than most.

In the spirit of encouraging rational discourse, I've decided to do my part by removing the rhetoric and sensitivities. Stripped bare, a lot of it makes sense, though I don't agree with all of it. Here goes...

1. Everyone, stop acting like children and discuss this like grownups! (Or else...)

2. We're the good guys. BlueCross has no shareholders. (Please like us.)

3. Universal health care is good, and we support it. (So should you.)

4. Reform won't matter if the cost kills the economy. (Common sense.)

5. Coordinated, preventive care saves money by keeping people healthy; it's also cheaper than withholding care until people get sick. (Didn't Franklin say something about, "A stitch in time..."?)

6. Currently, individuals don't understand how their insurance money gets spent, so they don't object when it's wasted. (That's crazy.)

7. Private competition generates innovation. (Government is notably not mentioned.)

8. Being fat and lazy increases the likelihood of getting preventable diseases. (Please lose weight and exercise.)

9. Congress, slow down so that we don't make needlessly stupid mistakes. (Tom Daschle has "not yet begun to fight" effectively on our behalf.)

10. Please be nice if you see me, Bill Lehr, in Dunkin' Donuts. (This isn't my fault.)

Note: For the record, I first tried this experiment with Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, but I couldn't make sense of anything that either of them was saying.

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

Comments

[auntiegrav]

There is no such thing as a non-profit organization. If it is organized, then there is a profit to someone.

The question here is not just about health care. That's why the debate is so tough to nail down. It's about corporations (artificial persons -sorry Data) vs. people (natural persons), and the oxymoronic phrase "corporate responsibility". The whole point to starting a corporation is to AVOID responsibility. That's what "Limited Liability" means.
Now, do we want our decisions made for us by people who spend their lives avoiding responsibility for their actions, or do we want to step up (government by the people, for the people) and make our government take on our responsibilities through our directly elected representatives?
As long as we allow anyone to make it a monetary argument, then we have already lost the game. If we let the money be in charge, then the corporations are in charge, and that means they will do what they are paid to do: avoid doing the things that are hard.
We should be training everyone at insurance companies to be working in the medical field by now. Considering the competence level of most of the doctors I've seen in my life, I'm surprised it is so hard to get into medical school. Seems to me it's a matter of the schools making almost as much undeserved money as the insurance companies.
"My border collie is smarter than your doctor."

[creolechild]

If you are concerned about receiving "real" health care reform in this country, please take the time to watch a video on our current system. The video was created by Oregon physicians who are advocating for the single-payer option. The video is very informative and helped me to gain a better understanding of various aspect of health care, as we know now it.

https://www.madashelldoctorstour.com/Mad_as_Hell_Video.html

These Oregon physicians are in the process of organizing a caravan designed to inform the public about the benefits of the single-payer option. At last count they will be stopping in approximately 23 states, on their way to demonstrate in Washington. They need volunteers and our support. Please spread the word.

[BLBass]

Somehow I don't think Shatner could do justice to this guy's letter the way he did with Palin. Shatner doing Beck is an interesting thought, except Glen's MO is more about fear and anger than about verbose twaddle.

[GeriNV]

That last comment had a lot of typos, I type way too fast for my head.

Basically, it comes to:
1. Removing the medicare age requirement for entry into the program.
2. Removing the VA service requirement for entry into the program.
3. Redefining the income requirement for medicaid.

Any of the 3 above would get us all healthcare tomorrow. What is the big deal?

[GeriNV]

You lost me. I thought you were going to simplify the comments.
1. Obesity causes disease = everyone needs to loose weight.
2. Preventative medicine = decrease cost long term.

Why push against the current when you can push down the current? Go with the flow.
If everyone wants healthcare, just redifine poverty. Currently, there is medicaid in every state. Why do you know qualify for medicaid? You don't meet the definition that the government set for poverty. So just have someone in the government redefine poverty so that it meets the threshold that covers most of the uninsured. Or alternatively, remove the age requirement for medicare - or the service requirement for the VA system. It's not that complicated, they just want to create controversy and sensationalism.

Let's really simplify the debate. Why waste my time when I know and you know that they know how to fix it tomorrow. The real question is why they don't do what is so obvious? They don't need a new bill, they need to modify current requirements.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

Universal health care - what could be simpler?

[tompoe]

Non-profit? Their executives earn multi-millions in salaries. For what? Where does the money come from, if not the patients? Will they argue that it comes from the patients' monies that then are used to play the stock market? As the stock market crashes, only then do they draw directly from the patients?

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm not sure that the Blue plans should be lumped in with the private plans. My guess is that we could resolve this by checking out the state filings for PA. Please feel free to have a go at this and post the results. MBL

[treetracker]

http://www.citizensvoice.com/news/blue_cross_seeks_24_million_in_health_insurance_premium_increases

"Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania is seeking more than $24 million in health-insurance premium increases that would affect 54,700 people."

"Blue Cross, a nonprofit established originally to help the indigent pay for health care, has drawn criticism for its surplus, which totaled $263.6 million in March. Blue Cross has used $86 million of its surplus to subsidize coverage during the last five years, Matrisciano said".

It appears they are a non-profit, but apparently aren't acting like it with a surplus of $263.6 million all the while asking for a $24 millions increase in premiums.