Crossleft and the Health Care Debate
Four months ago, I didn't know very much about health reform. I had a vague notion of supporting universal health care based on the experiences of friends and family members who cannot obtain health care insurance. I didn't, though, have any opinon on what kind of system would be best. I'd hear people mention single payer health care, the public option and an all private insurance system, and I had little understanding of what the terms meant, or what the strengths and weaknesses of each system were. Over the past 4 months, I've been trying to educate myself on the different types of health care to better understand what was being said in the recent debates that we're having right now on the health care reform bill that is going through Congress. I did a cartoon for the November 11, 2009 edition of the Tri-City Voice on the road to health care reform.
Here at Crossleft are several insightful blogs on the health care reform debate. As the Senate begins its debates on health care reform, here are some of the blogs that the Crossleft writers have done on these past couple of months health care reform debates. Some are supportive of the Democrats. Some are critical. All of them offer great insights on a progressive Christian view of the health care debate.
No Government Enforced Bondage to The Insurance Companies
Setting the Record Straight on Subsidiarity and Effective Government
Hey ! I Want My Faith Values Recognized Too
Ted Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Universal Health Care
Democrats & Bipartisanship
The Catholic Right, "Subsidiarity" and Health Care
Don't Bet on Getting a Public Option
Progressives and Government
Catholic Right Takes Aim At the Public Option
Choosing Sides ; In Health Care, Jesus Sides with Poor
Universal Health Care, Harry S. Truman and the Throne of God
Comparing Co-ops and the Public Option
Defending Private Property Through Universal Health Care
Thoughts on Universal Health Care
Uncommon Ground, Even Among Catholics
7 theses on health care
I hope you don't mind the plug, but here also are some cartoons I did on health care reform:
The Tri-City Voice Cartoon for October 21, 2009
The Tri-City Voice Cartoon for September 30, 2009
The Tri-City Voice Cartoon for September 23, 2009
The Tri-City Voice Cartoon for August 26, 2009
The Tri-City Voice Cartoon for August 19, 2009
The Tri-City Voice Cartoon for July 29, 2009
I found several magazines that offer great explanations on the various issues surrounding health care reform. The June 27, 2009 issue of the Economist devoted some great articles on health care systems in Europe, from the single payer programs in England and Sweden to the mixed private/public health care system of France to the all private insurance system in Switzerland and the Netherlands, and tried to find elements that could be adopted to the United States. The Economist saw the U.S. health care bill moving towards the Swiss and Dutch systems of private insurance. The June 27 Economist writes:
"After decades of failed attempts at reform, a consensus appears to be emerging in America around the principles needed for universal coverage. One likely change means a restructuring of America's failed health-insurance markets. Firms are today allowed to pick the safest patients and reject the sickest. In future they will have to take all comers. Because this imposes unfair burdens on firms that attract lots of older or sicker people, reform is likely to include government-funded mechanisms for risk pooling or reinsurance.
If done properly, this will in time move America towards the Swiss and Dutch models of universal private insurance. These are not perfect, to be sure. Regina Herzlinger of Havard Business School observes that the Dutch reforms have led to rapid consolidation of insurers and hospitals, fueling resented price increases. She favours the decentralized Swiss model, which preserves individual choice and competition. Others note that Swiss health-care costs are high by European standards. But they are a third less, as a share of GDP, than America's, and the country's excellent health outcomes should be the envy of American reformers."
This issue also gives a good reason why health care reform is needed.
"Diagnosing what is wrong with America's health-care system is the easy part. Even though one dollar in every six generated by the world's richest economy is spent on health- almost twice the average for rich countries- infant mortality, life expectancy and survival-rates for heart attacks are all worse than the OED average. Meanwhile, because health insurance is so expensive, nearly 50m Americans, an obscene number in such a rich place, have none; those that are insured pay through the nose for their cover, and often find it bankruptingly inadequate if they get seriously ill or injured.
The costs of health care hurt America in three other ways. first, since half the population (most children, the very poor, the old, public sector workers) get their health care via the government, the burden on the taxpayer is heavier than it need to be, and is slowly but surely eating up federal and state budgets. Second, private insurance schemes are a huge problem for employers: the cost of health insurance helped bring down GM, and many smaller firms are giving up covering employees. Third, expensive premiums depress workers' wages."
The July 1, 2009 issue of the New Republic, the July 20, 2009 issue of The Nation gave great editorials on the need for health care reform. The Washington Post Weekly was very informative on the politics behind the push for health care reform. Roger Bybee, a Milwaukee based activist, wrote several good articles for the December 2008 and November 2009 editions of Z Magazine on the differences between Obama's health care proposals and the single payer health care plans.
