A bad idea whose time unfortunately came
Yesterday, the governor and the powers that be in the legislature came to a compromise on Catamount Health, the healthcare reform bill. I haven't done a post on this because, frankly, I didn't think it would ever happen.
Among the horrible ideas in this bill, the government will mandate private insurers to offer Catamount Health, if they do not do it of their own free-will.
Thank You, Governor Douglas because that's exactly what this state is missing - more regulation over health insurance. Did you stop and think for one second what this might do to the cost of insurance for the rest of us who...oh, I don't know...pay for insurance ourselves, or were you too busy worrying about your reelection?
Yes, we do exist. In fact, there are more people who actually pay for health insurance than there are uninsured Vermonters. Does this bill do anything to actually address the problem of cost? That is the problem that most people struggle with, or did you all forget that?
Rest assured, these new mandates coming down the pike are sure to help with the cost problem. Right! Anything in this bill that is supposed to drive down cost will be negated by mandating insurance companies carry this plan, if they do not find it economically feasible.
The fact is, the Democrats do not want a market-based system to work. If a market based system works, they will never get their socialist dream of government-run healthcare for all.
Another thing about this bill which makes me say, "A Republican agreed to this?" is the provision that says businesses with more than four employees will have to pay $395 per year for each employee that is not offered insurance by the employer. Yeah, great idea, let's add more hurdles to owning a small business in this state because I don't think the ultra-high property and income taxes and costly permitting process are enough of a deterrent.
Okay, let me spell this out for you: healthcare is not a right. Come to think of it, food is not a right, housing is not a right, childcare is not a right. The only right you have is to get off your butt, go get a job, and support yourself. And the only right the government has is to follow the Constitution and outside of that, stop controlling our lives and over-regulating everything!
How's that for a cold, heartless conservative?
Oh, one more thing. In the Free Press article on this debacle, Greg Marchildon of the AARP of Vermont said, "The Right wanted nothing to be done." No, you're wrong, Mr. Marchildon, "the right" wanted the government to stop over-regulating our health insurance. We're tired of paying for it.
I do have to add that there is one good thing about this bill. People who receive government insurance, but can get insurance through their employer, will be moved to the employer's plan with a subsidy to pay for it. This has been a major peeve of mine, so I am glad they will finally fix this.
26 comments:
The two year "trial run" was key. This thing wasn't going away until it was proven that it won't work, which is exactly what will happen now.
They made sure it won't work by making the required coverage so expansive that a private company will not be able to provide it at a cost agreeable to the government.
Why aren’t the insurance plans that us regular folks pay for good enough for people forcing the government to pay for their insurance?
Nothing will happen. The plan won't work. What the governor did was insure his re-election by not giving Scudder Parker an issue. So, this all means it will be at least 4 years before anything is done, because Douglas would rather support millionaire insurance providers instead of solving the health care crisis and the Democrats don't have the brains or balls to propose what really needs to be done...a goverment administered health care plan. It works in every other country and it could work here, but we have millionaires to coddle. We pay twice as much as other countries and are less healthy. That's a pitiful fact.
Sorry, rowvee, I'll take same-day MRIs over six-month waiting lists any day, so save your class envy for the liberal sheep.
Exactly how are we so unhealthy - other than the fact that we choose to sit on our fat butts and eat too much junk food? How is our healthcare sub-par?
"It works in every other country and it could work here."
Bus loads of sick people from Quebec come to the US every year for MRIs and other expensive medical tests because they can't afford to wait while their cancer metastasizes until their name is called on a 6 month long waiting list.
I've been to state run hospitals in Egypt where children with cancer were given "treatment" provided for them by their government. Every time I went back to visit them, most of the kids had died and the beds were filled with all new kids.
Here's a little newsflash: in places where the government controls healthcare and nothing is privatized PEOPLE DIE.
Explain to me again how these examples demonstrate that "It works in every other country and it could work here."
In Canada, there's a growing demand for private health care alternatives because the government-run system has some holes in it. Which isn't to say the system we have here is perfect, but I'm not sure its worth trading the problems we have now for the kinds of problems you see in Canada's system.
Egypt is a poor country, no? Don't you think people would be in similar straits in Egypt whether health care there were public or private? One might say that at least under a public system, those poor kids with cancer died in a hospital rather than on the street.
