Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Worried To Death About Top 1%

by The Reverend on July 19, 2009

in health care,media

I had a brief conversation yesterday with a conservative relative about health care reform. The concern that my relative had over Obama's plan was that surgeons might just stop practicing surgery, or go elsewhere, if their fees were limited in any new way.

The point I took away from the conversation is similar to the larger point being blanketed by the corporate media over discussions about health care reform: very rich people will not be quite as rich if all Americans have affordable health care. That, to conservatives, is a very, very serious problem.

Here's a prime example,……this time from a July 16, Washington Post piece by Villagers, Ceci Connolly and Lori Montgomery. The following paragraphs make up about half of the article. Notice the theme….

President Obama's ambitious drive to overhaul the nation's $2.3 trillion health-care system cleared a key Senate committee yesterday. But the administration was promptly buffeted by criticism from some of the industry players and moderate Democrats it has courted for months, calling into question the prospects for a bipartisan landmark bill.
…….

But the 13 to 10 party-line vote, after rancorous comments by the top Republican on the committee, underscored the mounting tensions in Congress and the country over the president's signature item.
……

The lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans warned, however, that "a new tax on health-care coverage is the wrong approach and will make coverage less affordable for families and small businesses."

A spokesman for WellPoint, the nation's largest publicly-traded health benefits firm, voiced similar objections.
…….

But the bill provoked sharp criticism from the corporate world and an uprising within the Democratic ranks by moderates who want to see greater efforts at controlling soaring medical costs.
…….

Business leaders issued several critiques of the House approach. Both the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce weighed in forcefully against proposals requiring employers to contribute to the cost of health care.

About 1,000 insurance agents fanned out across Capitol Hill, lobbying against creation of a government-sponsored health plan that would compete with private firms.

"This scares the heck out of me," said Tom Minkler, president of the Clark Mortenson Agency, an insurance and financial services agency in Keene, N.H. On visits to congressional offices, he expressed fear that the so-called public plan would lead to a European-style, single-payer system.

Now that the estimates are coming in on the Democratically-led health reform plan demonstrating that the reform will be revenue neutral…..there's only one place for corporate media whores and dishonest-Congressional-shills-for-big-insurance to flee…..to arguments similar to my family relative's…..Some rich people won't be quite as rich.

The "debate" over health care reform is actually not a debate at all. What it really is, is a shouting match. Those in corporate-whore media-land have the biggest megaphones. They plan on using those megaphones to airhorn out what's been reduced now to a singular message:

If Americans get universal health care, even if paying for it is revenue neutral, some very rich people in and out of the health insurance industry will not be quite as rich.

This pathetic "argument" is all that's left for status quo Villagers and their GOP sponsors.

Expect the volume from Shill-land to increase to death-metal levels the closer the Congress gets to a vote. Those in the corporate media will race right down to the wire advocating for a tiny group of rich Americans. That's how they keep us "informed."

  • pdt1420

    Oh Rev… one of the main points of the founding of this country was that this was to be a free country. It doesn't matter what the number in the bank account is for the rich, it matters that the government isn't allowed to decide what rich is. That we all get the ability to work for more without being punished, at all, for it.

    The government shouldn't get to decide what our "fair share" is. "To each according to his needs…" and whatnot.

    But you just don't believe in that, do you?

  • Tbomb

    Jonathan Cohn's blog, " The Treatment" is a very good source of info on the health care debate.

  • mary

    I have been reading and trying to get my mind around health care in this country and so far do not feel that I can intelligently debate anything about health care. But there have been several articles that have stopped me cold in my thought process and they have all had a similar thrust. Here is a quote from an article I read this morining.

    "Just how much additional time can good health care buy a person? On average, only a few years, according to a British study.

    "It turns out that at best, health care delivery accounts for 5 to 10 percent of how long and well you live," he said.

    The rest is about 40 percent behavior, namely the use of tobacco, alcohol and other recreational drugs, obesity, sexually transmitted diseases, unwed teen pregnancy and violent or risky behaviors; 30 percent genetics; and 20 percent public health, including the level of sanitization and immunization as well as clean air and water.

    Changing people's behavior actually will be more effective in improving health than focusing on health care. Raising educational levels in a community will almost always result in better community health because people are more likely to practice healthy behaviors, not because people will spend more money on health care.

