Another way of looking at Universal Heath Care

[Delta]

If Obama wants to make universal heath coverage (not socialized medicine, but universal coverage) appealing to Republicans he needs to couch it in terms they appreciate. Republicans don't respond to the notion that health care is a 'right', nor do they respond to emotional anecdotes, of which there are millions, to justify increased spending or higher taxes.

What they can respond to are arguments that more regulation and involvement in the insurance industry (to make insurance cheaper and easier to obtain) and spending on health care by the government can make the US economy more productive and competive in the global market. Increased portability and easier access to coverage even with preexisting conditions, etc can spur entrepreneuralism. Taking the burden off of corporations allows them to invest more in growing their companies. (Look at the problems of the US automakers, for example. They can't compete with Japanese cars anymore because they have to spend so much money taking care of their employees and retirees.)

He needs to also urge health consumers to make better choices and take responsibily for their health care spending. But that also means we need more transparency in pricing, and he's big on transparency.

The increase in tax revenue from the increased productivity and growth of the economy can help pay for what government needs to spend.

These are thoughts I've been having lately. What do you think?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

UH-oh. I hate to say this Delta, but ITA. ;)

ETA: The company I work for consults on benefits, including health care plans, so I hear about this stuff constantly. And there really doesn't seem to be any end in sight for the rising costs to companies for their health plans. At the same time, a company's employees are almost always its biggest asset, and keeping them healthy enough to work is key.

[msnicolea]

oy--ITA, too. ;)

[yby1]

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't know what else say. :)

[kedzieb]

My husband always thought it would be the Republicans who pushed for Universal coverage as a pro-business policy. I guess the prejudice of it being some sort of free-love hippy concept has kept it a Democrat issue so far.

I think you could argue that taking the burden of paying for healthcare benefits off of US businesses is a pro-corporate, conservative agenda. But they tend to balk on the actual government benefit. So in the ideal corporate plan they'd stop paying for healthcare and individual people would just have ot pay for it themselves without tax-payer dollars. Which is pretty unrealistic.

[cynder]

transparency in pricing

As someone in the midst of a personal healthcare insurance mess, I totally concur esp with regards to transparency in pricing. And I am not just talking about for patients but for medical professionals too. It's the one thing that most medical schools do not teach - medical billing.

[jennylou]

If Obama wants to make universal heath coverage (not socialized medicine, but universal coverage) appealing to Republicans he needs to couch it in terms they appreciate. Republicans don't respond to the notion that health care is a 'right', nor do they respond to emotional anecdotes, of which there are millions, to justify increased spending or higher taxes.

What they can respond to are arguments that more regulation and involvement in the insurance industry (to make insurance cheaper and easier to obtain) and spending on health care by the government can make the US economy more productive and competive in the global market. Increased portability and easier access to coverage even with preexisting conditions, etc can spur entrepreneuralism. Taking the burden off of corporations allows them to invest more in growing their companies. (Look at the problems of the US automakers, for example. They can't compete with Japanese cars anymore because they have to spend so much money taking care of their employees and retirees.)

He needs to also urge health consumers to make better choices and take responsibily for their health care spending. But that also means we need more transparency in pricing, and he's big on transparency.

The increase in tax revenue from the increased productivity and growth of the economy can help pay for what government needs to spend.

These are thoughts I've been having lately. What do you think?

UH-oh. I hate to say this Delta, but ITA. ;)

ETA: The company I work for consults on benefits, including health care plans, so I hear about this stuff constantly. And there really doesn't seem to be any end in sight for the rising costs to companies for their health plans. At the same time, a company's employees are almost always its biggest asset, and keeping them healthy enough to work is key.

oy--ITA, too. ;)

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't know what else say. :)

Wow, I think I just saw something flying by my window...it was pink I believe.....

That said, I agree with your points. :)

[conneals]

I absolutely agree. I'm off to call his camp and let him know!