I don't know how telling the busloads of people from Canada are either. What about the tens of millions of Canadians who don't get on those buses? Canada is a democracy, after all. If their system of socialized medicine his so hated by their own people, why don't they vote to change it?
The fact is, rights are concepts. I doubt most conservative thinkers would do away with all rights. I'm sure there are things like property rights, freedom of religion, and maybe even freedom of speech that most conservatives agree with.
Some of us also believe in other things we call rights, like those of assembly, press, and due process.
Some rights are constitutional and others exist by subordinate statute due to the constitution's leaving of unremunerated rights to the states.
A right is basically whatever we, the people say it is. If we want to make health care a right, as all other industrialized and some developing nations have, we may. If we want to do it as a state, we may.
I don't believe those arguing against the right to health care want some people not to receive health care. They just believe that if health care for all is mandated as a right, the quality of care will diminish to a point at which the aggregate benefit to society is less than it would be under a private system. This, they argue, is because government is unable to run things efficiently.
I think there is evidence to the contrary. Medicare is a good example. I have heard few serious arguments that is an inefficient program. Its overhead costs are said to be three percent and it does allow patients to see doctors of their choice. When Bush tried to privatize the program, he was soundly rebuked by the public, and seniors in particular.
Ergo, I disagree with the foundation on which conservatives base their arguments against socialized medicine, and thus the logic in opposing it.
I have to then, also agree with socialized medicine on the grounds that if I don't agree that the aggregate benefit to society will be less under such a system, then I am morally compelled to agree that all people should receive health care.
I believe it is wrong to let someone suffer and or die without treatment because they can't pay. It's simply morally wrong, especially in a society with great wealth.
Also, I consider it a right out of respect for the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness clause of the Declaration of Independence, as I consider "life" synonymous with health care in certain situations.
I therefore hope the Catamount Plan is a success and will be happy to credit Jim Douglas if it is. Besides, I've pretty much had a non-sexual crush on the man since he became governor.
"One might say that at least under a public system, those poor kids with cancer died in a hospital rather than on the street."
That's a nice idea, but sadly, there weren't enough beds so people were placed on waiting lists and the "lucky" ones who did make it to the hospitals, didn't get admitted until they were already terminal. SO no, most of them did die on the street.
"I don't believe those arguing against the right to health care want some people not to receive health care. They just believe that if health care for all is mandated as a right, the quality of care will diminish to a point at which the aggregate benefit to society is less than it would be under a private system. This, they argue, is because government is unable to run things efficiently."
CORRECT.
"I believe it is wrong to let someone suffer and or die without treatment because they can't pay."
Well you're in luck - because at this point in time, people aren't refused treatment if they are terminally sick or have an emergency. Two of my closest friends are doctors and I know for a fact that when they are on call, the see EVERY emergency patient - and frequently, the people they treat don't end up paying ("uh...yeah...just send me the bill") and are never heard from again.
The reality is that if healthcare is free to everyone, however, you may need an emergency procedure but you won't be able to see a doctor because people will be crowding doctors offices (because hey, its covered!) every time they need more viagra, or have a paper cut, or a hangover. If its free, people have less incentive to take responsibility for themselves and are more likely to abuse the privileges. Then, even if you have a painful kidney infection, you have to wait your turn (maybe a week or more) for all the other people and their non-emergencies to be treated. It's not just about the quality going down. Its math. There aren't enough doctors.
"Also, I consider it a right out of respect for the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness clause of the Declaration of Independence, as I consider "life" synonymous with health care in certain situations."
Good for you. Many lazy people who don't take care of themselves (eat poorly, abuse drugs, alcohol, abstain from exercise) look forward to using your tax money to treat their lifestyle related illnesses. On behalf of them, thank you.
Hey Haik! Good to see you. Tirade about covered it, but I’ll add my two-cents.
“Canada is a democracy, after all. If their system of socialized medicine his so hated by their own people, why don't they vote to change it?”
I’ll use a tried and true Haik Bedrosian debate tactic. I’ll bring up Iraq. :)
America is a democracy, after all. If the war in Iraq is so hated by our own people, why don’t we vote to change it?
Point being, it doesn’t always work that way. There are countless things that people hate about the government, but changing it is not so easy. The process is excruciating and in the end you still don’t get the results you want.
