![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThere's been a lot of discussion about national health care online lately, as well as in the papers and on the television news outlets. The senators, congressmen, and the President of the US are pounding the pavement in townhalls across the country arguing for national healthcare. And I've more or less stayed out of it, or stayed silent, letting it play out.
Feeling a tad cynical about the whole thing, because honestly I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery than a national health care bill getting passed. I could be wrong of course, but I've been here before, way back in 1994 - in a little ole town named Topeka, where I was working for a Kansas State Senator who had proposed a bill for universial health care for all Kansans. At that point in time, states were attempting to pass their own bills since the federal government failed to get one rolling.
I wrote a paper on the bill, how it got proposed, and why it died a blistering and bloody death. Even compared it to a competing bill in Congress.
But before I go into details, a link to a very good post providing information regarding national health care issue from various sources:
http://liz-marcs.livejournal.com/453649.html - thanks goes to the lovely and ever informative![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
liz_mars regarding this.
In 1994 - for a legislative clinic course, I wrote a paper regarding the legislative process at the state level. My assignment was to examine the path of a bill, in this case a failed one on health care reform. The bill proposed was meant to complete a thorough study of health care plans. To develop a health care plan for the state of Kansas by 1995 with cost containment solutions. Most of the paper I've lost, but I was able to uncover a bit of it, the last five or six pages. Enough to give me a good idea why the bill failed and to remind me of the reasons that the health care issue is a dicey one. Not that I needed reminding.
My own background and experience has aided me on that score. At least three times in my life I was without health insurance due to unemployment. There is no catastrophic health insurance available in NY State, it is available in Kansas - and I had it for many years. Catastrophic is or rather was the cheapest out there, with copayments of less than $100 a month. For about 18 months, I was on Cobra, which costs approximately $385 a month for a single person, much more for families. And for about half a year I was without insurance, and could not get insurance through Healthy New York - because I was not employed. It is mostly for uninsured workers. There is a health insurance plan in NY for the unemployed - but you have to provide proof of unemployment, unemployment benefit pay stub, and it is not comprehensive. I remember looking at the form and realizing that I was not broke enough to qualify for Family Health Plus. The bare minimum in most cases. I remember being depressed at the time.
When I got the job at Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield - which later became part of Wellpoint Healthnetworks - the largest health care provider in the United States. It currently owns all the "for-profit" Blues, I learned how health insurance companies work. And I was unimpressed. Wellpoint has a reputation for taking over health care companies and ruthlessly laying off their employees. Also while it was attempting to come up with a plan for the uninsured, it had also devised something entitled Total Blue - which puts the recipient or patient in the position of controlling and monitoring their own health care costs. This means that you put your money in a Health Savings Account pre-tax, and it is used as deductibles to pay off your bills with contributions made by the insurer after a certain threshhold. Confusing as all get-out, I still don't understand it. Except that it put most of the cost and responsibility on the employee getting the insurance, not the company. OR that was the best I could figure. Like I said, never understood it. And most of the people who worked for Empire did not opt for it. We could choose.
My current health insurance plan is probably not all that different from the one the President is proposing. Basically the government brokers a deal with insurers to cover it's employees wages. Can be headache inducing at times - since the hospital side is Empire, and the doctor side is Aetna/United Health Care. The providers hate it, because they don't get paid that much and it's hard to file. But overall the benefits aren't bad.
At any rate, back in 1994, way before all of the above happened - I was working for a Senator who was trying to get a health insurance bill passed that would monitor and provide insurance for all Kansans within a two-three year time period. You can't find it on the net and I doubt anyone remembers it but me. Well maybe that Senator.
This is what happened:
DR. Robert Harder, Secretary of the Department of Health and Environment lobbied for SB521 which he co-wrote. Harder had a reputation as an expert on health related issues and access to extensive staff resources. But his bargaining power was limited since state agencies could not contribute to senatorial campaigns. The bill was also flawed - too narrow in scope and it gave too much power to Harder's agency. The design of the bill was criticized by all but two of the lobbyists. Most of them, particularly those representing individuals with disabilities felt that SB521 did not do enough to provide them with health care. National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) took advantage of the timing of the bill to launch into an attack on how it would be funded which gained the support of the Insurance Agents Association and Taxpayers Network. Also the timing and design of the health care bill caused AARP and the Health Reform Coalition to testify against it because it did not offer (1) universial health care immediately and (2) was essentially a repeat of former legislative measures.
