An interesting discussion with a college student regarding healthcare

B is a friend of the family who I've known for about 4 years now. He is an intelligent young man, and I enjoy discussing current events with him. Below is a discussion regarding healthcare that spilled over from a facebook post talking about the people I knew that didn't have healthcare and were sick and scared. Maybe you will find it interesting, too...

Everything fronted by a S: is in my humble opinion, based on the research cited below and personal beliefs. I in no way consider myself a PoliSci expert!

S: You know, I really appreciate you talking with me like this. It is refreshing not to get bashed for being more liberal -- thank you. Dad would enjoy discussing politics with you, although he is pretty far right and likes to "argue" versus debate. OK, let me respond point-by-point:

B: You say that it makes no sense to you that we are the only industrialized country without univeral healthcare. Here are some reasons why it makes sense to me-

S: I’ve done some more researching since we talked, and have found that actually, we’re not the only industrialized country – we have company – Turkey, India and Mexico don’t have universal coverage. Of the technical industrialized nations, we’re the only one. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/15/howard-dean/dean-says-us-only-democracy-without-universal-heal/.

B: 1. I can't think of one U.S. government agency that runs effectively and efficiently. I have little hope that the government can also take on 20% of our economy and not turn it into a money black hole.

S: I understand your concern, but there are some federal agencies that DO work that I have personal experience with: The US Forest Service, which is a self-sufficient agency due to their parks and foresting trees to sell. The Corps of Engineers is semi-self-efficient in that they also manage parks and their dams generate energy they sell, but what they "do" (creating watersheds, developing dams, etc.) are generally for the public good. They were slammed regarding Katrina, but as Dad noted, they had presented plans to Congress to fix the problem, but neither Congress nor the State of Louisiana funded the plan. I know that when I worked for them, there were many plans to fix problems that were not funded, so I’m not surprised that some of their areas were shown not effective in the ExpectMore.org site http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/index.html.

Having said that, I don’t agree that 80% of the agencies are effective. I don’t buy that an agency is effective as long as they are “adequate.” I think, as the website’s URL states, we should expect more. A grade of C may be adequate, but if someone is spending my money, I want to see something better than a C grade. The vast amount of agencies, though, are not working, but if you study why it is because they are not fully funded. For instance, the USDA, which governs our food supply, doesn't have enough funding for the inspectors that we need. Self-governance by corporations is laughable and dangerous.

The Corps of Engineers can’t forestall the disaster they foresee unless they get funding to stop it.There actually have been some statistical surveys done that rate how the federal employee feels whether their agency is effective. I have found in my 35 years of working that the employees’ attitudes about their employer pretty much reflect how well the company/agency is run. Unless they are all idiots like utility employees (monopolies breed stagnant employees, I found).

In any case, this link discusses the OMB’s survey and ranking by agency: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/03/post_177.html/ One thing the government has done VERY well is their own federal health insurance plans. I was wrong when I said that the judicial, legislative, and executive branches didn't pay for their own insurance -- they do, as federal employees, have the same options (and payments) as the rest of the federal employees. Dad clued me in on that, and Politifact does the research: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/11/barack-obama/obama-gets-right-federal-health-care-benefits/

B: 2. Competition brings ingenuity, lower prices, and more effective care. The system we have now simply is not competitive which is why costs are so high. If we create a public option where we have a program that can continually lose billions of dollars though government spending how will other health care companies compete?

S: The current insurance companies have become cartels that restrict the number of companies and benefits (similar to Oil cartels that set production limits to keep supply and demand pretty equal). They are directly against anything that will reduce or dilute their monopoly. Their lobbyists are strong and influential. Look at who are backing the senators on our healthcare reform committee. Corruption is rampant. If you look at a "public option" such as what Switzerland and the Netherland has, whereby private insurance companies provide a menu of options to the public -- which are required to pick one and pay (sometimes subsidized for the poor), I think you will see something similiar (maybe?) to what you are talking about? See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/matt-miller/analyst-says-netherlands-switzerland-achieve-unive//. I like politifact for obvious reasons -- it helps me to understand what is true and what is bull. Also, on the competition angle, see http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/19/mitch-mcconnell/some-private-health-insurance-can-surviv/.