Tirade said: “If it’s free, people have less incentive to take responsibility for themselves and are more likely to abuse the privileges.”
How true! My neighbor (who is “disabled”) went to the ER twice last week. I bet if she had a $50 co-pay for ER visits like we do, she would have gone to her doctor instead, at least one of those times. Now imagine if everyone was on the “free” health insurance.
Tirade said: Well you're in luck - because at this point in time, people aren't refused treatment if they are terminally sick or have an emergency.
I knew someone would bring that up. I'm glad you did. Why do your two doctor friends treat these people? Is it A) Because of hospital rules? B) Because it's the law? or C) Because they are doctors and feel morally compelled to heal the sick and mend the wounded?
The answer certainly must be at least partly "C." So why don't we stop beating around the bush about this? We have a moral obligation to take care of each other. Under the current system, uninsured people defer preventative care until their problem is dire enough to go to the emergency room. Then they are treated, because when it comes down to it it's a moral imperative. Then they can't pay, incur debt, destroy their credit, declare bankruptcy and become a greater drag on society then they already were. Meanwhile, the cost of their care is shifted to those with insurance in the form of higher premiums. Everybody looses.
Under a single payer national health plan, perhaps the same person would treat their problem sooner and cheaper, keep a good credit rating and start a business. The cost of emergent care would never be shifted to society's insured portion. Everyone is insured and a smaller cost is spread among a larger pool.
Good for you. Many lazy people who don't take care of themselves (eat poorly, abuse drugs, alcohol, abstain from exercise) look forward to using your tax money to treat their lifestyle related illnesses.
Whose money are they using now?
Chaity asked: America is a democracy, after all. If the war in Iraq is so hated by our own people, why don’t we vote to change it?
We will, provided paper ballots that can actually be counted and verified. There is no way the war will be sustained as long as Canada's national health insurance program has been.
How true! My neighbor (who is “disabled”) went to the ER twice last week...Now imagine if everyone was on the “free” health insurance.
Most people would not behave this way. Your neighbor may be mentally ill. The general argument that people will abuse government provided healthcare assumes a rather high percentage of people like your neighbor. Some may use more service than they should, but most people do not like going to the doctor. My father is 97 and as long as I can remember, he has gone to the doctor one time per year for a check-up and no more. He eats a lot of grapes. I think society in general falls closer to my dad on the spectrum than your neighbor. Of course both of our arguments on this are conjecture supported by anecdote, that happens to dovetail to our respective positions in the larger debate. Go figure.
People in Canada are trying to change the system: there's a huge movement in favor of (at least partial) health care privatization, especially in the western provinces. (You might also note that the Canadians elected a conservative PM the last time around: while this was by no means a mandate for health care privatization, it is certainly a push in that direction).
I think it's best not to move towards a government-run health care system, simply because we'd just be trading one set of problems for another. On the one hand, Haik is right: if you get free health care across the board, you might get preventative treatment and stop illness/disability/etc. early. On the other hand, in countries that offer government-run, taxpayer-funded health care, there is a shortage of doctors, people can die while waiting for routine procedures, and resources are not directed with much efficiency.
On the other hand, in countries that offer government-run, taxpayer-funded health care, there is a shortage of doctors, people can die while waiting for routine procedures, and resources are not directed with much efficiency.
We know you think these things, but can you support these claims with evidence? And not anecdotes- hard numbers and percentages, please. As best as I can tell, Eurpeans and Canadians are generally pleased with their systems. Otherwise they'd have systems more like ours. Funny that they don't, huh?
Maybe you would like national health care if you tried it.
(Just don't mix Pop-rocks and Coke like Mikey.)
The shortcomings of single-payer health care are common knowledge. Voluminous evidence, statistics and citations have been posted in this forum in the past for your perusal, often in response to your posts. You don't seem to have a job to find your time, why not spend the afternoon going back and re-reading them.
Oh. Ok. Thanks "Anonymous." I'll be sure to get right on that.
Haik said: "Maybe you would like national health care if you tried it."
Once we try it, we will be stuck with it.
Just because Canada likes it - or so you claim - doesn't mean it's good. After all, they love Celine Dion!
Haik said: "can you support these claims with evidence?"
You can find lots of data on any search engine.
