Spinning Healthcare: A Bad Case of Vertigo

[nightrain]

http://www.truthout.org/072309R



Thursday 23 July 2009

by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


"I want to cover everybody," President Obama said at his news conference Wednesday night. "Now, the truth is that unless you have a - what's called a single-payer system, in which everybody's automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual ..."

The same conventional wisdom keeping single payer off Washington's table has been spinning for various "reform" plans with such accelerated RPMs that at this point the nation's "health care debate" is suffering from a severe case of vertigo.

"The overwhelming majority of Americans want health care, but millions of them can't afford it," Obama told the assembled journalists. "So the plan that has been - that I've put forward and that - what we're seeing in Congress would cover, the estimates are, at least 97 to 98 percent of Americans. There might still be people left out there who, even though there's an individual mandate, even though they are required to purchase health insurance, might still not get it, or despite a lot of subsidies, are still in such dire straits that it's still hard for them to afford it. And we may end up giving them some sort of hardship exemption."

That may sound good. But it's in the service of an agenda for "health care reform" that's seriously flawed.

--------

Days ago, buried in a chart under the headline, "How the Health Care Bills Compare," The New York Times provided some cogent yet cryptic information in the category of "Public Plan."

A key Senate committee had just approved a bill with a public plan that would "compete with private insurers," the Times chart explained on July 18. The public plan "would provide 'only the essential health benefits,' as defined by the bill, 'except in states that offer additional benefits.'"

Meanwhile, the newspaper noted, "Democrats from three House committees are working on a single plan." Under that plan, "Different levels of coverage - 'basic, enhanced and premium' - can be offered through the public option."

Those few grainy sentences, quickly swept beneath the waves from oceans of media, referred to a disturbing aspect of "public plan" scenarios. If the ostensible goal is health care for all, then - at best - some of the "all" would end up being much more equal than others.

The Republican Party is coming from such a right-wing place that any government action to improve health care access is ideologically unacceptable. In contrast, the broad outlines of a Democratic "public plan" at least embrace the precept that the not-so-tender-mercies of the market are insufficient to fully provide for the population's medical needs.

But as a practical matter, a "public plan" coexisting with the private health insurance system - generally touted by US media as the pole of real options farthest from the Republican "free market" fixation - is inherently reconciled to major inequality in access to health care.

Even while straining to put forward a "public option" as some sort of stunning government intervention to level the health care playing field, media coverage rarely comes to terms with the situation that would actually remain under such a scenario.

How does "health care apartheid" strike you?

For the government to offer the public a multi-tier set of options for health insurance - in the words of The New York Times, "different levels of coverage" such as "basic, enhanced and premium" - is to imitate the approach of the corporate health care establishment.

After all, isn't it implicit that the government plan's "different levels of coverage," offered to the public, would be based on ability to pay?

Missing from the dominant health care debate - not only along Pennsylvania Avenue but also along media row - is a principle that could be debated and should be debated.

In a few words: health care is a human right.

[county worker]

1. "health care is a human right"

I believe that heath care should be available to everyone and in the form of the care that they need.

If it is a right then is it a right like education? If so we tax some to pay for all. Then we offer incentives for people to go into the health care field and we keep an eye on the outcomes to make sure they are what we want them to be.


There does not need to be levels of care if we all get the care we need when we need it. It becomes our responsibility to live healthy lifestyles so we cut down the need for care and make it available to those who do need it.

The above is my idea of health care. It does not mean that only single payer can provide that. An improved private insurance industry and a good public plan can provide what I think we need. So can single payer. Only single payer brings the government in to everyone's life where private insurance coupled with a public option doesn't

I think we should make room for those who want to keep their private plans. They would be paying for their private plan along with contributing to the public plan financially through taxes. To me that gives us most bang for the tax dollar.

[stuball111]

2. Well put...

Best description I have heard yet... "Multi Tiered" "different level of coverage". Doesn't sound too "Universal" does it. and what is so fucking wrong with universal coverage! I just want to scream sometimes. And yes, Health Care IS a human right, dammit!

[BlueCaliDem]

3. Bait and Switch commercial by health care insurance conglomerates

on television during Countdown, act as if they want to "cover everybody", but are spending $1.3 million a day to lobby against the public option.

They advertise "Let's get bipartisan support". Bipartisan?? That's code for "Kill the fucking bill NOW!"

[nightrain]

5. I don't watch much TV, but on Bill Moyers last night, I saw some

clips of the health industry commercials. This is part of their 30% overhead, which means it's money diverted from patient care, money that enrollees have paid. Isn't that ironic and a horrible waste?!

[nightrain]

4. I'm troubled by the tiered approach. It inherenty provides

unequal healthcare and supports division (anger/resentment?) based on abiity to pay.

Unless there's some mechanism for folks with fewer financial resources to obtain the same level of care as the wealthiest participants, then I don't know if we've made much improvement in access and provision of care compared to now.

I believe this is a moral/ethical issue.

Do we actually believe in equality and are we willing to fund it for the betterment of our society? Would it have some inherent value to provide excellent care to all?