Back a couple years ago, embryonic stem cell research was a hot topic, with many posts and comments flying about both for and against.
One ofthe specious arguments often used by those opposed to the funding of said research was statements along the lines of "not one cure has ever been found using embryonic stem cells" - a textbook example of lying by omission, as the statement itself is true, so far as it goes. What gets left out, of course, is that given how recent the discovery of how to reliably culture these cells was, and the need to to basic research, then animal research, then limited human trials before anything can be okayed for general use, of course no "cure" had been developed yet.
For some reason the topic has moved off the back burner, but last week the FDA approved the first human trials involving embryonic stem cells, to be implanted in a small number of paraplegics who have no use of their legs. The primary aim is simply to see if the cells are safe for human use, but there is hope some use of the lower extremities might be restored.
We're still years away, if ever, from seeing wide-spread results. However, if this first trial at least can show the cells are not actively harmful, it will open the door wide to FDA approval to future human trials for a variety of possible applications. It's just another step down a long road, but it's a big step.
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Monday, September 1, 2008
Who says Zimbabwe is a 3rd world nation
Reading the news this morning, I ran across this story on the reprehensible state of health care in Zimbabwe, where medicine is unavailable and the system is in such general collapse, the best advice local doctors could give was "don't get sick".
Of course, given a 2005 Harvard study found nearly half of all bankruptcies in the US have been triggered by health crises, even among the insured, that same advice could be given to our citizens as well.
Further, as the DNC recently helpfully pointed out, McCain has been among those consistently voting to make it more difficult to claim bankruptcy protection. I suppose if you are among those who lose count of how many houses your family owns, a major medical bill isn't such a concern.
Of course, given a 2005 Harvard study found nearly half of all bankruptcies in the US have been triggered by health crises, even among the insured, that same advice could be given to our citizens as well.
Further, as the DNC recently helpfully pointed out, McCain has been among those consistently voting to make it more difficult to claim bankruptcy protection. I suppose if you are among those who lose count of how many houses your family owns, a major medical bill isn't such a concern.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Test Anxiety
The NY Times has an intriguing article today about the conflict people have between getting DNA screening to help determine what illnesses they may have a predisposition for and the fear of letting that information get out to their insurance companies.
The sheer fact this is even a concern is a sever condemnation of the way health insurance works in this country.
At issue is the fact people are worried getting a DNA screening through traditional medical channels would make that information part of their public health record, information which insurance companies might then use to deny access to health insurance (or companies might use to turn away job applicants, a different, but related, matter).
As the article makes clear, there are few, if any, examples of this actually occurring. However, given the propensities of the health insurance industry, no one can reasonably deny this is a legitimate concern. For a recent example, I refer the reader to this LA Times story discussing how Health Net canceled a woman's insurance while she was in the middle of costly chemotherapy treatment ... and how policy cancellation was a key component of the company's bonus plan.
Should information from DNA screenings become public, one can hardly blame the insurance companies for using the information to weed out applicants with increased risk of costly conditions. After all, we are a capitalistic society, and that's the way capitalism works - maximum your income and minimize your expenses. In the end, the bottom line for the insurance companies is the health their bottom line, not the health of their policy holders.
Somehow, conservatives see this as being a good thing in the long run ... and if some people, through no fault of their own, but rather as a result of genetic pre-disposition or, worse, simply being poor and unable to afford health insurance end up not being covered ... well, that's ok with them apparently.
A national health-care plan would have a far different set of incentives than a private health insurance company. It would have an incentive in promoting healthy life-styles and preventive medicine. It would not be driven by the notion of making a profit, even at the expense of the patient. It would (at least in theory) not be as tethered to making money for stock-holders and executives, but could instead pump that money back into the system.
Even with a national health care plan, there would be niches for private insurers to fill, to provide faster access to surgery for needed, but not life-threatening, conditions for example, or a higher level of service. Of course, to encourage people to spend more of their hard-earned money on top of what they would pay in taxes for the national plan, these companies would, just maybe, have to actually show they care about their customers.
It's ludicrous that people are, in many instances, refusing to get testing to find possible issues which could be addressed early because they know that information can, and likely will, be used against them. What they don't know might kill them, but what they do know could end up ruining them financially. It's not a decision anyone should have to make.
The sheer fact this is even a concern is a sever condemnation of the way health insurance works in this country.