;)

[pocket]

This is why Barack Obama will be the next President. Because he rips aside the fallacy that our political differences are actually substantive. Everyone cares about health insurance. It doesn’t matter if you couch it in hippie terms or profit terms or social justice terms or small business terms. Everyone cares and everyone is affected by it. So lets step away from the ideology and talk about what we are going to do about it. The only way we can do that is to get a political coalition that is able to step away from the ideology because their political power doesn’t rest on it. Not that Obama isn’t ideological, but I think his political ideology has a different power base than the traditional Republican Democrat split. We are just more complicated than we used to be. We are more integrated, better informed, more independent. We’ve all had our hopes dashed a bit and become jaded with the consolidation of media and the inability of unions to protect us, and sickened by being manipulated through fearmongering and appalled by Katrina and disgusted by the transparent greedy treadmill of K Street and the craven Democrats and the hypocritical Republicans and the frakking stupid mismanaged humiliating war bleeding us out all over the floor. So we’ve learned a thing or two over the last 7 years and been banged around a bit and are just more willing to put old grievances aside. I mean, who cares anymore about Socialism? Who cares anymore about Farrakhan? Aren’t you sick of arguing about abortion? Gay marriage? Aren’t you tired of it all? Let’s find some common ground for some of these problems so we can move on and argue about something else.

[phoenics]

Hear hear pocket!

And I agree with Delta too. I think there was a book on this a friend mentioned to me about talking to people in language they could understand and appreciate - to show us all that we actually AREN'T that far apart on issues such as healthcare.

Oooh I found it!!

"don't think of an elephant: know your values and frame the
debate". by George Lakoff. It is mainly about politics (i've become
quite passionate about politics), but the main point is you can NOT go
around thinking you are right, everyone is wrong, and you are there to
show them how not right they are. the problem w/ that is that you won't
change anyone's mind. You have facts, you have statistics, you think
you have 'logic' on your side, yet people don't listen.

It isn't because they are mean. or stupid. or ignorant. it is because
you are not doing a good job 'framing the debate'. The book is an
excellent (and short) read that would probably help you with your
activism goals. I think all activists should read it. I've changed
quite a bit about how I talk to others because of reading only the first
part of that book. strongly suggest it.

I keep meaning to pick this book up. Has anyone read it?

[kedzieb]

Hear hear pocket!

And I agree with Delta too. I think there was a book on this a friend mentioned to me about talking to people in language they could understand and appreciate - to show us all that we actually AREN'T that far apart on issues such as healthcare.

Oooh I found it!!



I keep meaning to pick this book up. Has anyone read it?

Love that book!

[wendalah]

Aren’t you sick of arguing about abortion? Gay marriage?

Yes. I am so f*cking sick of social issues. I have been for a long, long time. Can we please talk nuts and bolts. I am glad to see you saying this.

[Sevilla]

And one major factor in helping with health coverage is addressing the difficulty in gaining maternity coverage if you don't have insurance through a company - the exhorbitant costs of maternity coverage, and promoting cost-saving practices such as VBAC, less inductions, etc...

[miel]

Yes. I am so f*cking sick of social issues.

Right now they seem like a luxury we cannot afford. We can't afford to let the country flounder on these issues. I agree with Pocket and others here that we have to face the actual problems and they affect us all. For one thing, what the heck does the U.S. do about the war? And how to pay for it?

I will say I think this turn away from social issues helps the democrats because basically, they have been a distraction the Republicans have used to get people to not notice that things are getting kind of bad. Don't get me wrong--Democrats are just as guilty because when they have nothing to stand on and don't have a plan about what to do they just bang the pro-choice gong. Abortion and gay marriage have helped Republicans in the long run. But both sides bear the responsibility for letting these entrenched positions do their work for them.

Basically, health insurance is subsidized now and is a big drain on taxes--emergency care and tax exemptions, etc. Plus there is a 'tax' (not a governmental tax) on everyone who pays for health insurance because doctors and hospitals subsidize the care of the uninsured and pass the costs onto you. And our health insurance cost per capita is 3X what it is in Canada even when we have 45 million people not covered. Besides all the quality of life points about how now people won't be stuck in a job (or even a marriage!) to keep their insurance. There's a benefit a lot of people will have even if they are currently insured.

