Snowy

Why isn't single payer health care THE issue in Election 2008?

Comments

[this is good]

I am the first to support some form of National Health Service, being both an Aussie (sort of) and a Brit, but equally note that it is not a universal panacea given the current post-code lottery that leaves people in a similar situation to the unfortunate above. Take this recent article from the BBC on breast reconstruction after mastectomy: 1/10 get the appropriate care. I picked this as it is the most recent. Equally there is a video article on the BBC website talking about how, in some places, you have to go blind in 1 eye before some Primary Care Trusts (money managers for the NHS area) will agree to fund treatment to stop the other deteriorating. Sigh.

Different people to fight. In the NHS there is only so much £££ in the pot. How do you decide who is to get it? But there should be more reasonableness, compassion, somewhere.

Back to the US, I found the below article interesting:

Red Family, Blue Family ~ Making sense of the values issue

It was written in Feb '05 and does go some way to explain the divide between liberal vs conservative positions. I found it very intersting as it does manage to pinpoint fairly logically some of the thought processes and history in how people believe things and why.

Snowy, I think I've told you before why I think Universal Healthcare should NOT be the number one issue in the US. Furthermore, I think US Energy Policy is much more important not only to the US but to the wider world. For example, I can assure you that we'd not have the misnamed "War on Terror" as the center piece of US foreign policy, if Reagan hadn't radically departed from and vilified Carter's stated goals of increasing domestic alternative energy sources. Hell, we'd also have a stronger economy as we'd for example be selling windpower to Europe rather than depending on the Spanish to develop Texas's windpower. Dem reds love prefer their red tag sales to industrial development - but I digress.

I wanted to thank the cat for posting that article on red/blue family thinking. Interesting read. I'm just p-o'd that I didn't write it first.
The problem I find is that why isn't a lot of issues an issue.
we also never hear anything on the arab-israeli conflict, nor darfur.
I can only comment on the Australian Health Care system where subsidised Private Health cover is available to fill the gaps that the Public system doesn't cover. (I pay $220 a month for top cover). Whatever the shortcomings of a universal health system, it has to be better than a system that threatens bankruptcy whether you have health cover or not.
I doubt the writer of the article would agree with you.
That is fine, Snowy, but irrelevant. Honestly, I expect more from you than that. And since it seems that it will take more than my simple comment to persuade you to seeing my point of view I'm going to try a little harder with another comment.

As I have said before, the US has some much more serious problems at the heart of government that need to be solved before we tack on yet another program like this. These problems include the following:
(1) Every policy that comes from federal and state government is HEAVILY influenced by corporate interests. And for those unaware of why - this is actually a legacy of well intentioned but misguided liberal policy that grew out of the Progressive party platform in the early 20th century. Throughout the world, the lobbyist owes its present day power largely to liberal reforms in California's state government. As a liberal I choose to learn from the mistakes of the Progressives. You know what they say about the road to hell.

(2) Our legislators are more often career politicians than civil servants. Oddly most of the legislation in the US geared towards combating the corruption has lead to increasing corruption, and a less and less skilled legislature. Nevertheless this problem must be solved because we have an ineffective legislative branch of government that doesn't even play the role it was intended to. Campaign finance reform is one idea to change this, but it won't fully solve it. Perhaps we should only elect qualified individuals that don't want to hold office. Its the germ of an idea, and certainly better than all that nonsense about term limits which has only guaranteed us inexperienced fools looking for a way in and then later a way up to higher office.

(3) Governments throughout the US including the Federal Gov't are perpetually short of funds and depend upon credit to stay afloat. Furthermore, the US National Debt accumulated from all the borrowing needed to finance the government's policy and programs is now unlikely to ever be paid off. We are now worried about just paying interest. This is compounded by deep problems within our economy that have not been addressed for nearly forty years now. Contrary to popular myth, the US economy has been eating itself alive while our industry has declined. Our services are being outsourced. And real innovation is hitting a lull. Much of our economy is based on consumption and credit as is our government which is presently borrowing at unprecedented levels just to stay afloat.

(4) Two looming catastrophes which the private sector is not equipped to handle will require government intervention to help us negotiate. These are water and energy shortages. You can have all the efficient healthcare you want for the public good, but if these problems are not solved. As an Australian I'd think you'd be acutely aware of this last problem. Perhaps it isn't as much of a concern to you, because you aren't nervous about gov't insolvency. I dunno. But I've got a government that can't even deal with the weather which Hurricane Katrina demonstrated.

So as might be readily apparent from what i have said above, if we don't solve these problems Publicized Healthcare will be just another BS program that doesn't really work for the public good while handing public money to the usual suspects lining up at the public trough. In case people haven't paid attention, these are typically moneyed interests. In the case of health care in the US it will most likely be insurance companies or if that doesn't happen it could be some new monster - like a corporation that sets up and manages "public" hospitals. Or just throw a stone - you name it, someone will figure out how to transform this into their profit at the expense of public good.

Furthermore, despite the way this is discussed by pundits, it is not an emergency that needs to be solved immediately. It needs to be solved, but it needs a solution that works well, and that will take time - a LOT of time. The crisis approach that so many proponents seem to be advocating will not allow that time for a solution. Usually a politician sees the fabricated crisis as an opportunity to further their career rather than as an opportunity to solve a problem. They make promises that they'll solve it, but real world projects do not fit within the timescale of the election cycle, and so rather than a real solution the public will receive rushed and flawed policy spun as a success by politicians hoping only for higher ratings at the polls.