Senator Walker - a Democratic Senator for whom I worked, stated that if the Chairman of the Senate Committee is not in favor of a bill - the bill won't make it. The Chairman was not in favor of this bill. If he supports a portion of the bill - it will most likely be reviewed and hearings will be heard on it. Senator Walker - a ranking minority member of the committee, did not have enough power or enough allies on the committee to persuade the chair or the other senators on the committee to consider his proposals.
The committee chairman proposed a competing bill, that was in some respects weaker than Walker's and did not propose universial health coverage - it was more a oversight bill. Walker was adamantly opposed to it. But after Walker's bill failed on the Committee Chair's recommendation - every attempt by Walker to amend the Chairman's bill was denied.
Of course the merits of Walker's bill were brought into question by the lobbyists in their testimonies. One such lobby was the AARP - which is quite powerful, it represents approximately one third of the population of Kansas or did at that time. Senator's Langworthy and Praeger - who come from wealthier districts than Walker, and also predominantly Republican (the wealthier districts tend to be Republican in most states or they were in Kansas at that time). In these districts 87.2 % of the population owned their own business and opposed the measure in Walker's bill - which they felt unfairly pressured small business owners into obtaining insurance for their employees or put the responsibility upon them.
My conclusions at the time regarding the legislative process were as follows:
As for the legislators themselves? I've developed a grudging respect for what they do. Their willingness to compromise and change their position if the situation warrants is not easy nor always admirable. Yet it is necessary in a society where everyone has a different opinion on any given issue including the importance of the issue. All the hearings that I witnessed were held in a civilized manner and all opinions were heard. Although I would have preferred different results they did reflect the majority opnion while still allowing the minority to speak its mind. Most of the senators try to represent their constituents and vote with their constituents views in mind at the same time balancing their loyalty to the lobbyists who usually represent the same individuals that the senators do. Without lobbyists - fewer bills would be proposed.
Regarding Lobbyists - I stated in my paper - "while I agree that some lobbyists may abuse their power at least on the national level, from my own observations this abuse appears to pretty much non-existent in the Kansas State Senate. Senator Walker rarely decided an issue on the basis of a lobbyist's views unless the lobbyist represented a clear majority of his constituents. While I continue to be suspicious of legislators who obtain substantial campaign contributions from lobbyists, limiting the amount that these lobbyists contribute is problematic. There are several senators who are independently wealthy and can fund their campaigns without lobbyists. But most senators depend on the support of lobbyists. Senator Walker for instance relies heavily on lobbyists and fund-raisers to pay for his political campaigns. He did not make enough money as a vocational teacher and manual laborere to fund his political campaign without some additional help from outside sources. While I interned for Senator Walker, he did not in any way appear to unreasonably cater to the lobbyists who supported his campaign nor did these lobbyists ask him to do so."
I think we have to be careful not to make broad generalizations or assumptions based on them. Too often in our decision-making, we assume something based on a generalization or an experience.
Just because one Senator caters to lobbyists, does not mean all do. Just because one lobbyist unduly influences a Senator - does not mean all do. In the health care debate - it is easy to blame special interests for some of the heated exchanges, specifically the brownshirts. But, I agree with OBama in that we need to hear both sides of the issue and not make broad generalizations about either one.
I went to law school with Libertarians for example. Actually the state of Kansas tends to swing Libertarian. And I admittedly have my biasis against that political leaning. But, I've known libertarians that are for national health care. Senator Walker was amongst them.
And I've known libertarians who were against gay rights - which feels a bit like an oxymoron.
My difficulty with libertarianism is I'm not sure most libertarians know what libertarian means. And if they did? They'd realize they aren't libertarians. Majority of libertarians I've met are rightwingers. Which is sort of contraditory and hypocritical.
Here's the definition: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
Libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions. It is normally advocated as a theory of justice in the sense of the duties that we owe each other. So understood, it is silent about any impersonal duties (i.e., duties owed to no one) that we may have.
Libertarianism can be understood as a basic principle or as a derivative one. For example, one might defend libertarianism on the basis of rule utilitarianism or rule contractarianism (see, e.g., Narveson 1988). Here, however, we shall focus on libertarianism as a natural rights doctrine.
Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, non-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Like many libertarians, Leonard Read rejected the concepts of "left" and "right" libertarianism, calling them "authoritarian."[55] Libertarian author and politician Harry Browne wrote: "We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives – nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution."[56]
My difficulty with Libertarianism is while this is a nice philosophy - it doesn't really work in all situations,hence the variations of the definition - people are trying to change the philosophy to fit themselves. Pure Libertarianism as defined above? I'm not sure it works period - a bit too romantic. Example - should we really allow people to do whatever they damn well please? I think not. Government may be problematic at times, but taking such an extremist view is not only niave but illogical. In law school I knew a few libertarians - they were from Western Kansas, had never been in a big city in their lives. They did not believe we should have left-turn signals or stop lights or stop signs at all. They thought people should be able to make up their own minds. And no drunk driving laws. True in Western Kansas with a population of maybe 1000 all spread out and a car once every five hours on the highway - that may work. But not in a NYC with a population of over 8 million. We do not live in a one size fits all world and the problem with a lot of philosophies and religious doctrines is they want to cram people into these nice neat little boxes and I'm sorry that doesn't work. People defy pigeon holing. As many a fandom flame war can attest.
Anyhow, back to health care...on adopting plans similar to other countries? Well, again we have different problems. I got into a fight once with my brother who thought the US should adopt the same system of government as Southern Ireland - which is a country that is about the size of Florida with about an eighth of the US's population. The problem with the culture wars - is we keep trying to impose our culture and our perspective onto someone who well is completely different with different needs and desires and issues. An analogy would be trying to fit a square into a round hole or a peg into a square hole.
Australia's health care system drove my parents batty. They liked aspects of it. But theinability to choose your own doctor, the fact that foreigners weren't covered or people with visas. And hospital stays were expensive, more so than here. And the Chinese Doctor from Shanghai that I dated in early 2000, told me that while Shanghai hospitals' doctors spent more time with their patients, were better staffed, and handled everyone, they didn't have the money to do all the tests required or provide good diagnonsis, also there was no freedom. You could not discuss anything derogatory towards the government in Shang-hai. In Canada, one woman told me that yes - when she broke her leg she got in to see her doctor, complete coverage, but the trip to the hosptial stay was pricey, she could not get a second opinion, she couldn't see more than one doctor or another doctor, and her "pain" meds were on her - not her insurance.[ETC - see comments below. My memory may be foggy on this one - but this gives you an idea of how many people in the US perceive universal health care - we have a tendency to assume that if we have national health care - it will be the same as someone elses.]
My insurance in contrast - allows me to see more than one doctor, to get second opinions, to go to two different hospitals. My hospital visit was covered. If I was taken by ambulance - that would be covered under some plans. I also got a cane - covered. And my medication had a co-payment of $5. That's all it cost me to get medication that normally costs close to $100. And I can get a six month supply.
But, when I didn't have insurance - none of that was available. And my aunt who died of lymphoma cancer - went bankrupt. They were on charity. My uncle had a choice at one point of either divorcing his wife or quitting his job in order to get money to treat her cancer. He quit his job and he still didn't get enough from the insurer. My parents ended up sending them what they could to help as did others. It was horrible.
So if you are lucky enough to be gainfully employed and have a good insurance or benefits program either through your union or your employer, you are sitting pretty. But if you aren't? You are in hell.
A lot of people, the one's with insurance, don't understand why they have to pay for the people without it. I am willing, they state, to give to charity, but not be taxed more to pay for someone else's benefits along with the deductible I'm paying for my own. (Considering most people deduct charity from their taxes - this makes sense.) The Libertarian view is why can't my community help these people, why does the government have to intervene. Well, if your community was helping them it wouldn't be an issue, but you aren't. Some communities do try to help, but not enough.
The other thing a lot of people don't get - is it will cost them and us as a society far more to not correct the problem, to not insure these people, than it will to do so. It's logic 101. Your bank has loaned your neighbor money for their mortagage. Your neighbor has been paying it steadily, until their wife got sick. They are either are underinsured or uninsured, much like my uncle was. As a result they start bleeding money. The mortagage doesn't get paid. They foreclose and move in with relatives. Their flat or house stands empty - lowering your property value. The bank that loaned them money - your bank, takes a hit as a result. See? It would have been cheaper to pay an extra 25 bucks each month to make sure they were insured.