    The problem is, diet, exercise and seat belts are less sexy than massive insurance reform."

    I do not know what others here think but I am beginning to believe that any health care reform in this country should include a huge emphasis on education geared to changing people's behavior. Of course nothing of the such is being included in any of the plans — because massive insurance reform is more sexy?

  • The Reverend

    I have some observations on that quote, mary.

    Let's grant the 10% for now, though I have reservations about the "how long and how well" part…but let's make that a given.

    Add that 10% to the 30% for genetics plus the 20% for preventive public health….all addressed more efficiently if everyone is covered……and you have a 60% determinative.

    I certainly agree that health education programs are important in the equation…but seeing a doctor regularly and asking questions is the best way to be educated. If people are covered, they will be more likely to see a doctor regularly.

    On the larger issue of extension of life…I don't think that's the issue. The issue to me is quality of life. More efficient medical care to all Americans will mean a better national quality of life.

    It looks like the reform bill will have a public option inclusion after all. I'm not sure that it includes a government group purchase of pharmaceuticals….which is important, but it's said to close the donut hole in Plan D.

    But I'll believe it when Obama signs it.

  • Tbomb

    Big Pharma is apparently on board [something about 48,000 new customers appeals to them].

  • Tbomb

    my bad make that 48,000,000.

  • mary

    Rev. I agree with what you say and I do agree that asking a doctor questions is one way of becoming more educated on your health but I am not sure it is the best way to become educated. I know people who have health insurance and visit their doctor for the proverbial hang nail but they do not do what the doctor tells them to do or in some cases they seek a prescription — a chemical — to make things better rather than a life style change. Now I am a chemist and I believe and understand chemicals but I do not believe one should take ingest a chemical as the first line of defense where their health is concerned. That said there are medications that are absolutely necessary in certain circumstances. And do not get me started on much of the "food" eaten today. It is essentially chemically treated pseudo food. Like I said I do not know what I think yet. I have a million thoughts thrashing around in my brain and they are not coming together yet but when I watch my 12 year old step grandaughter sit in front of the TV munching on ho ho's and chips, refusing to eat anything with a tomato in it or any kind of vegetable except iceburg lettuce slathered in french dressing, not allowed to be outside alone because her mother is afraid someone will abduct her, who is totally winded when she rides my bicycle 1/2 mile down the flat road I live on, and worse of all whose mother has serious medical problems because of a genetic predispositions I am convinced she would benefit from lots and lots of education about her future health but it does not happen. But she did visit the doctor 16 times last year for various ailments — as my daughter who is only her step mother can attest as she has to pay the bills. It is not simple.

  • The Reverend

    No, you're right, it's not simple.

    Americans have been living what we call the good life. Prosperity often leads to bad habits.

    mary, you're spot on about the eating and exercising habits. Physical work AND play have slowly been eliminated for too many American children and adults. The obeisity I see is a bit alarming, and I'm not out amongst a lot of people like I used to be.

    Personal responsibility should be emphasized by all folks in leadership positions.

    It seems the only way us humans learn is when bad stuff happens. But even that doesn't guarantee a change in behavior. It's a tough one.

  • pdt1420

    mary, we don't often, and by that I mean ever, agree on anything, but I think we agree on this. I've often wondered how much we could improve people's quality of life if we improved just diet and excercise.

    Let's face it, harp all we want about the uncovered millions, but even with them, and pardon the pun, a HUGE obesity problem, we still have AVERAGE life expectancies in the 70's.

    I don't know what it'd cost, but how about subsidizing the areas where we can drive down obesity, especially in kids. My old man is trying to lose weight, and he's constantly asking me for advice. He's never worked out in his life… if he wants to, what are his options? A $50/month membership somewhere, but he still doesn't know HOW to work out, so now he gets a personal trainer for a couple lessons a month, now we're talking about a couple hundred dollars every month just so he can have a place to get healthy.

    What about really funding youth athletic events, not just 30 second "Get up, get active" commercials. More free ball fields, free bikes, or more importantly, free organizations for kids so that your granddaughter has 20 kids from the neighborhood to bike with, that the parents can feel safe with. Like a Boy Scouts of biking, hiking, playing sports, etc. What about kids cooking classes?

    I feel like we could do alot of this stuff, and I mean ALOT, for the money we propose putting out there for healthcare reform, and it would have a much bigger impact.