And that more than anything, Snowy, is why I respond to these health care posts of yours with my nay saying. You are fueling emotional politics and urging on American voters for Universal Healthcare. First of all the kind of system you have in Australia isn't even feasible for us right now. And this isn't because it would fail. It is because no politician will offer it. Instead, they take this uproar about healthcare and respond with different policy that they think will make it through Congress.

The way to hell is paved with good intentions, Snowy. I'd rather this problem be solved, than just some more of the same old crap that typically comes out of Washington. Until at least the lobbyist problem is taken care of I don't believe public healthcare will improve our lot.
Well, it may be irrelevant to you, Henesua, but it isn't irrelevant to those who are suffering under the present health system. They really don't have the time to wait around for fifty years or so attending to the problems you say need to be addressed before attention can be given to a health system that provides for the needs of the people it is supposed to serve. Nothing else is as important as good health, as those who don't have it have found. Nothing. And as this is dependent on access to good health care for all, it should be the rallying point for the people who want meaningful change in the U.S.

Access to health care for all is not some utopian dream, as other countries have shown. For this reason, it should be the catalyst to address all the obstacles you mention, not shunted aside as a lower priority. As I said before, the threat of being bankrupted by medical bills is no way to live. This threat should unite conservatives and liberals alike to find a more humane system. We are, after all, just people trying to survive, despite all the labels that are hung on us.

And why is it so necessary that I should be converted to your way of thinking? Is it just possible that you may be wrong?

Snowy, I think you missed the point. And I didn't mean it as offense. It is the emotional politics which I find irrelevant. I was not convinced by the emotional politics of 9/11 used to justify an invasion of Iraq, nor am I convinced that we must publicize healthcare immediately even though a portion of our population suffers because the lack of it.

I am not opposed to the process starting now either. I just don't need one of the presidential candidates enacting their disastrous healthcare plans. THAT is the problem, Snowy. And it is not a matter of converting you to anything. You just need to see what the results are. Simply look at the plans put forth by Obama and Clinton.

That is what these emotional politics lead to now. So, no, I'm not wrong. I'm aware of what is happening right now. Since you aren't in the US, I thought it might be helpful for you to understand the political landscape.

The thing is... I am not against the idea. I'm not saying to wait. You should know that when you go off on the "good health" sermon, that I am well aware of what you are talking about. You're singing to the choir. I have told you this before. So spare me, or I'll start preaching to you clean living, and exercise. (For a taste: A surprisingly large portion of the health issues in the US stem from a lack of these two, and this problem is increasingly significant with childhood obesity as an example.) So no I am not saying to wait. I'm saying to cool off the emotional jets, and look at this rationally so that something good can come out of the desire for a public health initiative.

Because it is not true that anything is better than what we currently have. It can be worse. And what Obama and Clinton offer is undeniably worse - unless you work for an insurance company.
I take your point that what is on offer from the Dem candidates is rather poor, but I suppose that they are at least talking about health care, so that has to be a start. At least there may be some chance of meaningful reform with a Dem in the White House, as against no chance with a Republican. I have no illusions as to the task confronting those desiring change, but that is no reason not to try.

The months leading up to an election are the time to float new ideas, as politicians are at least prone to paying lip service to them at this time. The more activists can get Universal Health Care out there as an issue, the more chance a politician seeking votes will listen. I seem to recall that Ralph Nader's platform includes single payer universal health care. The more chance that Dem candidates see a leakage of votes to Nader on this issue, the more chance that they may commit to going further with their Claytons UHC than they intended.

Yes, I suppose that my anger at reading articles such as the above does tend to lead to a sense of frustration at the lack of progress towards to UHC. I suppose that venting here on Vox is more about making me feel better than anything else. At least I can say I tried, as futile as I know that must be.


I wish that 3rd party candidates like Nader did force the major parties to try to scoop up their votes, but something the Dem's do is ban them from debates and villify them as the cause of the IRaq war etc.... As much as I scorn the Repugnicons, one must admit that at least they let Ron Paul in on their early debates. Kucinich was not even given remotely the same amount of air time with his Democrat counterparts.

And guess what kind of Health Plan he was proposing.....

I understand your frustration, Snowy. Truly because I live in this country.

But the two leading parties know they are on top of a broken system and so they don't even have to play real politics. Its all about image, emotion, and other BS. I find it hilarious when the repugs claim to be the rational party. What a laugh. But thats the kind of laughter that will lose me a lung. I've got somewhat decent healthcare, but I'd rather not push it THAT much. And with that, I gotta go.
Fight the good fight, Henesua. I'll have to content myself with cheering from the sideline.
I worked in the group insurance and HMO industry for almost 20 years from the mid 70's thru the mid 90's, starting out as a group underwriter and retiring as the VP of underwriting for about half the book of business for one of the top ten managed care providers in the United States. The underwriter assumes the risk and sets the price for that risk, but doesn't pay or administer claims, nor sell coverage. I would be happy to comment and clarify some of the issues involved with the present state of health care in the country but unfortunately I am not a very good writer and it will take me some time. Mr. Stoner's story was fairly accurate and certainly I sympathize with his situation. Not all of his assumptions were correct, though. I don't know much about the nationalized health programs except for a little bit about Canada's. FYI, there are more MRI machines in the city of Pittsburgh than there are in the entire nation of Canada. For certain procedures in Canada, the average waiting time is greater than the US. I don't think there is a simple and perfect answer to the problem, but I am the first to admit the problem is huge and growing worse every day. I will give it some thought and write a considered opinion on the subject in the near future. Thanks for posting the article, Snowy, greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your comment, Arthur. I have created a group here, which you may care to join, and where you may care to post your thoughts on health care.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Advertisement