- Angelo Lopez's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
The Heath Care Bill & Serfdom
From Blogging For Michigan
This proposed health care bill, both House and Senate versions, are evidence of the trend towards a new feudalism in the U.S. This government enforced financial servitude to the insurance companies is a good example of the government for the corporation, by the corporation, and of the corporation mentality that predominates the mindset of our elected leaders. Wealth and our tax dollars, as in the Wall Street bailout, continue to flow upward, much the same as serfs paid to their masters in the middle ages and share croppers paid to the landowners in the South in the 18th and 19th century. And if a war needs to be fought for the profits of our masters, the peasants fight it. Not as much as we like to think has changed in America in the last couple of hundred years and maybe we aren't as special as we think we are.
Timely Blog
Thanks for this timely blog Angelo.Between the lefties who won't vote for anything without a public option and the righties who won't vote for anything with a public option, I don't know if this current legislation is going to make it or not.
My opinion is that the current legislation is just a give away to the insurance companies that is going to do little in the area of health care reform. I am with Kucinich when he said " The insurance companies are the problem, not the solution." I do not want my tax dollars going to the bonuses of insurance executives who found better ways to screw we the people out of benefits. I absolutely detest the idea of the federal government making it a crime not to have health insurance.As my above post suggests it is government enforced bondage,part of an overall trend towards a new kind of feudalism. The Lords are the corporations though, and we all exist to serve their needs. Government for the corporation by the corporation, and of the corporation.
We are still going to have deductibles, co-pays, limits, etc. Yes they will have to take people with pre-existing conditions but they will be put into high risk pools and they will pay. If no one can afford the high risk pool, it really isn't going to matter anyway, if they can't afford it.If one has a terrible policy through work, they can't just drop it and go for something in the insurance pool.
Meantime in Michigan, the official unemployment rate is over 15 %.
still at 15%?
Is the unemployment rate still at 15% in Michigan? I am hoping that the slight gains most other states saw this month were also seen in Michigan. I know, with the percentage of people Michigan has working (or previously working) in the auto industry, it's not going to recover as quickly as other states. I am lucky, I suppose, that the petroleum industry is still relatively strong. And while I can be minutely critical of the oil companies, I can't seem to be as critical as perhaps they deserve, it was big oil that fed me and clothed me growing up, gave me money to go to college, and supported every community effort without fail. It'd be sort of like biting the hand what fed me.
As for health care, we can know (and we do) that a single payer system is the only way to achieve what we want, but can we really just wash our hands of it all because that's not what we can have? The other side has done a much better job of things, even my mother is against any sort of health care system, even though she takes full advantage of what the Choctaw tribe offers, which is very much like a single payer system. I mean, my whole family drives up (or down, depending on which family member we're talking about) to the Choctaw health center(s) when we're looking at needing a big ticket item (like orthotics, know how much those cost???), or something the regular insurance doesn't cover. I tend to drive up more in the first of the year before my deductible is met. But my mom is scared of the "death squads" etc., and it breaks my heart this New Deal Democrat has bought into these lies so completely. They simply did a better job of moving the "conventional wisdom" over more to their way of thinking.
So I do feel like we must take what we can get, thinking that once something is in place perhaps it may be a smidge easier to gradually make changes. Silly me, I thought it wouldn't be that hard to soften up the mood of the country, we simply had to show how the systems in the UK or Canada or elsewhere worked. I know I'm envious when hearing relatives talk about it. We failed at this, just didn't do enough. I AM not giving up and trying to step up my efforts. Jim, I HATE, totally hate, phone banking, I can't think of anything more painful and yet more boring. But it's gotta be done, and I can do it. Ick. But I can do it, my schedule is liquid enough I really can make these calls 2-3 hours a day. Any more than that and I become a danger to myself and others. :)
I'm sorry to hear about Michigan's unemployment rate
I'm sorry Jim, to hear about Michigan's unemployment rate. A lot of people are really suffering. I know a lot of friends and family who are unemployed, and recently, the NUMMI auto plant in nearby Fremont is closing down. I hope things get better soon, but I don't see anything good in the horizon.
I actually am hoping the health care reform bill passes. It's an imperfect bill, but I was expecting things to get watered down when it gets through the 535 people in Congress. I'm of the mind that if this bill passes with even a watered down public option, reformers could make corrections to it in the future.
I think these past few months show how much a strong health reform package needed someone like Ted Kennedy to lead the way in the Senate. He had the interpersonal skills, the political know-how, and the knowledge of the Senate process to lead a stronger bill. As much as I admire Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep Dennis Kucinich, neither has the influence that Kennedy did to push for a more progressive reform. I think one of the great losses was when Kucinich's proposals to allow states the option to have single payer didn't pass. I'm wondering though if that means that individual states have to adopt single payer systems through their own state legislatures, or does the current bill prohibit states from choosing on their own to have single payer systems. I'm wondering if supporters of single payer would have to agitate in each individual state for change. Perhaps Vermont, which elected Bernie Sanders, would be open to such a system.
