A Facebook blog on Health Care Reform

Title: So two guys walk into a bar...

Sunday, July 12, 2009 at 9:26pm |

... And they avoid the bar fight between the douchebag hillbillies because they don't have any health insurance...

*****-----*****
As I was waking this morning, my mind for some reason drifted to the current debate being waged over implementing a more universal heath care system; My sleep-hazed mind was, even in this state, actively pursuing an answer, even a compromise to the debate.

Yes, I know I'm odd.

The conscious portion of my brain waged war with itself, my dominant side clearly being the victor, providing what I consider sound, logical reasoning, and numbers to back up why we should have a more socialized system.

It occurred to me that most people must not have this sort of rational debate going on in their own heads, even at their most attentive state, which, I considered, must make me some sort of superhuman to have been having it in a near sleeping state.

So here I am, writing this note to at least make some attempt to bridge a gap between the two sides of this debate. Now I realize it won't make much of a difference what I write on here, since very few people who would be friends with me on facebook would be the sort who would be against a reformed health care system anyway, but we'll see. I always enjoy lively debate, and would most certainly accept any criticism in the form of logical and rational debate, rather than instant demonization of the subject matter (which has become the primary form of opposition to a Socialized system).

So let's start at the top, or rather the bottom. Those without Health Insurance of any kind. The numbers floated around during last year's campaign said something like 40 million Americans have no health insurance. I don't think much needs to be said beyond that. They don't have it, we can give it to them, so why shouldn't we? OH! Because you don't want to pay more money to make someone else's life easier, right? That's not self-serving at all.

I apologize for the acerbic sarcasm, but when you add everything up, the only real answer to opposition to universal health coverage is simply this: Greed.

Now, it is most certainly not the average voter's greed, so don't take offense unless you're the President of Aetna or Pfizer...

I'm going to go into the realm of hypotheticals now, so stay with me. Suppose you are a middle class white male, approximately 43 years of age, who smokes, but has no other life impacting illnesses. You're a manager of a store, so you have a decent salary of roughly $48,000 a year. This puts you at bringing home just under a thousand dollars a week. Your company health insurance plan has your premiums (this week, might be different next week, who knows...) at about $1200 a month. Seems pricey, I know, but it's a great policy! You've never been denied a claim... so far.

Now, the current tax rate on people in this income bracket is 25%, so of that thousand dollars, the government is already taking a mandatory $250 of it each week, plus the stipend paid to your social security, the money the company takes to pay their part of your health insurance, as well as any other taxes and expenses removed before you get your check each month, leaves you with roughly $2,000 a month for car payments, house payments, food, gas, utilities, AND your insurance premiums. It's just a peachy keen system, ain't it? Luckily, your wife brings home the real bacon, so you don't have to worry about it. ;-)

So let's try something else, eh?

Let's take this same person, increase his taxes by, say 5% to cover his government funded health insurance. Without the company automatically taking a certain percentage from your check every month, you're now bringing home just under $2,000 for the month, but you at least don't have to spend over half of it on insurance. Sounds mighty fine to me.

So now we have nothing taken out of the check to cover health insurance from the company, no premium to pay to the company directly, no co-pay at any doctor you go to see, simply 5 extra percent taken from your check and whatever ghastly large amount you now have to pay to get any prescriptions you may need from our monster giant pharmaceutical companies, which now have to hike prices since they no longer have total control of every hospital and private practice doctor in the country.

Sounds better than that first way to me, except for that last bit, eh?

Which brings me back to Greed.

Let's take a look at someone... a little higher up the food chain. Say, a CEO of some kind. For, let's say, a giant pharmaceutical conglomerate.

I can only guess at the kind of insane pay those fellows receive, but let's put it in the ballpark of $2,000,000 a year (which is probably an understatement with all the gifts and bonuses they receive from their companies). Our CEO friend is probably 55+ with such fantastic medical coverage, his claims adjuster may as well be Jesus Christ himself. Now, he pays a bit more for this care, his premiums totaling a whopping $10,000, but, you see, after taxes, our friend the CEO brings home roughly $100,000 a month. (He is, of course, in a higher tax bracket than we are, and has 35% taken from his checks.)

Ten thousand out of a hundred thousand seems a little less daunting than twelve hundred from two thousand, eh?

But the debate simply goes beyond personal greed, and personal income.

If socialized insurance is accepted, it wouldn't be long before small businesses all converted their work staff to it, since it would most certainly be cheaper than continuing to have it provided by a company like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, since they would no longer be responsible for-

(I want to pause here and just say that as I was writing this piece, my Grandma called out for some assistance and has now had to be taken to the hospital for a third time after her recent gall bladder surgery last month. I believe the commentary speaks for itself...)

their employee's health insurance, and that money can instead go towards expanding the business itself, or hiring new employees, or simply buying extra stock to sell. As it stands, this system would benefit the small businessman much more than our current system.