Or how about this scenario - your neighbor has caught mengigntitus, but doesn't know it. They can't go to the doctor - no insurance. They are just letting it ride. You and your entire family gets it. Your kid dies. This may have been avoided if your neighbor had seen a doctor and got help.
Disease outbreaks happen in societies that do not have health care or insurance.
[As an aside, the thing I hate most about posting online is the frigging formatting. I suck at formatting. No patience for it whatsoever. Off to bed, exhausting day.]
Feeling a tad cynical about the whole thing, because honestly I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery than a national health care bill getting passed. I could be wrong of course, but I've been here before, way back in 1994 - in a little ole town named Topeka, where I was working for a Kansas State Senator who had proposed a bill for universial health care for all Kansans. At that point in time, states were attempting to pass their own bills since the federal government failed to get one rolling.
I wrote a paper on the bill, how it got proposed, and why it died a blistering and bloody death. Even compared it to a competing bill in Congress.
But before I go into details, a link to a very good post providing information regarding national health care issue from various sources:
http://liz-marcs.livejournal.com/453649.html - thanks goes to the lovely and ever informative
liz_mars regarding this.In 1994 - for a legislative clinic course, I wrote a paper regarding the legislative process at the state level. My assignment was to examine the path of a bill, in this case a failed one on health care reform. The bill proposed was meant to complete a thorough study of health care plans. To develop a health care plan for the state of Kansas by 1995 with cost containment solutions. Most of the paper I've lost, but I was able to uncover a bit of it, the last five or six pages. Enough to give me a good idea why the bill failed and to remind me of the reasons that the health care issue is a dicey one. Not that I needed reminding.
My own background and experience has aided me on that score. At least three times in my life I was without health insurance due to unemployment. There is no catastrophic health insurance available in NY State, it is available in Kansas - and I had it for many years. Catastrophic is or rather was the cheapest out there, with copayments of less than $100 a month. For about 18 months, I was on Cobra, which costs approximately $385 a month for a single person, much more for families. And for about half a year I was without insurance, and could not get insurance through Healthy New York - because I was not employed. It is mostly for uninsured workers. There is a health insurance plan in NY for the unemployed - but you have to provide proof of unemployment, unemployment benefit pay stub, and it is not comprehensive. I remember looking at the form and realizing that I was not broke enough to qualify for Family Health Plus. The bare minimum in most cases. I remember being depressed at the time.
When I got the job at Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield - which later became part of Wellpoint Healthnetworks - the largest health care provider in the United States. It currently owns all the "for-profit" Blues, I learned how health insurance companies work. And I was unimpressed. Wellpoint has a reputation for taking over health care companies and ruthlessly laying off their employees. Also while it was attempting to come up with a plan for the uninsured, it had also devised something entitled Total Blue - which puts the recipient or patient in the position of controlling and monitoring their own health care costs. This means that you put your money in a Health Savings Account pre-tax, and it is used as deductibles to pay off your bills with contributions made by the insurer after a certain threshhold. Confusing as all get-out, I still don't understand it. Except that it put most of the cost and responsibility on the employee getting the insurance, not the company. OR that was the best I could figure. Like I said, never understood it. And most of the people who worked for Empire did not opt for it. We could choose.
My current health insurance plan is probably not all that different from the one the President is proposing. Basically the government brokers a deal with insurers to cover it's employees wages. Can be headache inducing at times - since the hospital side is Empire, and the doctor side is Aetna/United Health Care. The providers hate it, because they don't get paid that much and it's hard to file. But overall the benefits aren't bad.
At any rate, back in 1994, way before all of the above happened - I was working for a Senator who was trying to get a health insurance bill passed that would monitor and provide insurance for all Kansans within a two-three year time period. You can't find it on the net and I doubt anyone remembers it but me. Well maybe that Senator.
This is what happened:
DR. Robert Harder, Secretary of the Department of Health and Environment lobbied for SB521 which he co-wrote. Harder had a reputation as an expert on health related issues and access to extensive staff resources. But his bargaining power was limited since state agencies could not contribute to senatorial campaigns. The bill was also flawed - too narrow in scope and it gave too much power to Harder's agency. The design of the bill was criticized by all but two of the lobbyists. Most of them, particularly those representing individuals with disabilities felt that SB521 did not do enough to provide them with health care. National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) took advantage of the timing of the bill to launch into an attack on how it would be funded which gained the support of the Insurance Agents Association and Taxpayers Network. Also the timing and design of the health care bill caused AARP and the Health Reform Coalition to testify against it because it did not offer (1) universial health care immediately and (2) was essentially a repeat of former legislative measures.