B: 3. It is human nature that if something is free your going to use it more than if you had to give up something to get it. People are not going to curb their doctor visits in healthcare is free. When I go the doctor now I am already waiting around 45 minutes to an hour to see the doctor. If we add in another 50 million people what will the lines be like? There are only so many doctors, surgeons, and nurses out there.

S: I see the logic behind your argument, but there are vast -- VAST -- numbers of Americans who cannot afford insurance OR healthcare (latest number I saw was 46 MILLION Americans without coverage). They wait until it is too late to seek help, and many times it is too late to fix a problem that could have been easily caught and resolved. If there is more demand for doctors, and the tort reforms on malpractice is actually approved into law, then there will be more people going into medical school, so the "law" of supply and demand will come into effect, because it will become a better paying job due to the supply of patients being there to support the doctor's salaries... at least that's my argument.

B: 4. Nationalizing healthcare will compromise patient confidentiality. This isn't a huge deal to me personally but I do find it a noteworthy consequence.

S: Hmmm... you might want to check those HIPAA laws and procedures. They won't go away. Will there be more access to patient records? Yes. Under the current plan, the e-tizing of our health system will occur, and information will be available to be transferred from one medical professional to another. Doctors’ offices, labs, and Insurance carriers would have to agree to standards so that the databases could be easily linked, apples to apples. I think that's a good thing.

When I was so sick in 2001-2004, I ended up having to carry my medical records around with me – literally, a file, a hard copy -- to ensure that all the specialists who were treating me could see all the test results and other Dr’s guesses to what was wrong with me. It was a nightmare trying to give them access by signing and waiting for the other doctor to send to the new doctor. Especially if you were leaving their practice! The doctors could remove any record that he felt could be used against him – even if it went doctor to doctor and not via hard copy by me.

Under the plan, HIPAA laws will still enforce the confidentiality of patient records, but will allow patients access to those records and patients can sign so that another professional can access. Easier than getting copies from one doctor to another, believe me.

B: 5. You cannot sue the federal government. No one can be held responsible if mistakes are made. There will be no legal liability.

S: I think this argument is based on the government actually hiring the medical professionals as employees, yes? That is not part of the plan that I can find so far, so if there is malpractice by a medical professional, the professional, not the government, are still liable (with exceptions of tort law).

B: These are just a few reasons why I'm against it. There are alternatives to this plan some things I have read are
-Allowing families and businesses to buy insurance across state lines to increase competition.
-Creating laws which protect people from being denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition
-Creating group plan choices to work together to get a group rate.
-Passing laws that end frivolous law suits that drive up costs.

S: As far as your alternatives, they actually sound like the Obama plan: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/05/tom-coburn/obama-health-plan-does-not-include-government-run-/.

The only problem with passing tort laws to limit frivolous lawsuits, I think the term frivolous may be in the eye of the beholder. I know that J should have sued her Plastic Surgeon for the botched job he did with her reconstruction after the double mastectomy and radiation treatments she had. Basically, she is nothing but inflexible, painful scar tissue from her armpits to her new belly button. But, due to the tort laws we have here in GA, no lawyer will touch her. Because it was “reconstructive” and done by a Plastic Surgeon, no one will take on the case of it being malpractice. Even though she will probably be on massive amounts of pain killers for the rest of her life and spent over 6 months with open, oozing sores from MRSA while the plastic surgeon stonewalled her about pain and the wounds. He finally did go back in and try to fix the issues, but nothing can be done (at least according to him). No other plastic surgeon will consult with her because of the botched job – they don’t want to fix what he messed up, because in doing so, it would infer he messed up. Sad.

B:Healthcare costs are spiraling out of control. One thing I wish I could get accross to people is that the government relies on the people, not the other way around. Obama says this program will not increase deficit spending. This is technically true because our current system is costing 5% more every year and he compares his plan to projections that assume we do nothing about the current problem.

S: Hot off the press: healthcare bill ESTIMATED to be $829 billion: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33214558/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

B: We cannot just keep printing money. If we continue down this path of trillions in deficit spending it will devalue the dollar to the point where it is worth virtually nothing. We cannot continue borrowing forever. Think about the long term consequences of printing all of this money. What are we going to do when we RUN OUT of money? It's not too far away if we continue to spend like this.