At issue is the fact people are worried getting a DNA screening through traditional medical channels would make that information part of their public health record, information which insurance companies might then use to deny access to health insurance (or companies might use to turn away job applicants, a different, but related, matter).
As the article makes clear, there are few, if any, examples of this actually occurring. However, given the propensities of the health insurance industry, no one can reasonably deny this is a legitimate concern. For a recent example, I refer the reader to this LA Times story discussing how Health Net canceled a woman's insurance while she was in the middle of costly chemotherapy treatment ... and how policy cancellation was a key component of the company's bonus plan.
Should information from DNA screenings become public, one can hardly blame the insurance companies for using the information to weed out applicants with increased risk of costly conditions. After all, we are a capitalistic society, and that's the way capitalism works - maximum your income and minimize your expenses. In the end, the bottom line for the insurance companies is the health their bottom line, not the health of their policy holders.
Somehow, conservatives see this as being a good thing in the long run ... and if some people, through no fault of their own, but rather as a result of genetic pre-disposition or, worse, simply being poor and unable to afford health insurance end up not being covered ... well, that's ok with them apparently.
A national health-care plan would have a far different set of incentives than a private health insurance company. It would have an incentive in promoting healthy life-styles and preventive medicine. It would not be driven by the notion of making a profit, even at the expense of the patient. It would (at least in theory) not be as tethered to making money for stock-holders and executives, but could instead pump that money back into the system.
Even with a national health care plan, there would be niches for private insurers to fill, to provide faster access to surgery for needed, but not life-threatening, conditions for example, or a higher level of service. Of course, to encourage people to spend more of their hard-earned money on top of what they would pay in taxes for the national plan, these companies would, just maybe, have to actually show they care about their customers.
It's ludicrous that people are, in many instances, refusing to get testing to find possible issues which could be addressed early because they know that information can, and likely will, be used against them. What they don't know might kill them, but what they do know could end up ruining them financially. It's not a decision anyone should have to make.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Once more, with feeling!
Congress passed a revised version of the SCHIP bill this past week, with the Senate expected to pass a similar version next week. The bill would come up before the President shortly after, and he is expected to once again apply the veto stamp ... at which time the Kabuki show will start once again.
The new bill addresses several issues Republicans had given to explain their votes against the original bill:
* The income cap to qualify is lowered to 300% of the poverty level for a family of four, or about $60,000, down from a 400% cap in the original bill.
* Adults covered under the current program would be phased out over a one-year period, instead of the two years in the original proposal.
On one point, the Democrats didn't budge however - the bill still allocates $35 billion over five years. The administration said it could see it's way to spending $20 billion (up from $5 billion), but not a penny more.
There's no question Democrats organized the vote so soon after the President's veto in an attempt to keep the issue in front of the voters, and they can be expected to keep pounding away at it as long as the administration keeps vetoing bills - even Republicans who vote against the bill acknowledge their votes are hurting them.
As this poll points out, the President's approval rating on health care, 22%, is 4% less than his approval rating on Iraq. Further, not only did 81% of respondents favor expanding the S-CHIP program, but 74% are willing to pay higher taxes to do so.
Tom Price (R-GA) defended his vote against the bill by labeling it "a massive tax increase". The program would cost $35 billion over five years. That's not a massive tax increase ... this is a massive tax increase - any bets on which way Price votes when it comes before Congress?
Representative Robert Harper once said, in 1798 (referring to a naval conflict with Barbary Coast pirates), "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." Modern Republicans apparently have updated that to "Billions for needless wars, but not one cent for children!".
Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
The new bill addresses several issues Republicans had given to explain their votes against the original bill:
* The income cap to qualify is lowered to 300% of the poverty level for a family of four, or about $60,000, down from a 400% cap in the original bill.
* Adults covered under the current program would be phased out over a one-year period, instead of the two years in the original proposal.
On one point, the Democrats didn't budge however - the bill still allocates $35 billion over five years. The administration said it could see it's way to spending $20 billion (up from $5 billion), but not a penny more.
There's no question Democrats organized the vote so soon after the President's veto in an attempt to keep the issue in front of the voters, and they can be expected to keep pounding away at it as long as the administration keeps vetoing bills - even Republicans who vote against the bill acknowledge their votes are hurting them.
As this poll points out, the President's approval rating on health care, 22%, is 4% less than his approval rating on Iraq. Further, not only did 81% of respondents favor expanding the S-CHIP program, but 74% are willing to pay higher taxes to do so.