Who it does NOT benefit is obvious, though. The thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of workers who are currently employed by the private sector insurance companies, and a large portion of people working as salesmen in the pharmaceutical industry. Those people may very well find themselves without employment, and it may persist that way for some time until they can either learn new workplace skills or find restitution within another similar workplace, such as the ninth circle of hell.

I jest, but in all seriousness, socializing health care would cause these losses, yes, but can create so many more jobs in all forms of the medical field. Nurses, Doctors, yes, but administrative assistants for new hospitals, janitorial services will be needed, hospice care and private nurses, even nannies for mothers returning home after a hospital visit, to help them adjust to life with a baby.

So the myth of massive job losses has its truths and its falsehoods, but that isn't even the largest problem the anti-UHC movement boasts. They constantly speak of a government run system putting bureaucrats between you and your doctor. This rumor is constantly being shot down by reputable sources, but the opposition doesn't seem to listen, care, or even break their stride, so I'm going to propose this:

Have you ever tried to get treatment that isn't specifically covered by your HMO to be paid for by your current insurance company?

Our current system is DESIGNED for profit, and therefore, will outright refuse costly procedures if it means they might go in "the red" for the current quarter. The system is corrupt and greedy, and has been so for over 35 years, thanks in part to Richard Milhouse Nixon, who encouraged the populous to purchase health insurance from large companies in 1971 and solidified their dominance with the HMO Act of '73.**

So why do people still oppose universal health care of any kind? The answer seems simple to me, but I'll go ahead and lay it right out for you, feel free to disagree: Gullibility and Fear. The right-wing smear machine is well-versed in tactics designed to make you scared of change, and to fool you into thinking that what we have is the best system in the world and fuck anyone who disagrees, cause this is America GOD DAMN IT! But what we need now is an educated populous who has the amazing ability to ask questions and demand accountability for mistakes, and provide new alternate solutions to problems we've had for countless decades. We need Innovation, new blood, and an end to polarization in modern politics. Yes if you go to far to the left you get trouble, but we've been doing it the wrong way (the RIGHT way) for 40 years, maybe its time to give something else a chance.

If you made it this far, thank you, and feel free to leave comments and criticism.

--Chris

** And this is on a completely unrelated note, but if you're still worried about how we would pay for this sort of socialized system, then legalize, regulate and tax the shit out of weed. The jobs and products created from that process alone should be more than enough...

Erin Ashley Hall:
I happen to agree wholeheartedly since an added benefit of socialized health care would be that there could be more entrepreneurs. Without the fear of rejection for coverage for diseases that one may have, but had no control over (Diabetes, Addison's Disease, Heart Defects, etc), there would be many who would love to start businesses who cannot because they *must* work for someone who provides it for them... This inhibits freedom, and even worse for the conservatives, it inhibits our economy.

Kathryn Gerringer:
I think that 5% might be a little low. It might do us well to look at others who have already walked down this road and assess whether or not it has indeed worked for them. Norway for instance is a prime example of government run health care.

As for greed...if I recall correctly our economic system depends on it. So while it is not a good character trait...

Anyway just some things to consider.

My response to Kathryn:
Yes, I agree that we need to take leaves from other successful government run systems, but the moment you bring up other countries' systems, that is when the ethnocentrics pipe up and "defend america" with bogus and defamatory statements. Canada, France and Great Britain all have government run systems, that aren't perfect, but they work in many ways leaps and bounds better than ours, but if one tries to explain this in a calm and sensible manner, they are met with nothing but stern opposition and no real ideas on anything better. So it may yet behoove us to try and find our own way to make our system work.

As far as 5% being too little, I expect you're right, but as I am merely a theorist, and not a logistical engineer, I was producing a hypothetical situation to illustrate my point. I am not nearly trained enough to begin to create a balanced tax system using our current set of guidelines. Like all men of vision, I leave that to someone else! (Hah, a little joke)

In all seriousness, though, a 5% tax increase (conservatives already cringing in their seats) while not really being a substantial increase in the amount taken, if spread across the board (by which I mean to all tax brackets), could yield a very large amount of return of capital to the government, which could easily be used, if not for the new health care system, then for other government programs which drastically need to be better funded. (Education, for one, though that is more of a necessary redistribution of funds, rather than addition, though an addition could serve it well also.)

This obviously could raise the question of how to balance the budget and that is an entirely different argument.

And finally, to the point of Greed...

You admit yourself it isn't a good character trait, and yet you defend it as sound business practice?

Unacceptable.

That is the kind of fundamental, laissez-faire, Capitalist-centered idea system that has put us in our current state. Trapped in a maelstrom, constantly being pulled inexorably down into the depths of debt and consumerism. And it is exactly the sort of thought that needs to be suppressed if we are to pull ourselves from the grasp of Greed itself.

The first step is to stop being self-centered, thinking only of how to make the best for oneself, and damn anyone who gets in your way. I'm sure you've heard the old phrase, "It is easier for a camel to walk through the head of a pin than for a rich man to walk through the gates of heaven."

Anyone who knows me knows I am in almost no way religious, but Jesus was a brilliant theorist, and I like to think that the way our system is run is a complete antithesis to what he would propose.