Obama and McCain -- Finally Addressing Healthcare
Granted, even if they'd said much about healthcare to this point, it would have been drowned out by the economy, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber or possibly Bill Ayers... but all that said...
In my not so humble opinion, healthcare as an issue will begin getting louder. It's clear nobody wants to talk about the economy because no one has answers. At least with healthcare there are a few things the candidates agree on:
1. Everybody accesses healthcare sometimes.
Oh wait. That's not a few, is it? Looks like they disagree on most everything else.
Here are some points you may not be hearing that are important as you decide who to vote for:
- Universal healthcare is NOT socialism. I repeat. Universal healthcare and socialistic healthcare are quite different. In fact, in the United States today, we already have a form of universal healthcare. It's just horribly inefficient and expensive.
- Universal healthcare is not (necessarily) a single-payer government payment system. Parts of it may be government -- they already are. Medicare is a government system. Medicaid is a government system. Tricare and other VA programs are government, too. They work quite nicely as long as they are funded well, thankyouverymuch. Scare tactics on the part of insurance executives would have you believe that (horrors!) the government will get in the way of your care. They don't now, so why would they later?
- Healthcare cannot work in a simply consumerism model. It just can't be done. It doesn't work now -- it won't work later. John McCain, conservative Republicans and health insurers who stand to lose their million dollar salaries tout consumer directed healthcare because they think we will begin choosing the 'right' kind of healthcare for ourselves. But healthcare doesn't work by a consumer model because of three things: We don't have the tools to compare prices on a tonsillectomy or chemotherapy or any other form of healthcare, with the possible exception of over the counter drugs. Secondly, since so few of us have attended medical school, we don't have the capability to make major decisions (or in most cases, even the most minor of decisions) either. Further, doctors and facilities cloud our capabilities. They practice defensive medicine, insisting on tests or procedures that we don't really need, just to be sure they won't lose a lawsuit later. (anyone for tort reform?)
- Regardless of what anyone wants you to think, the only way we can have healthcare coverage in an equitable way is to make sure every capable taxpayer is a part of the system. Barrack Obama and the Democrats are afraid to tell us that, but it's true. Here's why: The way insurance/coverage/Medicare or any other payment system works is that you put some money in, in hopes of using more than you put in. The only way we can use more than we put in, is if many more people put money in and don't take out as much as they put in. That means we need really healthy people to pay in -- and not have to use the money they paid in. Otherwise we all end up paying in more than we get. In that case, why do we have insurance or other coverage to begin with? Why not just pay out of our pockets? By suggesting that not everyone has to participate, we eliminate the really healthy people from paying in. Won't work.
There are many more questions, and it's tough to get an objective assessment from either of the political camps. They tend to steer off to talking points and away from the pain....
But it WILL be painful to make changes, at first. Healthcare reform will have to be one of those "short-term pain for long-term gain" things.
If you have questions about healthcare reform, please ask away! If I don't have an answer for you, I'll find one... this is VERY very important.
Oh wait. I thought of something else they agree on. But this one's a no-brainer.
2. Electronic medical records: everyone in America should have their health records stored by their providers electronically. It saves money and it saves trees. See how bi-partisan they can be?
..............................................
Photo © Microsoft Image Gallery
Comments
On the topic of electronic medical records:
As a patient, I agree that the disjointed, nonstandardized and largely paper-based system of medical records frustratingly archaic and user-unfriendly.
However, as a worker and health-insured person, I’m also concerned about the great potential for abuses of a universally-interconnected electronic health records database.
Job discrimination on the basis of health history is a reality. While theoretically employers are not allowed to use health information, including genetic information, to make hiring and promotion decisions, the law doesn’t prevent them from having this information, only from using it improperly. Needless to say, it’s pretty hard to prove that you’ve experienced discrimination when most of the time, you wouldn’t even be aware it had occurred.
As most Americans depend on their employability for affordable health insurance, many of us are understandably uncomfortable with the idea of our personal health data being stored electronically, with its vastly increased potential for it to be duplicated, datamined and commercialized. That information eventually falling into the wrong hands is a virtual certainty.
I think we’ll continue to see resistance to this otherwise good and forward-thinking idea until we achieve guaranteed, universal health care that is completely decoupled from employment. Once all Americans have true health care security, I think a lot of these privacy concerns will become almost a non-issue.
http://www.kaboodle.com/micronion