The Un-Credible Max Baucus and the Failure of Health Care Reform

Let's start with the obvious. US expenditures on health care are the highest in human history. And yet, we're not nearly as healthy as many countries that spend less. The undeniable conclusion is that we are remarkably bad at investing our wealth in a way that makes Americans healthy. That's not to say that we are incapable of making good decisions. For example, we managed to put fluoride in public water sources, which has been good for the country's health. Of course, that's not a recent achievement.

On the other hand, the Senate Finance committee just managed to vote for a $50 million continuation of "abstinence" sex education programs. Oxymoron aside, there is a substantial body of empirical evidence that such education does not improve public health outcomes -- like reductions in teen pregnancy; it does, however, lead healthy teenagers to experiment with many other sexual practices prior to having good old-fashioned, unsafe sex. (When they get around to intercourse, they are less likely to use condoms.)

Money spent on abstinence education is a waste, except for those pandering to please a minority of citizens who do tend to vote consistently. That's why leaving our individual and collective health in the hands of people like Senator Max Baucaus of Montana seems ill advised -- no pun intended. Despite representing a state with virtually no pharmaceutical or insurance industry presence, the good Senator receives more campaign contributions from those industries than anyone else in Congress. And while he may claim that neither group influences him, I'm quite certain that their respective lobbyists would disagree.

That's why health care reform is too important to leave to Congress: politicians and their longevity depends upon self-interested corporate donors. The result is abstinence education instead of a public option.

What we need are public health experts who are rewarded for devising and implementing plans that make all US citizens healthier and less likely to need the products and services that the pharmaceutical and current medical establishment profit from. Yes, that would mean more government bureaucrats, which could be bad, but it would make for less Baucus and insurance industry bureaucrats, which would be good.

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

Comments

[Nomccain]

With the disgraceful amount of money Bachus is receiving from t he health care insurance companies and the health care industry (nearly $4 Million) he should be disqualified to serve on this committee, much less chair it! This man has his hands in so many special interest pockets that he shouldn't be permitted to serve on anything and should be sent home.

[Project4NuBostonTeaParty]

Three steps Obama SHOULD (COULD?) have taken back in March:

(1) Appoint Howard Dean as head of health care reform task force to work with Congress -- especially the Finance committees.

(2) Limit Baucus to minor role.

(3) Start the debate with single payer on the table.

Doing all of the above or even just one would have prevented the coming debacle that Harry Reid is now in charge of.

.

[miriamac]

Hate to point it out, but the one who abandoned the public option was Barack Obama, even pressured Rockefeller.
On the bright side, maybe Chicago will get the Olympics in 2016.
As a former ardent supporter, I hope that by then the charlatan in the WH has had a good 4 years to settle back in.
Shame on you Barack Obama!

[justobserve]

The frustrating thing is despite all the incredible and illogical reasons of opponents of the reform , it seems we are not advancing the reform in the logical direction! The corruption is too obvious, yet we can't do anything! I blame it ob Obama for giving "eloquent" speeches yet in practice his "hope" and "dream" are just mere words!

[cybexg]

I blame the illogical and lying Right Wing.

[pontesisto]

Max Baucus has accepted millions from the health insurance industry and this bill clearly reflects that. Help us take a stand against the open corruption in Washington:

If you would like to help pressure Congress to pass medicare for all please join our voting bloc at:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php

If you would like to take a stand against the open Washington corruption please join our Reform voting bloc at:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Reform_Bloc.php

[All in All]

The most interesting remark that I keep on hearing during this whole Health Care debate is that there will be less Doctors & Nurses, because less people aren't going to want to be a Doctor and/or Nurse, once there is Health Care reform....

As if... I think there's a huge fire burning somewhere; I can hear the sound of the fire truck sirens going off in the wind... Thank goodness for those great people who call themselves Firemen, and who are willing to put out those fires no matter the cause & risk!

Oh, wait... This is about Health Care.

[notmd]

over 60% of the population that should be taking medication do not..most of these people are medicare patients..The goverment manages this program...let's not blame insurer or government but look in the mirror (make sure it is a large one)..

[pennypii]

60% of people are not taking meds for WHAT? Could you give us a hint of what you are talking about? Do you know?

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm confused. You're saying that the government should force people to take medication?

Also, I cannot recall ever saying that what we're doing currently is good enough; that's the whole point of change – to make things better.