I found this CBC story by searching yahoo.ca
From the story:
In Newfoundland, the wait for an MRI has typically been a year. Tilly says it should be three months at the most. The wait for a mammogram averages 14 months.
I waited three days for an MRI. They strive for three months.
That is socialized medicine at it's finest!
In Newfoundland, the wait for an MRI has typically been a year. Tilly says it should be three months at the most. The wait for a mammogram averages 14 months. In other provinces, it's weeks.
You left out part of the paragraph. And while it is true that Celine Dion sucks, it doesn't mean Canadians aren't generally satisfied with their healthcare.
What do you suppose the wait time is for an MRI for an American with no insurance and very little money? Try throwing "forever" into your average and see what happens.
"Haik Bedrosian said...
I'll be sure to get right on that."
Did you want evidence or not? Do you need literally everything done for you?
"it doesn't mean Canadians aren't generally satisfied with their healthcare."
You wouldn't know it from the linked article. Maybe you can take your own advice and provide some corroboration for that statement.
"What do you suppose the wait time is for an MRI for an American with no insurance and very little money?"
If it's to diagnose an issue serious enough to prompt an ER visit? Try "almost immediate." Are you just taking random guesses when you throw these things out, or do you actually know someone who was denied an MRI when it was urgently needed?
Too late, "Anonymous." This debate is over. I won. Have a nice weekend.
"This debate is over. I won."
Wait - are you actually my four year old nephew, or are you just quoting him?
You might try making at least a cursory attempt at backing up your blather before declaring victory next time, it might make you look just a bit less retarded.
"You left out part of the paragraph."
Woops! Actually, I didn't leave out enough of it. I meant to delete the entire part about mammograms because I was talking about MRI's. I have no clue what the wait for mammograms is here, but I've had an MRI.
If I was trying to be deliberately misleading, I would not have posted the link to my source. Originally, I had much more quoted, but I decided to focus on that one thing instead.
So, making everyone wait three months to a year for an MRI is okay with you as long as we have government-run universal healthcare?
Wow, I don't even know what to say to that.
Hey, some people have it better than others, so let's strive to bring everyone down to the same low level. At least everyone will be equal.
Sounds like the public education system.
Hi Haik,
Here's an article for you about the growing anti-public health care movement in Canada:
New York Times Article about Canadian Health Care
Some quotes:
"The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine."
"Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment."
"While proponents of private clinics say they will shorten waiting lists and quicken service at public institutions, critics warn that they will drain the public system of doctors and nurses. Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor."
(Hmmm... I wonder why there's a doctor shortage. Could it be because doctors make half as much under Canada's government-run health system as they would in the U.S.?)
"The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period. Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study."
Again - I'm not arguing that our system is flawless. However, many Canadians do want a system more like ours. Funny that, huh?
But Haik - how about this: I'd be happy to have the US adopt Canada's health care system if we also adopted its immigration program.
"Hmmm... I wonder why there's a doctor shortage. Could it be because doctors make half as much under Canada's government-run health system as they would in the U.S.?"
That is so funny because I was thinking, "Gee...I wonder why they worry the doctors and nurses will leave for the private sector?" I know it wasn't exactly the same thing, but I still thought it was funny when I saw your parenthetical.
Thanks for the link.
Haik said:
"Why do your two doctor friends treat these people? Is it A) Because of hospital rules? B) Because it's the law? or C) Because they are doctors and feel morally compelled to heal the sick and mend the wounded?"
Actually it is A. In order to use hospital privileges, doctors must be on call for a certain number of weeks per year. They cover all emergencies in their area of expertise for a given location, 24 hours a day for a week at a time. And according to those rules (mandated by the hospital), all patients must be seen if they have an emergency. Another reason is that these doctors are afraid of getting sued, so even if a patient "forgot" their wallet, or says "bill me later" (with no intention of ever paying for the service, the doctors don't push people to pay because they are afraid of people inventing some crazy lawsuit.
Not C at all Tirade? Not at all?
"Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor."
Hey-
Everyone in Canada has insurance, but in a single province, 7% of the entire country's population do not have access to a family doctor!
Here we have the opposite problem, not everyone has insurance, but everyone can see a doctor!
We have to do something about this!
No, let's fart around for several more decades.
Post a Comment