There is a mountain of practical considerations in favor of universal or near universal coverage that don't rely only on sad stories (if that's what you meant by 'emotional anecdotes' Delta). Personally, I think the emotional anecdotes really do have an argument behind them that there is an obligation to prevent people from suffering from the worst effects of ill health when they don't have to. But that's not the only argument for universal coverage.

The argument against universal insurance doesn't fully make sense if you think insurance should be given to the poor and elderly. Basically, you give it to the poor and elderly because you assume they can't go without any health care. However, the fact is that most uninsured people cannot afford insurance. When it comes to not letting people twist in the wind health-wise, it doesn't matter if they are poor or not. What matters is that, if they get sick, they do not have health care. If the poor and elderly and handicapped should get it, anyone who can't afford it should get it. Which means the uninsured middle class should get it too because they can't afford health care on their own either.

But this argument doesn't work against those who think society has no obligation whatsoever to help anyone who has a medical need.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Hm. Well, I have to say, the social issues are only less important if they're not directly affecting you. If I was unable to legally marry my husband, I'm not sure that I'd think it was less important than universal healthcare.

[miel]

It's not that they are unimportant. If you think abortion is murder, then how can you not focus on that? Obviously, it matters if gay couples can get married.

I just think they do not progress. The prospect of resolving them at the current time is so minuscule. It's like a couple fighting over who does the dishes more while they are on a sinking boat.

Oops! Bad analogy. OK, it's like the couple fighting over whether one of them cheated while the boat is sinking! They have to get resolved but first let's fix the boat.

[Niobe]

I think the social issues are a bit pointless for the President to be arguing about, simply because there really isn't a lot they could do either way regarding most of them. Pro-choice or not, the President is not in the position to actually do anything about Roe v. Wade, except that they have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices who may or may not feel the same way on the issue, and may or may not be willing to actually act on those feelings, if the opportunity to do so arose.

Same with gay marriage. The President can't do a lot other than act as an advocate. It's all just a red herring the Republicans have been using for the last decade or so to distract from real issues and win over the religious vote. The sad thing is how well it's worked. :rolleyes:

[thedoorchick]

I think the social issues are a bit pointless for the President to be arguing about, simply because there really isn't a lot they could do either way regarding most of them. Pro-choice or not, the President is not in the position to actually do anything about Roe v. Wade, except that they have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices who may or may not feel the same way on the issue, and may or may not be willing to actually act on those feelings, if the opportunity to do so arose.

Same with gay marriage. The President can't do a lot other than act as an advocate. It's all just a red herring the Republicans have been using for the last decade or so to distract from real issues and win over the religious vote. The sad thing is how well it's worked. :rolleyes:

See, I really don't think this is fair. I agree that social issues are not the ones that a President will make a great difference in. This is why the pro-choice/life issue is not one that I base a vote on.

But Republicans are not the only ones that are vocal on these issues, nor are they necessarily the ones that are the most vocal. Every time I've turned around for the past 8 years, I've heard people getting frantic over Bush's stance on the abortion issue. Have we forgotten how freaked everyone was at the notion that he had the opportunity to nominate not one, but two, Supreme Court justices? If it's not a real issue and not one that a President will/can make a difference on, then why the concern over the current President's views? Unless of course it's just another excuse to bash him, just because it's become a habit.

Like I said, I'm on board with focusing more on practical issues and less on social ones that have traditionally been a dividing line between the parties. But it's just silly to say that only Republicans have made a great hoopla over social issues.

[miel]

. But it's just silly to say that only Republicans have made a great hoopla over social issues.

No, everyone makes a hoopla. But I think politically, it has helped Republicans to have the issues of abortion and gay marriage be at the forefront. I think it brings in voters they wouldn't normally have, like working class Catholics who would be more pro-union, vote democrat, etc.

[thedoorchick]

I agree. But aren't those the same issues that brought out all the college-age Democrats to the 2004 election?

[wendalah]

But I think politically, it has helped Republicans to have the issues of abortion and gay marriage be at the forefront.