[OswegoKayaker]

Not understanding your point -- the reason most people don't take medications that they should is because they are trying to save money. Maybe most are on medicare -- but that hasn't been proven. I buy my own health insurance and it is expensive enough without trying to add prescription coverage to it -- so I often don't take medicine that is prescribed for me. I have looked in the mirror and it didn't put money in my pocket to buy the medicines or give me a free pass to buy the exact same medicines from Mexico or Canada for a quarter of the cost. Oh, and I am skinny -- if you are implying that the ones not taking medicines are all fat or something. I don't eat fatty burgers only veggie ones. So, exactly what is your point.

[nyscof]

Just an F.Y.I. Modern science proves that ingesting fluoride (such as water fluoridation) is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of millions of dollars annually.

Children’s cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department .

In 2008, New York City spent approximately $24 million on water fluoridation ($5 million on fluoride chemicals). In 2010, NYC’s fluoride chemicals will cost $9 million .

Fluoride in water at “optimal” levels (0.7 – 1.2 mg/L) is supposed to reduce tooth decay without creating excessive fluorosis (fluoride-­discolored and/or damaged teeth). Yet cavities are rampant in NY’s fluoridated populations

More fluoride = more money for dentists?

Dentists' Nominal Net Income for 2000 was $533,000 up from $141,000 in 1982, according to the American Dental Assolciation Survey published in the March 2005 Journal of the American Dental Association. During the same time period, the number of Americans living in fluoridated communites went from 116 million to 172 million.

Adverse health effects of fluoride are here: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/health.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

I have a request. Before you draw conclusions, I'd be curious to know if there's a positive correlation between the consumption of sugar and the prevalence of tooth decay. If there is, it might be worth taking into consideration.

As to the surge in dentistry income, I'm shocked but fail to see its application here.

[nyscof]

You're right. More sugar = More cavities. Actually, the only scientific­ally-valid predictor of future cavities is current cavities and poverty.

Since fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth, a fluoride-deficient diet does not cause tooth decay. So there's no scientifically valid reason for adding fluoride to water supplies and siphoning off millions of dollars that can be used for other critical services.

The dentist income and fluoridation analogy is made because dentists boast that they are the only profession willing to put themselves out of business by promoting this "free" public health program . They also claim to care so deeply for poor people that they want to "give back" by making governments spend our money fluoridating the water.

However, 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients and 130 million Americans don't have dental insurance. So unfilled cavities are a national epidemic and disgrace.

In order to stave off inevitable mandates to treat all Americans, organized dentistry has gone on the offensive by convincing legislators that fluoridation will solve the problem.

But that's false.

We need to train dental therapists in this country to do the work that dentists refuse to do. But organized dentistry is way too powerful and lobbies against this perfect solution because they like their lucrative monopoly - even if Americans must suffer.

Without organized dentistry, there would be no fluoridation.

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

Black humor: What's bad for patients is good for morticians. Of course, one might quibble and note that there is limited economic utility of allowing unnecessary death to support a single industry.

Then again, we don't have a problem aiding and abetting the firearms industry when it comes to imagining every possible excess that the second amendment can inspire.

[nellyb stl]

Mr. Laskoff, are you saying the Senate Finance Committee did not call on the advice of public health experts before taking their crucial vote? Better yet, on an issue this important which affects all Americans and 20% of our GDP -- we need the public (65% in favor) and doctors (73% in favor) to be able to give their vote - let's have a NATIONAL vote. If the Constitution isn't working as our Founding Fathers intended - FIX IT...

[Michael B. Laskoff - Huffpost Blogger]

No argument here. No document that denied women the vote, institutionalized slavery and did not bother to consider to consider the health, well being and property rights of the people who were already living on our manifest destiny can be considered perfect. As I have said before, it's hard to imagine what "life, liberty and happiness" means without access to a system that will help you to stay healthy.

[PlaceboStudman]

I have said, and I have been saying for a long time, that the people who should have the biggest hand, or the loudest or most influencial voice in health care reform are the people who are likely to use health care the most, and therefore have a better sense of what exactly needs to be reformed. In this case, that distinguished honor *should have* fallen to the disabled, critically and terminally ill, who are all too familiiar, not only with the ins and outs of insurance, but with the actual product of health care that we receive when we have insurance. By allowing those who have the most experience, and therefore the most working knowledge of the issues, we would have been better able to balance the issues of cost AND quality.

However, since the majority of people who have been in charge of this debate are people who do not necessarily expect or are prepared to deal with the medical system independent of the payment system, we end up with the situation we have now, where people are all too willing to sacrifice quality for low cost

And, many of us already know, it doesn't matter how much or how little you pay once you're dead, and many people WILL die from the absolutely horrendous third world state of our medical system, completely independent of the payment issues