I'm just thinking of the example of the woman's suffrage movement. They would try one tactic and when that didn't work, they would go on to another tactic. First they tried to go to the state legislatures. Then they tried civil disobedience tactics to get the issue in the courts. Then they tried to have an amendment to the constitution. If this bill winds up being a watered down reform with a weak or no public option, what other ways can we get health care reform at least in some states?
Angelo
Individual States
Angelo they killed the Kucinich amendment that would have allowed states to develop individual single payer formats.This is just an example how we are all being set up with this crazy system they are proposing. We will be in bondage to the insurance companies, one way or the other, or we will be criminals. We will pay our Lords of the Manor or we will be punished.The chances of a strong public option are dead and there may be no public option at all.There is a lot of talk currently in progressive circles to the effect of "Just go with it for now, anything is better than nothing." I don't think that is true. I won't weep if this monster of a bill isn't unleashed.
Support on health care bill, but realize it's imperfect
I share many of the same worries that you do about many of the features of the bill that came from the House. I read in the recent Christian Science Monitor that the Senate version thus far doesn't have the same mandate to force everyone to have to buy health care insurance, so I'm crossing my fingers. I think because the make up of the Democrats in the House contains a large amount of Blue Dog Democrats, and because we don't we don't have the leadership of a Kennedy in this reform effort, it's just naturally going to be a watered down bill. Centrists are leading the way on this bill, and they're going to direct the bill more towards the center.
I remember you writing in the past that we should be working to vote more progressives to Congress, and I think that is the way to go in the future, so that bills don't get so watered down. But for now, I think a watered down bill is better than no bill at all. There are enough things that both the House and Senate versions of the bill have that I agree with that I would support it. It forced insurance companies to take in people with pre-existing conditions. It fines companies that have over 50 employees if they do not help them get health care insurance. And it'll cover over 31 million people who are right now uninsured. I think the thing we need to hold the line on is a public option. I personally don't mind if it's a watered down public option, if it can get the votes needed, so long as it's in the final bill. If it passes, I think a watered down public option could be strengthened later on, as the general public sees the benefits of the government option.
I'm reading a book right now called the Kennedy Legacy, by Vincent Bzdek. In it he wrote something about Ted Kennedy's philosophy that I agree with. He wrote:
"If you can't get it all, increments," noted Feinberg, explaining Kennedy's legislative philosophy. "Incremental reform. He has confidence that once the incremental reforms are put in place, they will work. And people will come back for more. so he was always willing to bargain hard, make demands, work out the best good you could get short of the perfect."
It may be that Ted's own imperfections gave him a greater tolerance for the inevitability of imperfection, an appreciation of gray areas and the necessity of baby steps when walking towards the promised land. The lives he'd lost had increased, for him, the value of something, however bastardized, over nothing- a piece of the pie if you couldn't get the whole pie.
I think Kucinich had a good idea about going to individual states to try to set up single payer systems if you can't get it in the national level. I wonder if states are allowed to try single payer systems even if there is no amendment in a final health care bill. I don't know the answer. If the final bill doesn't have a public option, I think going state to state for stronger health care systems is the way to go. Just because the Kucinich amendment was voted down doesn't mean it can't be attempted.
Angelo
Senator Bernie Sanders Could Try to Add To Senate Version
One thing that I just thought of is that Senator Bernie Sanders could try to add the same proposal that Kucinich tried to add to the House bill. Since Sanders is one of the 60 Senators that the Democrats need in order to get a health reform bill passed, Sanders has a lot more leverage than Kucinich to get such a proposal into the Senate version of the bill. Perhaps if we try to get people to contact him, at http://sanders.senate.gov/contact/, he could be persuaded to try.
I have the same goals as you do, Jim. I'm just thinking more tactics and strategies working within the system to get to those goals. It's one of the things I'm learning from reading about the history of reformers: they tend to have shifting strategies, but a fixed goal.
Angelo
Bernie Sanders
Angelo I think you are right about having fixed goals but one might have to shift strategies to get there. Bernie Sanders has been vocal on this issue and I think if the Public Option is stripped he is not going to go with it. Personaly I think if there is no public option we may just end up with a minor insurance reform bill. I will email my Snators as well as Sanders about restoring the Kucinich amendment but will also ask them not to make having health insurance mandatory, punishable as a crime.
When Obama and Clinton were the last wo Democrats standing, one of the reasons I went with Obama is because Clinton suppported a mandatory health insurance policy for all. I thought , that would just feed the dysfunction.Well here the idea is, back again but with Obama.