S:I don’t disagree with any of your statements in the last two paragraphs. It’s funny, I’ve spent most of the day (in between work) to research and respond to your questions. It was just (at 6:00 pm) that the Baucus Bill is ready to be voted on. Since the process of bringing a bill to the President for signature is onerous, it makes me wonder if we’ll see anything before the end of year break.

There’s a cool interactive graphic on msnbc.com that shows where we are and what is left to do:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32634644/ns/health-health_care

Finally, on the gold standard, your gold link. Here’s the thing with gold – every recession we have that causes the dollar to drop, everybody starts toting the gold standard. Google “which countries use gold as their standard?“, and you will see thousands of links (along with the one below) that talk about the highs and lows of gold standards. It is literally used as a weapon at times, to force a country's currency into the gutter. News releases like the one that you linked causes gold to go up on the world market, and suddenly we have folks (who have been speculating in gold) pouring gold into the market, causing the price to go down. Unfortunately, a lot of folks think this is the time to buy gold, and they will soon find their hard earned dollars go bye-bye until the next time a press release like this gets into the mainstream media.

Interestingly, when I researched this, it stated that all countries listed in the press release have stated they did NOT release that information and had no plans. Of course, it could all be propaganda, but I don’t want to delusion you on that score.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

Again, thanks for the discussion. It is really refreshing, and I hope to see your counterpoints!

Compassionate Fiscal Conservative is not an Oxymoron

Everyone who knows me, knows I have voted democratic for most of my adult life, even though I am registered Republican. At 18, you tend to align with your parents; mine are Republican. The last Republican I voted for was Ronald Reagan. I have voted either independent or democratic overwhelmingly since 1980, although my ballot is a hodgepodge of parties. I either vote my conscience or, in disgust, vote the incumbents out by voting for fresh blood. Dad always said, if the country needed to go in a different direction, "Vote the b@stards out." He just meant vote the democratic incumbents out. LOL.

Whenever my Dad hears that I'm not voting in lockstep with him (e.g., Republican), he always says, "But you are a fiscal conservative!" This, finally, helps me answer that question of why, as a fiscal conservative, I vote overwhelmingly democratic. Because 1) the democrats tend to leave us with a much more balanced budget (and usually surpluses, as in the case of Clinton), and 2) they are much more compassionate than the Republicans. So, Dad, I guess I am a Compassionate Fiscal Conservative and because the Republicans can't seem to be able to tolerate such a creature, it is time for me to change my political registration to Democrat. Finally.

Andrew Sullivan over at the Daily Dish (one of my coffee break regular reads) hits the nail on the head here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-gop-vs-fiscal-conservatism.html

How well do you know your husband?

Here's a chance to see how well you really know your husband. Cut, paste and fill in the answers, then forward . . . shoot, you know what to do. The real challenge is to send it to your husband to see how right you really are.

1. He's sitting in front of the TV, what is on the screen? Military or Game channel

2. You're out to eat; what kind of dressing does he get on his salad? Ranch, and a ton of it.

3. What's one food he doesn't like? tomatoes or onions, it's a toss up.

4. You go out to eat and have a drink. What does he order? Sweet tea.

5. Where did he go to high school? Morrow

6. What size shoe does he wear? 14

7. If he was to collect anything, what would it be? Guns (he's a hunter)

8. What is his favorite type of sandwich? Tuna

9. What would this person eat every day if he could? Hot dogs

10. What is his favorite cereal? Lucky Charms

11. What would he never wear? Loafers

12. What is his favorite sports team? Georgia Bulldogs

13. Who did he vote for? McCain (we were a house divided)

14. Who is his best friend? Me

15. What is something you do that he wishes you wouldn't do? Crunch on ice (terrible habit!)

16. What is his heritage? native born Atlantan (rather rare, we're mostly transplants), then Scots-Irish.

17. You bake him a cake for his birthday; what kind of cake? Red Velvet

18. Did he play sports in high school? Nope

19. What could he spend hours doing? sitting at his computer, playing WoW or some other computer game

20. What is one unique talent he has? ... his strength? The man is built like an ox. He's also a pretty decent bowler.