It's helped Democrats too. Just here on CC--where is that thread, about what is your "one issue"? The majority of posters said "choice." The sentiment with many women nowadays is that they refuse to vote for a candidate who is not pro-choice.

[Delta]

Exactly. I'm positive there are plenty of otherwise conservative women out there.

[miel]

Exactly. I'm positive there are plenty of otherwise conservative women out there.

I could be wrong about this. It's so hard to figure out these trends. I think (in recent years) economic conservativism is stronger in a prosperous economy, but that's just my guess.

When I think about it, I'm basing it on that "What's the Matter With Kansas" book. If the evangelicals have been delivering elections to the Republicans then this is where I got that idea...Maybe that's BS though.

It's actually hard to sort out. For example, evangelicals are economically to the right but not necessarily so. That's an artifact of certain historical trends and the power of certain big figures in the movement, like James Dobson. But if others take up a different tack on economics...who knows?

Could Reagan have won without his pro-life stance? Maybe but it would have been harder. What about Bush II? Definitely not, I think.

I was going to mention to you Delta that I'd be interested to see what you think about the universal health care thing. Health care is already subsidized in dozens of invisible ways. It will be hugely difficult to have universal coverage and not somehow cut costs. Costs have to be cut. How to do that? Making people responsible for their own health is one way but how to do that and not end up simply paying for catastrophic costs down the line? Do you deny the unhealthy diabetic person subsidies on their insulin for being unhealthy and then they are not as good at taking it and go blind/get amputations 10 years later? It would be simple if we truly denied health care to the poor (or, at this point, to the lower tiers of the middle class). But we don't. That's kind of the fix. You pay coming or you pay going unless you just refuse care altogether. Some things do manipulate people's behavior--cigarette taxes have probably helped but the social stigma of smoking has helped more. But that only goes so far. What do you think?

[Delta]

It's going to have to be rationed some way. Even under universal coverage the poor will have the hardest time getting the best care because the well off will still have their private coverage and ability to pay out of pocket if they desire. I do think that our current "system" is so incredibly inefficient and cumbersome that there is potential for the government to streamline some of it possibly for the good of the economy and currently uninsured both. Maybe Obama's campaign organizers can do it - they seem to be pretty on-the-ball and effecient. ;)

I think we get into Orwellian territory when the government starts denying health care to those it deems not worthy due to their own behavior and habits. It's one thing for private insurance to do it, quite another for the government (against which there is almost no recourse.) John Edwards' plan was especially concerning with his mandatory checkups and the like.

[miel]

You are right. Rationing is going to be necessary. There are going to be a lot of emotional stories. I just hope people will realize that there is no way to get around the problem and that rationing isn't necessarily unjust. Health care could eat up the whole GDP practically if we let it.

[ysolde]

I think even "traditional" evangelical stances are (pardon rthe phrase) evolving, and shifting. There is less of a monlithic evangelical view these days, and this will prbably work in Obama's favor. For example, I have been hearing murmurs (and outright statements) within the evangelical movement about the importance of protecting the environment (stewardship of Creation), about caring for the poor, especially for women and children who are marginalized, so that women do not end up in desperate situations where abortion becomes an unhappy but necessary solution, about really taking care of one another, and not just shouting about the rights of "the unborn", about having a dialogue with and seeing the self in the other, not simply being exclusionary.

All of these positions are consistent and resonate with much of what Obama has been saying. I don't think it is so much that Obama has changed the rhetoric; I think it is a moment of synchronicity. It is as if, for both sides, the pupil is ready, and the teacher has arrived.

[miel]

There's always going to be a disconnect between social liberals and most evangelicals on some critical issues. I think things will change though if the focus shifts off gay marriage and abortion. I think the focus might shift simply because of the makeup of the Supreme Court now. Some liberals were predicting this would be a boon for liberals in a certain way.

So you are right that if evangelicals pay attention to other issues and sideline abortion, etc. then we're going to see a big political change. I wonder if the logic of apocalyptic Christianity really goes along with a pro-environmental stance? Do you worry about the Earth if the Earth is supposed to be destroyed at some point in the relatively near future?

