I keep harping on heatlh care

I keep writing about our screwed up health care system, but like everyone else, it is easier to see the problems than find the solutions. It appears that America is not ready to move to a system like those in Canada, Britain or France, in part because the special interest groups with a vested interest in our awful system have been successful in scaring Americans into believing that folks in these countries are receiving no health care.....a pretty odd assumption since they generally have better outcomes than we do, and at half the cost.

Today's NY Times has another article, written by David Leonhart, about the problems with passing sensible changes. It is saddening. I am pretty sure that our gutless, scumbag politicians of both parties will do what is expediant and profitable, not what is right. Based on their behavior of the past, there is no reason to believe otherwise. That means we will either not make any changes, and allow the current system to bankrupt us while fewer and fewer get decent health care, or we will make superficial changes that don't address the tough cost issues, and bankrupt us in a different way.

We already ration health care!

I have been saying for years that the two most ridiculous arguments against government run health care are: 1) That health care would be rationed and 2) that a government bureaucrat will determine your care. Why? Well, because these 2 things are already occurring in our system, but in a way that is far less fair, moral, and efficient than in countries with universal coverage.

We already ration health care in this country, based on who can afford it. If you need, or want a treatment and have insurance that will pay, or can afford it out-of-pocket, you get it. Otherwise, good luck. You may get it in an emergency room, but only if it is an obvious emergency. Need your high blood pressure meds to keep from having a stroke and can't afford them, too bad. And as for the bureaucrats....well, what would you call the people who work at the insurance companies, and are hired to try to keep the company from paying for your care? I would call them murdering bastards, and I would prefer a bureaucrat to a murdering bastard!

That said, take a gander at the article in the NY Times Mag section this week by bio-ethicist Peter Singer. He maintains, as I do, that we are already rationing health care, but not wisely or fairly, and suggests some better ways to do it. In case you don't want to read the whole thing, here are a few relevant quotes:

On a blog on Fox News earlier this year, the conservative writer John Lott wrote, “Americans should ask Canadians and Brits — people who have long suffered from rationing — how happy they are with central government decisions on eliminating ‘unnecessary’ health care.” But as it happens, last year the Gallup organization did ask Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, if they have confidence in “health care or medical systems” in their country. In Canada, 73 percent answered this question affirmatively. Coincidentally, an identical percentage of Britons gave the same answer. In the United States, despite spending much more, per person, on health care, the figure was only 56 percent.

Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. In the United States, most health care is privately financed, and so most rationing is by price: you get what you, or your employer, can afford to insure you for. But our current system of employer-financed health insurance exists only because the federal government encouraged it by making the premiums tax deductible. That is, in effect, a more than $200 billion government subsidy for health care.

A recent Commonwealth Fund study led by Cathy Schoen and Robin Osborn surveyed adults with chronic illness in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. Far more Americans reported forgoing health care because of cost. More than half (54 percent) reported not filling a prescription, not visiting a doctor when sick or not getting recommended care. In comparison, in the United Kingdom the figure was 13 percent, and in the Netherlands, only 7 percent. Even among Americans with insurance, 43 percent reported that cost was a problem that had limited the treatment they received. According to a 2007 study led by David Himmelstein, more than 60 percent of all bankruptcies are related to illness, with many of these specifically caused by medical bills, even among those who have health insurance. In Canada the incidence of bankruptcy related to illness is much lower.

Singer goes on to discuss some methodology for determining what a life is worth, so rationing could be applied sensibly and fairly. Of course, we are no where near coming to any sensible conclusions about our health care system. Obama's plan is a small step in the right direction, but too small in my opinion. We need to blow this mess up and start over. And over at the GOP, they think the problem is that too many people have access to health care. They would like to return to the times of 100 years ago, when the robber barons worked people to death, then they just died and got out of the way.

Gay Marraige and the Constitution

Interesting Op-ed piece by famous lawyer David Boies in today's WSJ about the lawsuit he has filed attempting to overturn California's gay marriage ban. I personally do not understand how the equal protection clause, amendment 14, of the constitution does not protect the right of people to marry anyone they want. Right now, I have the right to marry a woman (not that I'm gonna!), but my sister does not (not that she wants to!). How is that equal protection?

This seems to be the approach that Boies is taking. A few quotes from his article:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens. In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

Let's hope he succeeds, and we can put this ridiculous issue behind us, and the dinosaurs who promote these bans go extinct from having their heads up their asses.

Simpson's theme acapella

Okay, my posts lately have shown little thought, but it's summer. So enjoy this awesome acapella version of the Simpson's theme.

Why it is good to live a mile above sea level!

Is Roger Corman making a movie in San Diego? Otherwise, how do you explain this headline:

Jumbo squid invade San Diego shores, spook divers

Read the whole story HERE.

You Gotta Watch This!

Watch this Bill Moyers interview with former Cigna executive Warren Potter, then tell me that our health system is not inefficient and immoral, and that insurance executives aren't the most eveil people on earth.

Sorry, no "embed" link, so you'll have to link to this amazing and scary interview HERE. Please watch and share with everyone you know!

Interesting Health Care Article

What's wrong with our health care system? I would say one of the big problems is that, having visited the doctor 3 times in June, and having blood tests twice, I have received 6 pieces of mail from the provider and my insurance company, all saying "This is not a bill". Meanwhile, the bill, which is under my deductable so will be paid by me, but I have not received a bill or paid a cent yet. But numerous dollars have been spent on paper pushing, none of which is making me or anyone any healthier.

Administrative insanity is one big problem, but economist David Leonhart writes about another silly situation in today's NYT. Why don't we know what treatments work best?