Senator Walker - a Democratic Senator for whom I worked, stated that if the Chairman of the Senate Committee is not in favor of a bill - the bill won't make it. The Chairman was not in favor of this bill. If he supports a portion of the bill - it will most likely be reviewed and hearings will be heard on it. Senator Walker - a ranking minority member of the committee, did not have enough power or enough allies on the committee to persuade the chair or the other senators on the committee to consider his proposals.
The committee chairman proposed a competing bill, that was in some respects weaker than Walker's and did not propose universial health coverage - it was more a oversight bill. Walker was adamantly opposed to it. But after Walker's bill failed on the Committee Chair's recommendation - every attempt by Walker to amend the Chairman's bill was denied.
Of course the merits of Walker's bill were brought into question by the lobbyists in their testimonies. One such lobby was the AARP - which is quite powerful, it represents approximately one third of the population of Kansas or did at that time. Senator's Langworthy and Praeger - who come from wealthier districts than Walker, and also predominantly Republican (the wealthier districts tend to be Republican in most states or they were in Kansas at that time). In these districts 87.2 % of the population owned their own business and opposed the measure in Walker's bill - which they felt unfairly pressured small business owners into obtaining insurance for their employees or put the responsibility upon them.
My conclusions at the time regarding the legislative process were as follows:
As for the legislators themselves? I've developed a grudging respect for what they do. Their willingness to compromise and change their position if the situation warrants is not easy nor always admirable. Yet it is necessary in a society where everyone has a different opinion on any given issue including the importance of the issue. All the hearings that I witnessed were held in a civilized manner and all opinions were heard. Although I would have preferred different results they did reflect the majority opnion while still allowing the minority to speak its mind. Most of the senators try to represent their constituents and vote with their constituents views in mind at the same time balancing their loyalty to the lobbyists who usually represent the same individuals that the senators do. Without lobbyists - fewer bills would be proposed.
Regarding Lobbyists - I stated in my paper - "while I agree that some lobbyists may abuse their power at least on the national level, from my own observations this abuse appears to pretty much non-existent in the Kansas State Senate. Senator Walker rarely decided an issue on the basis of a lobbyist's views unless the lobbyist represented a clear majority of his constituents. While I continue to be suspicious of legislators who obtain substantial campaign contributions from lobbyists, limiting the amount that these lobbyists contribute is problematic. There are several senators who are independently wealthy and can fund their campaigns without lobbyists. But most senators depend on the support of lobbyists. Senator Walker for instance relies heavily on lobbyists and fund-raisers to pay for his political campaigns. He did not make enough money as a vocational teacher and manual laborere to fund his political campaign without some additional help from outside sources. While I interned for Senator Walker, he did not in any way appear to unreasonably cater to the lobbyists who supported his campaign nor did these lobbyists ask him to do so."
I think we have to be careful not to make broad generalizations or assumptions based on them. Too often in our decision-making, we assume something based on a generalization or an experience.
Just because one Senator caters to lobbyists, does not mean all do. Just because one lobbyist unduly influences a Senator - does not mean all do. In the health care debate - it is easy to blame special interests for some of the heated exchanges, specifically the brownshirts. But, I agree with OBama in that we need to hear both sides of the issue and not make broad generalizations about either one.
I went to law school with Libertarians for example. Actually the state of Kansas tends to swing Libertarian. And I admittedly have my biasis against that political leaning. But, I've known libertarians that are for national health care. Senator Walker was amongst them.
And I've known libertarians who were against gay rights - which feels a bit like an oxymoron.
My difficulty with libertarianism is I'm not sure most libertarians know what libertarian means. And if they did? They'd realize they aren't libertarians. Majority of libertarians I've met are rightwingers. Which is sort of contraditory and hypocritical.
Here's the definition: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
Libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions. It is normally advocated as a theory of justice in the sense of the duties that we owe each other. So understood, it is silent about any impersonal duties (i.e., duties owed to no one) that we may have.
