What the Health?!?!

So, even though we still don't have just one official health care reform bill (we have 6) I'm ready to weigh in a little bit with some of my thoughts.

Above all, as per usual I have to express my extreme disapointment at how quickly the quality of the discourse has deteriorated on this issue. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little bit. A year ago it seemed like it was generally acknowledged that health care reform was needed and almost everyone I spoke with seemed fully capable of discussing it in a rational manner. Even at my work meetings at BCBS the consensus among the VPs was "something is going to happen and it needs to happen, because the status quo is going to quickly get out of hand."

Now, somehow over the course of the last year we've gone from that to a bunch of people being convinced that a government-run health care plan is basically a harbinger of the apocalypse.

Look, there are plenty of reasons to be against a government plan. There's a lot of valid points to be made. In general, the government doesn't do as efficient a job as the private sector in most industries. You practically cannot throw a stone without hitting a government-run bureauacracy that's rife with either corruption or crippling inefficiency (or a healthy blend of both). What's completely not valid, however, are the outlandish accusations of "death panels" and comparisons between Obama and the Democratic majority to Hitler and Nazi Germany. These are baseless fear-mongering attacks used as justification by people who already hate Obama and the Democratic party and are looking for any thinly-veiled excuse to try and legitimize their feelings in their own mind and the mind of other easily-led individuals.

This whole death panel furor (not to be confused with Fuhrer) began with a seemingly inocuous amendment in the House bill which would allow Medicare to provide for voluntary counseling on end-of-life decisions (i.e. living wills, learning about hospice, making a family member a health proxy). How this has been distorted into people claiming that the elderly would be subjected to mandatory reviews in front of government bureaucrats who would then determine if they should live or die is almost beyond me. This is not a leap in logic; it's an interstellar voyage to another plane of reality. Guess what? I'm willing to bet that 90% of you out their with a private insurance plan are currently covered for end-of-life counseling. And although I haven't been to every room in my building, I'm pretty sure that I would have noticed any signs that said "Death Panel Tribunal" or "The Killing Floor" around here.

Perhaps the most amusing of the criticisms came from the Investor's Business Daily who, in comparing the Democratic plan to Britain's current health care, said "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." Duly informed that scientist Stephen Hawking is both British and living, they then amended the article. Stephen Hawking's response: "I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived." You know, you'd like to think that even the most pedestrian of journalists would do a real quick fact check just to make sure that one of your main points does not in fact completely contradict your entire premise.

Alright, while since I've ragged on the right-wing attacks of the health care bill I'll switch gears and take aim at the Democratic party. My question to them is this: why are they so petrified of public opinion on this issue? It seems to me that they're spending way too much time trying to deflect all the ridiculous and outlandish criticism. There is still 15 months to go before the next election, so it would seem that by the time it rolls around you're going to be judged by the results of the bill you pass and not on the debate that surrounds it now. As such, it seems like the most prudent option is to spend as much time as you can on crafting the best possible bill. Let the Republicans and other nuts say as many crazy and ridiculous things as they want to; in fact the crazier the better. When legislation passes and none of their apocalyptic scenarios come to pass it will just serve as another hit to their credibility. But if you sit there and worry about every opinion poll and detrimentally alter the bill to fit the popular mood of the hour, you've got a good chance of ending up with a spectacularly crappy bill. And that's what'll get you killed in the election next year.

But back to the Republicans (sorry). Again I lament the lack of a viable, rational opposition. By the Republican ideals that I grew up with, they should be against government health care for two reasons: 1) the cost, and 2) the private sector is more efficient. We would be far better served as a nation if they stuck to those points of contention instead of branching off into some of these ridiculous tangents. I absolutely do not like the idea of unchecked power. I believe that the goal of an opposition party is to compromise so that they get as many of their ideas as possible represented in legislation while they are the minority party. Simply fighting everything tooth and nail doesn't serve anyone. If a bill is bad; make it less bad and then support it. Then you can go back and tell your constituency "this is a horrible bill, but at least I was able to get this silver lining in it." Otherwise, simply refusing to support an opposition bill under any circumstances just removes and incentive for the majority party to work with you at all. As long as they can keep their party together, you're obsolete.

One final note, and yes it's another shot at Republicans. Above all, the thing that kills me about this party is the hypocrisy. They don't govern according to the things they claim to believe in. They are unwavering in their support for the Constitution when it comes to the 2nd amendment, yet when it comes to immigration they like to conveniently overlook the 14th amendment ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"). Everytime any politician proposes the idea of raising the tax rates on any group, "that's socialism!" is the rallying cry. But I don't hear any of them making the proposal to move to a flat tax or abolish income tax altogether. Finally, and as it relates to health care, it seems to me that if you're going to take the position that the government is an inferior insurer to the private sector that you ought to be proposing an abolishment of all existing government health insurance. That means no more Medicare and no more city or state supported health insurance either. If the private sector is so much better, then let the government buy their employee's insurance from them.

All of this hit home for me this week. On Monday rumors began swirling that Blue Cross was going to be laying off a substantial number of employees sometime soon. Well yesterday the shoe dropped and 650 employees were let go. Fortunately, I was not one of them. But as I was thinking on Monday about the possibility, I realized that even if I got laid off and couldn't find another job, although it would be tough, we would be OK. Even if we got foreclosed on and had to beg family to take us in, I think that we could get by. Well, in every respect but one: our health care would be gone. And what if the worst happened and Anabelle needed some very expensive surgeries in her first couple years of life. What are we going to do? Not getting it done will not be an option. And the worst part is that there's nothing I can do right now to better prepare myself. No job = no health insurance; it's that simple right now. This actually has nothing to do with government vs. private insurance; I just think the whole tie-in between your health insurance and your employer is sheer lunacy. Whether it's a government-run plan or just my employer giving me the equivalent of what they pay on my behalf so I can go out and get my own coverage, either one is better than what we have now. And that realization that doing almost anything is better than doing nothing is a perspective that deserves more prominence in this ongoing debate.