Definitely though if some of the leaders in the evangelical movement decide to focus on all the terrible ways human beings are suffering from poverty and disease and criticize the wealthy for ignoring their plight this would shift the political terrain hugely. Obviously, that's a pretty solid Christian position. I think the Purpose Driven Life guy is developing a strong interest in Africa and global poverty.

[thedoorchick]

Yes, Saddleback Church (Rick Warren's church) is doing gangbusters on the benevolence front lately.
I wonder if the logic of apocalyptic Christianity really goes along with a pro-environmental stance? Do you worry about the Earth if the Earth is supposed to be destroyed at some point in the relatively near future?

I have heard this angle before, but really, I personally feel that we should take care of the resources and the world God gave us, more than I feel we should just let it all go just because it won't be forever anyway.

[Delta]

I have been hearing murmurs (and outright statements) within the evangelical movement about the importance of protecting the environment (stewardship of Creation), about caring for the poor, especially for women and children who are marginalized, so that women do not end up in desperate situations where abortion becomes an unhappy but necessary solution, about really taking care of one another, and not just shouting about the rights of "the unborn", about having a dialogue with and seeing the self in the other, not simply being exclusionary.
Sounds like Catholicism to me.

[miel]

I personally feel that we should take care of the resources and the world God gave us

Not to mention the fact that it actually hurts people--current and future people--to destroy the environment.

As for whether there should be no shouting about the rights of the unborn, that's definitely not mainstream Catholicism...Or 'orthodox' Catholicism.

[Delta]

Not to mention the fact that it actually hurts people--current and future people--to destroy the environment.

As for whether there should be no shouting about the rights of the unborn, that's definitely not mainstream Catholicism...Or 'orthodox' Catholicism.I'm referring to environmentalism, caring for the poor, taking care of each other, seeing Jesus in the other, etc. It's nothing new - it's Catholicism.

[phoenics]

Sounds like Catholicism to me.

From my perspective, it also sounds like other protestant Christian denominations... or rather, it just sounds Christian? Not to the exclusion of other faiths though - I think it sounds like it's rooted in judeo-christian beliefs to me, but I think this is common ground that all faiths can share in... and even non-faiths.

[ysolde]

Sounds like Catholicism to me.

I think Catholics have always believed this. Evangelicals went off the deep end for awhile, but doorchick is right, they really do seem to be seeing things differently these days.

And here's the thing: I have been talking to some extremely liberal friends recently, and they seem to be saying that it is time to put differences aside, too. That many of these issues are not best decided by the courts, in an atmosphere of animosity and mutual distrust, but in society, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding, working together toward common goals. They seem to think that if evangelicals and others were to work side by side with them and see that gay men raising children are not the devil, but are just loving parents like everyone else, that lesbian moms carpool and coach soccer and worry about their childrens' futures and are overworked and underpaid and don't have enough hours in the day and go to church on Sunday and pray for a better future, that the guy who is working his butt off to develop an alternative to fossil fuels is doing it because he sees that global warming is real and it is bad and he is smart enough to maybe come up with something better that will help us all, then maybe we will all start to see each other as human, not as caricatures.

[phoenics]

I think Catholics have always believed this. Evangelicals went off the deep end for awhile, but doorchick is right, they really do seem to be seeing things differently these days.

And here's the thing: I have been talking to some extremely liberal friends recently, and they seem to be saying that it is time to put differences aside, too. That many of these issues are not best decided by the courts, in an atmosphere of animosity and mutual distrust, but in society, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding, working together toward common goals. They seem to think that if evangelicals and others were to work side by side with them and see that gay men raising children are not the devil, but are just loving parents like everyone else, that lesbian moms carpool and coach soccer and worry about their childrens' futures and are overworked and underpaid and don't have enough hours in the day and go to church on Sunday and pray for a better future, that the guy who is working his butt off to develop an alternative to fossil fuels is doing it because he sees that global warming is real and it is bad and he is smart enough to maybe come up with something better that will help us all, then maybe we will all start to see each other as human, not as caricatures.

Well said, ysolde. You made me tear up a bit on that.