Libertarianism can be understood as a basic principle or as a derivative one. For example, one might defend libertarianism on the basis of rule utilitarianism or rule contractarianism (see, e.g., Narveson 1988). Here, however, we shall focus on libertarianism as a natural rights doctrine.
Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, non-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Like many libertarians, Leonard Read rejected the concepts of "left" and "right" libertarianism, calling them "authoritarian."[55] Libertarian author and politician Harry Browne wrote: "We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives – nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. You can depend on us to treat government as the problem, not the solution."[56]
My difficulty with Libertarianism is while this is a nice philosophy - it doesn't really work in all situations,hence the variations of the definition - people are trying to change the philosophy to fit themselves. Pure Libertarianism as defined above? I'm not sure it works period - a bit too romantic. Example - should we really allow people to do whatever they damn well please? I think not. Government may be problematic at times, but taking such an extremist view is not only niave but illogical. In law school I knew a few libertarians - they were from Western Kansas, had never been in a big city in their lives. They did not believe we should have left-turn signals or stop lights or stop signs at all. They thought people should be able to make up their own minds. And no drunk driving laws. True in Western Kansas with a population of maybe 1000 all spread out and a car once every five hours on the highway - that may work. But not in a NYC with a population of over 8 million. We do not live in a one size fits all world and the problem with a lot of philosophies and religious doctrines is they want to cram people into these nice neat little boxes and I'm sorry that doesn't work. People defy pigeon holing. As many a fandom flame war can attest.
Anyhow, back to health care...on adopting plans similar to other countries? Well, again we have different problems. I got into a fight once with my brother who thought the US should adopt the same system of government as Southern Ireland - which is a country that is about the size of Florida with about an eighth of the US's population. The problem with the culture wars - is we keep trying to impose our culture and our perspective onto someone who well is completely different with different needs and desires and issues. An analogy would be trying to fit a square into a round hole or a peg into a square hole.
Australia's health care system drove my parents batty. They liked aspects of it. But the
My insurance in contrast - allows me to see more than one doctor, to get second opinions, to go to two different hospitals. My hospital visit was covered. If I was taken by ambulance - that would be covered under some plans. I also got a cane - covered. And my medication had a co-payment of $5. That's all it cost me to get medication that normally costs close to $100. And I can get a six month supply.
But, when I didn't have insurance - none of that was available. And my aunt who died of lymphoma cancer - went bankrupt. They were on charity. My uncle had a choice at one point of either divorcing his wife or quitting his job in order to get money to treat her cancer. He quit his job and he still didn't get enough from the insurer. My parents ended up sending them what they could to help as did others. It was horrible.
So if you are lucky enough to be gainfully employed and have a good insurance or benefits program either through your union or your employer, you are sitting pretty. But if you aren't? You are in hell.
A lot of people, the one's with insurance, don't understand why they have to pay for the people without it. I am willing, they state, to give to charity, but not be taxed more to pay for someone else's benefits along with the deductible I'm paying for my own. (Considering most people deduct charity from their taxes - this makes sense.) The Libertarian view is why can't my community help these people, why does the government have to intervene. Well, if your community was helping them it wouldn't be an issue, but you aren't. Some communities do try to help, but not enough.
The other thing a lot of people don't get - is it will cost them and us as a society far more to not correct the problem, to not insure these people, than it will to do so. It's logic 101. Your bank has loaned your neighbor money for their mortagage. Your neighbor has been paying it steadily, until their wife got sick. They are either are underinsured or uninsured, much like my uncle was. As a result they start bleeding money. The mortagage doesn't get paid. They foreclose and move in with relatives. Their flat or house stands empty - lowering your property value. The bank that loaned them money - your bank, takes a hit as a result. See? It would have been cheaper to pay an extra 25 bucks each month to make sure they were insured.
Or how about this scenario - your neighbor has caught mengigntitus, but doesn't know it. They can't go to the doctor - no insurance. They are just letting it ride. You and your entire family gets it. Your kid dies. This may have been avoided if your neighbor had seen a doctor and got help.
Disease outbreaks happen in societies that do not have health care or insurance.
[As an aside, the thing I hate most about posting online is the frigging formatting. I suck at formatting. No patience for it whatsoever. Off to bed, exhausting day.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: without reading much
Date: 2009-08-15 01:50 pm (UTC)