Tom Price (R-GA) defended his vote against the bill by labeling it "a massive tax increase". The program would cost $35 billion over five years. That's not a massive tax increase ... this is a massive tax increase - any bets on which way Price votes when it comes before Congress?
Representative Robert Harper once said, in 1798 (referring to a naval conflict with Barbary Coast pirates), "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." Modern Republicans apparently have updated that to "Billions for needless wars, but not one cent for children!".
Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
SCHIP Shape
Framer at Arizona8th has an excellent post last night concerning the SCHIP debate, and I wanted to respond to it.
As to the question of using children in advertising, both parties have done so in the past when they felt it would help make their point, and both parties will continue to do so in the future. However, Framer actually missed the point of having the Frost and Wilkerson families in the ads.
As Framer correctly notes, both the Frosts and the Wilkersons qualify under the current SCHIP standards. However, the point of using both families in the ads was the original funding increase proposed by the President was not sufficient to even maintain coverage for all children currently in the program - an estimated 700,000 current participants would have been cut. The Frosts and the Wilkersons have legitimate concerns they might lose the benefits if the proposed bill is not passed.
Framer also points to a poll indicating a majority feel most of the benefits should go to families with income leves less than 200% of the poverty level -- and hey, what do you know, they would under the proposed bill!
The Congressional Budget Office notes 84% of the 3.8 million otherwise uninsured children who would gain insurance under the program qualify under current state standards, with "a large share" living under the poverty line.
Further, while lower-income families do not pay premiums within the program, those with incomes closer to the program limit do pay some form of monthly premium, helping insure those who need the most help get the most help.
Framer also has issues with the funding mechanism, and here I partly agree with him. I am not opposed to higher cigarette taxes - if it helps encourage people to stop smoking that is just an ancillary benefit in my mind. However, I would like to see some other form or forms of funding involved as well, so that it's not entirely based on cigarette taxes.
Finally, Framer accuses Democrats of addressing the issue emotionally ... and again he has a point ... but to which I say yeah, Democrats are going to continue to pound Republicans over SCHIP emotionally as well. Remember all those (logic-laden, unemotional I am sure) "you don't support the troops" charges levied for years at liberal lawmakers? Consider "you don't support the children" a response to that.
I realize it's petty, but it's nice to let conservative lawmakers have a taste of their own medicine for a change. It's even nicer when one is on the better side of the argument both emotionally and from a policy standpoint.
A slightly unrelated point - Framer is careful to not call the vetoed bill "bi-partisan", instead quoting an article which refers to it as "the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow".
There have been a number of votes in which every Republican + Joe Lieberman voted one way, and every other Democrat voted the other way, and the administration has never hesitated to use that one vote to apply the label "bi-partisan". A lot more than one Republican voted in favor of this bi-partisan bill, and the longer the minority continue to block it, the more it's going to hurt in 2008.
As to the question of using children in advertising, both parties have done so in the past when they felt it would help make their point, and both parties will continue to do so in the future. However, Framer actually missed the point of having the Frost and Wilkerson families in the ads.
As Framer correctly notes, both the Frosts and the Wilkersons qualify under the current SCHIP standards. However, the point of using both families in the ads was the original funding increase proposed by the President was not sufficient to even maintain coverage for all children currently in the program - an estimated 700,000 current participants would have been cut. The Frosts and the Wilkersons have legitimate concerns they might lose the benefits if the proposed bill is not passed.
Framer also points to a poll indicating a majority feel most of the benefits should go to families with income leves less than 200% of the poverty level -- and hey, what do you know, they would under the proposed bill!
The Congressional Budget Office notes 84% of the 3.8 million otherwise uninsured children who would gain insurance under the program qualify under current state standards, with "a large share" living under the poverty line.
Further, while lower-income families do not pay premiums within the program, those with incomes closer to the program limit do pay some form of monthly premium, helping insure those who need the most help get the most help.
Framer also has issues with the funding mechanism, and here I partly agree with him. I am not opposed to higher cigarette taxes - if it helps encourage people to stop smoking that is just an ancillary benefit in my mind. However, I would like to see some other form or forms of funding involved as well, so that it's not entirely based on cigarette taxes.