  • mary

    Yes we do agree on this. If we started with kids before we knew it we would have a healthier adult population. When I was in school girls did not do sports. Today girls do do sports and when I see girls in any sport but especially running I always think — wow if you learn to love running at an early age what a wonderful legacy to bring into adulthood. Me — I hate running but I do bike. It is what I did when I was young. The only way to get around was by bike so I learned to love it. My kids were in 4H and US Pony Club with horses — just like you said about Boy Scouts — a great place to learn about personal responsibility, honorable competition (if the parents stayed out of it), and just plain fun. My kids did not have cars until they got out of high school and went to college and they went everywhere on their horses and bikes with their friends. I remember getting off I76 once coming home from work and there was my daughter and two friends with their horses in line at the then new McDonalds drive up window. They were 10 miles from home but I just laughed and drove on knowing they would be home by dark. Hey a McDonalds in Brimfield was a BIG DEAL!!

  • larry d.

    One has to wonder how mary's research reflects on the WHO statistics so often cited on this blog and elsewhere … what portion of the U.S. lag in, say, life expectancy, is due to our cultural leaning towards obesity or reckless driving, rather than to insurance executives being paid large bonuses?

  • The Reverend

    Protecting wealthy parasites is a popular pastime for larry. Defending a bunch of paper shuffling Ponzi schemers whose job description is to figure out ways to DENY fulfilling insurance promises, to larry, is Job One.

    To larry, when gasoline was $4 a gallon, it wasn't schemers and scammers f*cking up the commodities market,….we must have been driving way too much.

    As I said earlier…life expectancy is only a part of the formula. Quality of life counts for something, doesn't it larry? And while insurance executives are busy denying coverage to those who buy their paperwork, those who can't afford it at all experience a lower quality of life.

    I guess the uninsured just aren't working hard enough.

  • larry d.

    I agree with your point that many of the uninsured probably aren't working hard or smart enough, Reverend. Just look at frank.

    Other uninsured folks choose not to purchase insurance because they are young and healthy. And others are illegal immigrants.

    But one still must wonder how American lifestyle choices affect the WHO numbers that are so often cited here. Did you forget to answer the question, Reverend?

  • Da King

    Rev,
    Just answer one question for me. How much should the rich pay in taxes ?

  • The Reverend

    I wonder, larry, when "lifestyle choices" entered the larger health care discussion?

    Far as I can determine, the health care discussion is about seeing to it that all Americans can visit a doctor regularly and not lose their house if they get, you know, sick.

    I'm wondering what it really is that larry has against national health coverage. Does larry have his and doesn't care about any others who don't? Could that be it? Or could it be that taxes might go up a couple percent on the richest….and the revenue raised go to help out those not quite as, you know, rich?

    Tangential issues like life expectancy and lifestyle choices are good for stalling and misdirecting the discussion, as conservatives very often do, but the authentic distilled issue is whether 1-2% of Americans should be exempted from further taxation for the larger good of all Americans having health coverage.

    It looks like larry would answer that with a "yes." I could be wrong.

    But, I don't think so…

    "I agree with your point that many of the uninsured probably aren't working hard or smart enough, Reverend. Just look at frank."

  • larry d.

    I have mine, don't want to lose it and don't want to lose any of my elderly friends and relatives early because your creepy Master deems it 'efficient,' Reverend. It's also going to be a financial boondoggle. A pretty easy question to answer.

    Now you've used these WHO numbers many times and I'm simply wondering if you've considered the fact that American lifestyle choices leading to obesity, etc., affect those numbers. But you won't answer.

    I wonder why.

  • The Reverend

    When have I used the WHO numbers? What are you talking about? Are you saying that America's less than stellar world ranking in health care is because of Americans' poor lifestyle choices and not because of a for-profit health insurance industry which makes more money by denying services?

    I'll grant you for sake of argument that lifestyle choices may affect the overall. But what does that have to do with the for-profit part of the equation?

    Additionally, larry, if you're not on Medicare, or your friends, then what makes you think that you all won't lose your health care even if Obama doesn't do anything? Do you think that the health care you have now is somehow impervious to the profiteers greed? Are you fully prepared to pay premiums and co-pays and deductibles even if they exponentially increase to satisfy the greed mongers?

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).