The Well Infidel

Why Nothing Less Than A 100 Percent Public Option Will Control Health Care Costs And Provide Adequate Medical Care For All Americans

By Donald B. Ardell – November 22, 2009 

The health system reform bill just passed by the House of Representatives offers too little, too late at too much expense for too little benefit.

There was joyous pandemonium among Democrats as midnight neared November 7 in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Democrats, with bi-partisan support of one Republican (an anti-abortion zealot bribed with an amendment severely restricting the reproductive rights of American women), finally passed a health care bill.  It was a happy time for Democrats but it's the Republicans who should have been cheering, for what passed is a foul mess that will come back to haunt Democrats.  If anything like this House bill gets past the Senate and dodges a veto by the president, the Democrats might wonder why they celebrated on November 7. 

The House bill had a few good features.  It provides partial coverage for 36 million more Americans and basic medical care is made somewhat more affordable for 96 percent of the population. Unfortunately, it will also allow the government to sell insurance but only in competition with private companies.

As noted, it's too little, too late at too much expense for too little benefit. Permit me to summarize why I think we need something much bolder - a 100 percent public option.

But first, let me tell you why I thought of Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) while the Democrats were celebrating.  Kierkegaard, the merchant of melancholy, viewed happiness as but a hiding place for despair.  In my opinion, despair will emerge from hiding soon enough. It will also threaten REAL wellness enthusiasts who value quality of life and genuine reform of our disgraceful medical system.

My own despair (quickly overcome, by the way, should you be inclined to worry about me) was occasioned by the failure of the Congress to enact reform legislation that will effectively control costs AND grant access to all. While these are the two objectives of the Administration and the Democratic majority, I prefer a system that rewards personal responsibility to stay well - a system that promotes reason, exuberance and liberty - REAL wellness. But, the latter is so far from being detectable by the radar of reform watchers that the omission never surprises, only disappoints.

I believe we need a 100 percent single payer plan. (Yes, go ahead and call it socialized medicine, if you wish.  This may not be such a bad approach - we already have socialized national defense, socialized postal service and socialized national parks - why stop there?  I urge this strategy for Democrats knowing that it will cost the president and the Party support of their one Republican ally and the continued absence of love from Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Michelle Bachman, Glen Beck and other great Americans.  Or, far-Right wing nuts, depending on your mindset and orientation along the imaginary fair-minded/lunatic fringe continuum.  I say it's time to go for the gold - a single-payer option of government-provided health care guaranteed for all.

Of course, some of us already have socialized medicine, including Congress, citizens over 65 and veterans. Let's provide the same benefit to the rest of the population.

Here is a short summary of pertinent facts about the current system and why REAL reform is needed.

Consider, first of all, that the new bill would add about 1.2 trillion dollars to current spending, a spending frenzy that already consumes more than twice as much per capita as in other developed countries.

Why are costs so high and still rising? Ask yourself this question: If we spent TWO or THREE trillion more on health care, would we become twice or three times as healthy?  No - money is not the crucial variable - that is and will remain the dysfunctional nature of our system, which this bill does not change. Capitalism, as Michael Moore and others have shown, is the basic problem, best exemplified by the worst element of medical capitalism  - the health insurance industry. That's where most of the money is going, $2.5 trillion to be precise.

No fewer than two-thirds of Americans rely on private insurers and entrepreneurial providers. Health care is a market commodity.  It is distributed according to the ability to pay, even though half of the money comes from federal and state governments.

These private insurance companies set prices and benefits and they pay the doctors and other providers of actual medical care. Their profits are dependent upon NOT selling policies to sick people and limiting services to policyholders who do get sick.

Does this not sound like an insane system for all but the insurance companies and their investors? These companies are known to skim at least 15 to 25 percent off the top of all premiums taken in. Taxpayers are indirectly paying for insurance company profits and overhead. Doctors and others, the people who actually provide medical care, have to compete for what's left. Of course, doctors have their own high billing and collecting expenses that further reduce the pool of funds for actual caring services.  Overhead business costs (e.g., executive salaries, marketing and so on) represent 30 percent of the US medical bill. That's thirty percent of about six trillion dollars! (Source: Marcia Angell, Health Reform: Throwing Good Money After the Bad, Huffington Post, August 24, 2009.)

Ms. Angell estimated we would save $400 billion if our overhead spending amounted to the same percentage of our medical system spending as Canada's. (Warning: Be advised that mention of the word Canada in a medical context will invite animated comparisons with Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Ghenghis Klan from the likes of Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Bachman, Beck and company.)  So it goes. 

Medical care is also delivered, for the most part, in investor-owned health facilities. The incentive here is to provide more services than needed for the well-insured and less for those unable to pay top rates.

Other dysfunctional aspects of our current system that beg for top to bottom reforms include the following factors: 

*  Most doctors are paid on a fee-for-service, piecework basis. Again, bad incentives in that.

*  Specialists draw the highest fees and the more frequent and expensive the testing, (e.g., cardiac angiography, MRI's), the more specialists make. Estimates are that unnecessary testing accounts for hundreds of billions of wasted dollars annually.

*  There are fewer primary care doctors in our system than in comparable societies.

The cost control targets advanced by the president and Democratic reformers, while all desirable, will make only a modest difference relative to the amount of waste in the private, for profit and non-profit systems. This reality applies to electronic records, disease management, preventive care and comparative effectiveness studies. All good ideas and needed reforms, but relatively modest in relation to the basic unaddressed dysfunctions with the system.

Basically, the most massive source of waste in our system is the diversion of funds needed for medical care.  Funds are diverted to two basic functions:

1)  Profits and overhead, and

2)  Exorbitantly priced, medically unnecessary tests and procedures. 

The House bill leaves untouched the profit-driven, wasteful, inflationary system. The distorted incentives are essentially unchanged. All the House bill does is pour more money into a system that is based on maximizing private profits, not increasing health while saving unnecessary costs.

To borrow a phrase from the musical South Pacific, the bill passed by the House seems to be but a divisionary tactic to take the public's mind off REAL reform- which would be a single payer, not a half-baked public option.  Did I mention that health outcomes are far better in other nations with single payer government systems?  I should have, but that's a topic for another day.

Be well. Hard as it is, try to look on the bright side, despite what Soren Kierkegaard had to say about despair in hiding. When the effects of this pitiful reform package are better recognized, despair will have no place to hide, so perk up now before it's too late.   TPJmagazine

Don Ardell is the Well Infidel.  He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality.  His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (509 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. 

print     email article