Finally, Framer accuses Democrats of addressing the issue emotionally ... and again he has a point ... but to which I say yeah, Democrats are going to continue to pound Republicans over SCHIP emotionally as well. Remember all those (logic-laden, unemotional I am sure) "you don't support the troops" charges levied for years at liberal lawmakers? Consider "you don't support the children" a response to that.
I realize it's petty, but it's nice to let conservative lawmakers have a taste of their own medicine for a change. It's even nicer when one is on the better side of the argument both emotionally and from a policy standpoint.
A slightly unrelated point - Framer is careful to not call the vetoed bill "bi-partisan", instead quoting an article which refers to it as "the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow".
There have been a number of votes in which every Republican + Joe Lieberman voted one way, and every other Democrat voted the other way, and the administration has never hesitated to use that one vote to apply the label "bi-partisan". A lot more than one Republican voted in favor of this bi-partisan bill, and the longer the minority continue to block it, the more it's going to hurt in 2008.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Maybe kids ARE better off without insurance
A new study has been released with some startling conclusions -- even when children do have insurance and see doctors, the quality of care they receive is quite poor, particularly in regards to preventative care.
Now the President and all those shrieking right-wing bloggers who have been stalking the Frost family to the point even Time magazine has noticed have another reason to support their misguided case against expanding the SCHIP program - they are trying to save them from poor medical care.
As various sites have noted, Malkin herself was singing another tune a few years ago when she found her family in a situation similar to what the Frost's are in now (minus the two handicapped children within the Frost household).
Digby responds:
There remains the open question as to whether or not the entire anti-Frost campaign was originally orchestrated from the offices of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ... although the email mistakenly sent to a Democratic staffer sure seems like compelling evidence.
Conservatives are in a losing position on health care, and somewhere, deep in what remains of their hearts, they know this, so they respond in their usual, time-tested manner - yell louder, smear the messenger and ignore inconvenient details which conflict with their made-up reality. By now, it's a Pavlovian reflex.
Now the President and all those shrieking right-wing bloggers who have been stalking the Frost family to the point even Time magazine has noticed have another reason to support their misguided case against expanding the SCHIP program - they are trying to save them from poor medical care.
As various sites have noted, Malkin herself was singing another tune a few years ago when she found her family in a situation similar to what the Frost's are in now (minus the two handicapped children within the Frost household).
Digby responds:
"Apparently, that's not enough. Malkin and her husband are lucky enough to qualify for wingnut welfare and have healthy children. Bully for them. They got theirs and are now railing against the "choices" made by two working parents who make 45,000 a year. But I think she and her stalker squad are going to be surprised to find that most people don't see things their way --- this smug judgmentalism and rank callousness is not the American way. That's not what freedom is all about."
There remains the open question as to whether or not the entire anti-Frost campaign was originally orchestrated from the offices of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ... although the email mistakenly sent to a Democratic staffer sure seems like compelling evidence.
Conservatives are in a losing position on health care, and somewhere, deep in what remains of their hearts, they know this, so they respond in their usual, time-tested manner - yell louder, smear the messenger and ignore inconvenient details which conflict with their made-up reality. By now, it's a Pavlovian reflex.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Free-market Failure
Everyone knows health insurance in this country has some profound problems. Where things differ is on how to resolve those problems. Liberals tend to favor approaches which make health care more generally available to everyone, approaches which tend to be more "socialized" (Oh the horror! Oh, the humanity!). Conservatives tend to preach the supposed efficiencies of the free market and capitalism.
A discussion I had this morning with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Arizona just cemented for me why conservatives are simply wrong on this matter, and free market health care will never work to get everyone insured.
Someone I am close to suffers from severe depression, and has for the two decades I have known her. She goes through long periods of time where she has trouble getting out of bed, let alone getting out of the house. I can tell how well she is doing at any time by whether or not she is returning my phone calls when I leave messages -- if I get a call back in a day or two, she's doing well. No return call, she's doing poorly.
Fortunately for her, she and her family are relatively well off, to the extent she does not need to work if she doesn't wish to. She consistently does part-time work for various projects, but I don't think she's worked full time for several years. Which is fine - like I said, she doesn't need to.
She's been in therapy for her depression for a long time as well, and has tried various medications. One this past spring seemed to be working well. She was as happy and full of energy as I had seen her in over a decade. Unfortunately, it turned out to have some side-effects and she was taken off of it, and things aren't going well again.
In the midst of all this, she needs to get some individual health insurance. It's understood her depression would be a preexisting condition and not covered, but that's not a problem. All she's looking for is something in case she breaks a leg, or needs knee surgery because she slips and falls, something like that.
She's 39, decent health (other than depression). She doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs, drinks rarely and not to excess. She has had no surgeries. Her family doesn't have a history of cancer or anything like that. She does have eyes which require eyeglasses or contact, but so do lots of folks.
Anyhow, because she's currently in a bad state of mind she asked me to look into what was necessary to get her insured. I spoke to BC/BS this morning and got the general information and rates, which I will call her with later today. However, the agent I spoke with mentioned that, depending on what medication she was on for her depression, she might be uninsurable.
Think about that for a moment. A person otherwise in good health, with no major health-affecting vices, no background of problems or family history, someone who can easily afford health insurance may not be able to get it at all. Not just no coverage for her depression (which is understood), but simply no insurance at all.
You have someone who wants health insurance, can pay for, is willing to pay for it, and it may simply not be available to her. The free market at work - all they want are the people who can pay but who won't actually make any claims. The incentives are to look for reasons to deny coverage, not provide it.
As long as we continue to insist on private health insurance, our health care system will continue to return underwhelming satisfaction and results at an inflate cost, while guaranteeing some (large) number of citizens will not have insurance at all, even some who can afford it. Additionally, people who otherwise wouldn't need (or want) to work full time will be forced to, simply to maintain health benefits.
That's obscene.
I didn't know what (if anything) her current medication was, but made arrangements to have an information packet and application form mailed out. We'll hope the insurers generously, graciously and benevolently acquiesce to insuring her.
Bastards.
A discussion I had this morning with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Arizona just cemented for me why conservatives are simply wrong on this matter, and free market health care will never work to get everyone insured.
Someone I am close to suffers from severe depression, and has for the two decades I have known her. She goes through long periods of time where she has trouble getting out of bed, let alone getting out of the house. I can tell how well she is doing at any time by whether or not she is returning my phone calls when I leave messages -- if I get a call back in a day or two, she's doing well. No return call, she's doing poorly.
Fortunately for her, she and her family are relatively well off, to the extent she does not need to work if she doesn't wish to. She consistently does part-time work for various projects, but I don't think she's worked full time for several years. Which is fine - like I said, she doesn't need to.
She's been in therapy for her depression for a long time as well, and has tried various medications. One this past spring seemed to be working well. She was as happy and full of energy as I had seen her in over a decade. Unfortunately, it turned out to have some side-effects and she was taken off of it, and things aren't going well again.
In the midst of all this, she needs to get some individual health insurance. It's understood her depression would be a preexisting condition and not covered, but that's not a problem. All she's looking for is something in case she breaks a leg, or needs knee surgery because she slips and falls, something like that.
She's 39, decent health (other than depression). She doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs, drinks rarely and not to excess. She has had no surgeries. Her family doesn't have a history of cancer or anything like that. She does have eyes which require eyeglasses or contact, but so do lots of folks.
Anyhow, because she's currently in a bad state of mind she asked me to look into what was necessary to get her insured. I spoke to BC/BS this morning and got the general information and rates, which I will call her with later today. However, the agent I spoke with mentioned that, depending on what medication she was on for her depression, she might be uninsurable.
Think about that for a moment. A person otherwise in good health, with no major health-affecting vices, no background of problems or family history, someone who can easily afford health insurance may not be able to get it at all. Not just no coverage for her depression (which is understood), but simply no insurance at all.
You have someone who wants health insurance, can pay for, is willing to pay for it, and it may simply not be available to her. The free market at work - all they want are the people who can pay but who won't actually make any claims. The incentives are to look for reasons to deny coverage, not provide it.
As long as we continue to insist on private health insurance, our health care system will continue to return underwhelming satisfaction and results at an inflate cost, while guaranteeing some (large) number of citizens will not have insurance at all, even some who can afford it. Additionally, people who otherwise wouldn't need (or want) to work full time will be forced to, simply to maintain health benefits.
That's obscene.
I didn't know what (if anything) her current medication was, but made arrangements to have an information packet and application form mailed out. We'll hope the insurers generously, graciously and benevolently acquiesce to insuring her.
Bastards.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Health (un)insurance
I saw today X4mr has joined the ranks of the uninsured, those 45 million Americans who are rolling the dice and hoping nothing goes seriously wrong with their health. He seems optimistic that situation will be remedied in the near future, and I hope it is. Unfortunately, most Americans who share his fate don't have the same prospects for regaining health insurance.
It's worth noting x4mr is most emphatically not some lower-class, poor, uneducated working schmo. Read his blog, look at his profile ... this is a bright, educated individual who was, until recently, gainfully employed, and I expect will be again shortly. Still, even he can't, for whatever reason, afford health insurance in the interim.
Michael Moore, famous or infamous depending on where you stand on the political spectrum, has a new documentary out examining the US health industry, and comparing it to the way health insurance works in other countries. It's not likely to surprise anyone that the US market-based, privatized approach comes off second-best. The US is the only major western industrial power without national health insurance, and "Sicko" will definitely leave viewers asking themselves exactly why that is.
The management consulting firm McKinsey put together a very detailed report (free registration may be required) laying out the various costs and inefficiencies in the US system which cause it to be, by a vast margin, the most expensive in the world while not providing better general health care by any measurable standard. Yes, it's true if you are a billionaire and money is no object, the best health care available anywhere in the world can be found here. If, however, you are among the majority who actually have to worry about money, that simply isn't the case, as, for example, infant mortality rates and average life expectancy and even average population height can attest.
McKinsey noted the US system results, among other extra expenses, in $98 billion additional administration costs when compared to an average system. Some of those costs are necessary, certainly, but some of them are extraneous in a national health-care system. Costs for marketing, for screening prospective participants, for finding reasons to deny claims, all become unnecessary if our priority switches from profit-based to public-welfare-based. As a comparison, McKinsey estimates it would "only" cost $77 billion to cover all uninsured Americans in a national system.
None of this is new, of course -- many of these same issues were relevant when we last had a national discussion about national health, more than a decade ago now with the failed Clinton bill. What may finally push this over the top so something is actually done could be a coalition of business lobbies standing up to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. Sad, but true ... it seems nothing gets done these days because it's actually the right thing to do, but rather because one army of lobbyists manages to kick the butt of another army of lobbyists.
Soaring health insurance costs are becoming an increasing burden on companies and corporations. Starbucks famously announced two years ago it was spending more on health insurance than on actual goods needed for it's stores. Things have only become worse in the interim, and other companies are feeling the pain. A more recent study found health insurance is the fastest growing cost for employers, and will overtake profits by next year. This can't be sustained.
This country has a historical faith in markets, and markets work well if your primary purpose is to maximize profits. However, sometimes profit-making should not be the primary raison d'etre for an institution's existence, and national health care is on that list. Our health insurance system is sick. It's time to turn the table, deny it coverage and let it die, while the rest of us work toward something better.
It's worth noting x4mr is most emphatically not some lower-class, poor, uneducated working schmo. Read his blog, look at his profile ... this is a bright, educated individual who was, until recently, gainfully employed, and I expect will be again shortly. Still, even he can't, for whatever reason, afford health insurance in the interim.
Michael Moore, famous or infamous depending on where you stand on the political spectrum, has a new documentary out examining the US health industry, and comparing it to the way health insurance works in other countries. It's not likely to surprise anyone that the US market-based, privatized approach comes off second-best. The US is the only major western industrial power without national health insurance, and "Sicko" will definitely leave viewers asking themselves exactly why that is.
The management consulting firm McKinsey put together a very detailed report (free registration may be required) laying out the various costs and inefficiencies in the US system which cause it to be, by a vast margin, the most expensive in the world while not providing better general health care by any measurable standard. Yes, it's true if you are a billionaire and money is no object, the best health care available anywhere in the world can be found here. If, however, you are among the majority who actually have to worry about money, that simply isn't the case, as, for example, infant mortality rates and average life expectancy and even average population height can attest.
McKinsey noted the US system results, among other extra expenses, in $98 billion additional administration costs when compared to an average system. Some of those costs are necessary, certainly, but some of them are extraneous in a national health-care system. Costs for marketing, for screening prospective participants, for finding reasons to deny claims, all become unnecessary if our priority switches from profit-based to public-welfare-based. As a comparison, McKinsey estimates it would "only" cost $77 billion to cover all uninsured Americans in a national system.
None of this is new, of course -- many of these same issues were relevant when we last had a national discussion about national health, more than a decade ago now with the failed Clinton bill. What may finally push this over the top so something is actually done could be a coalition of business lobbies standing up to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. Sad, but true ... it seems nothing gets done these days because it's actually the right thing to do, but rather because one army of lobbyists manages to kick the butt of another army of lobbyists.
Soaring health insurance costs are becoming an increasing burden on companies and corporations. Starbucks famously announced two years ago it was spending more on health insurance than on actual goods needed for it's stores. Things have only become worse in the interim, and other companies are feeling the pain. A more recent study found health insurance is the fastest growing cost for employers, and will overtake profits by next year. This can't be sustained.
This country has a historical faith in markets, and markets work well if your primary purpose is to maximize profits. However, sometimes profit-making should not be the primary raison d'etre for an institution's existence, and national health care is on that list. Our health insurance system is sick. It's time to turn the table, deny it coverage and let it die, while the rest of us work toward something better.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Vamos a Costa Rica
Planning on having a child anytime in the near future? You might want to relocate to Costa Rica if you do.
A recent opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof included the statement "... a child in Costa Rica born today is expected to live longer than an American child born today." Needless to say, this caught my eye. I've been to Costa Rica, and it's a great place to visit, nice people, but there is no way I would expect the life expectancy of an average Costa Rican to exceed that of someone born in America.
As it turns out, my initial expectations are, at least arguably, wrong (and Kristof is, at least arguably, correct). According to Globalis, the data for Costa Rica and the United States show Costa Rican child born today would be expected to live one year longer than a child born in the United States.
I qualified the above paragraph with the word "arguably" because I also found data showing life expectancy in the US is still greater than that in Costa Rica (although not by much, and the gap was closing). Still, the fact the most powerful, most advanced society on the planet, one which spends more money per person on health care than any other nation (and by a _wide_ margin) can boast of a life expectancy comparable to that of a 2nd-world nation says a great deal about both countries -- good things about Costa Rica, bad things about us.
The amount of money we spend on health care (over $7000 per person per year) is astonishing. The same Kristof column included the following factoid: "By next year, the average Fortune 500 company will spend more on health care than it earns in net income, according to Steve Burd, the head of Safeway. "
Our companies are being cannibalized by the need to provide health insurance for their employees, yet the return on investment is pathetic. We lag behind nearly every Western nation in standard measurements of health-care effectiveness -- infant mortality, percentage of insured, death in childbirth, etc. As our health care costs rise, and the number of people who are uninsured rises as well, the numbers can only get worse.
Despite this, any call for a single-payer system, or even for any significant revamping of the current, horribly inefficient, system is met with unyielding resistance. The system never changes, and things continue to disintegrate.
One of Benjamin Franklin's more famous quotes is "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Our current health care system is insane.
A recent opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof included the statement "... a child in Costa Rica born today is expected to live longer than an American child born today." Needless to say, this caught my eye. I've been to Costa Rica, and it's a great place to visit, nice people, but there is no way I would expect the life expectancy of an average Costa Rican to exceed that of someone born in America.
As it turns out, my initial expectations are, at least arguably, wrong (and Kristof is, at least arguably, correct). According to Globalis, the data for Costa Rica and the United States show Costa Rican child born today would be expected to live one year longer than a child born in the United States.
I qualified the above paragraph with the word "arguably" because I also found data showing life expectancy in the US is still greater than that in Costa Rica (although not by much, and the gap was closing). Still, the fact the most powerful, most advanced society on the planet, one which spends more money per person on health care than any other nation (and by a _wide_ margin) can boast of a life expectancy comparable to that of a 2nd-world nation says a great deal about both countries -- good things about Costa Rica, bad things about us.
The amount of money we spend on health care (over $7000 per person per year) is astonishing. The same Kristof column included the following factoid: "By next year, the average Fortune 500 company will spend more on health care than it earns in net income, according to Steve Burd, the head of Safeway. "
Our companies are being cannibalized by the need to provide health insurance for their employees, yet the return on investment is pathetic. We lag behind nearly every Western nation in standard measurements of health-care effectiveness -- infant mortality, percentage of insured, death in childbirth, etc. As our health care costs rise, and the number of people who are uninsured rises as well, the numbers can only get worse.
Despite this, any call for a single-payer system, or even for any significant revamping of the current, horribly inefficient, system is met with unyielding resistance. The system never changes, and things continue to disintegrate.
One of Benjamin Franklin's more famous quotes is "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Our current health care system is insane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)