With the 2008 election fast approaching, one issue seems to be coming to the forefront… Universal Healthcare. This issue has been in the public eye many times to no avail. Several of the Democratic candidates vying for the 2008 U.S. presidential nomination have taken a stance on health care reform_ including, of course, Senator Hillary Clinton (who was appointed head of the task force assigned by her husband to address this issue back in the 90’s). Although we don't know yet who the presidential candidates will be, I would bet that given recent polling, health care reform will be a major policy issue in the upcoming campaign. Citizens are speaking out and embracing the idea. Michael Moore’s new film, Sicko, showcases the inadequacies of U.S. health care coverage (in comparison to countries like France and Cuba), debuted to cheering crowds at the Cannes film festival earlier this year and has received glowing reviews so far in the U.S. prior to its June 29 release nationwide.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" ?>
When Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, the timing also seemed right for universal health care. Two years earlier, Democrat Harris Wofford attracted national attention by winning the Pennsylvania Senate race on a platform that included health care reform. National polls indicated that U.S. citizens believed changing the health care system was nearly as important an issue as reducing the national debt. Clinton placed health care at the center of his campaign, and the country responded. In January 1993, he announced the formation of the President's Task Force on National Health Reform and appointed First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as its head.
The 1,364 paged Clinton proposal included guaranteed coverage for all employees, financed through payroll taxes and provided by highly regulated, non-profit HMOs. Anyone not employed would receive a government subsidy for HMO enrollment. Enter “Harry & Louise”, a 30 million dollar campaign funded by the insurance associations and the National Organization of Independent Business. Broadcasting from their kitchen table, "Harry and Louise" leafed through a stack of documents representing the Clinton administration's universal health care proposal, commenting on its lack of individual choice and seemingly endless bureaucratic complications. "They choose, we lose," the two concluded.
The marketing campaign worked. American’s were very suspect of the bill in general_ as from its inception, the bill was well publicized and little information was ever released. There were several factors in this bill failing. It was met on the hill by 27 alternative plans authored by a resounding 110 members of congress. The democratic party itself was concerned for future voter support… as it’s approach changed the landscape of American business and threatened one of the primary tenants we hold so dear… free enterprise.
So what has changed? If healthcare reform could be achieved in the mid 1990’s… why now? The political landscape certainly hasn’t… but the economic factors have gotten much worse. The managed care initiatives introduced in the late 80’s early 90’s are failing. While they may have succeeded in their business model (to reign in medical expenses); patients have suffered with treatment by unqualified physicians, lack of treatment or diagnosis availability, rising out-of-pocket expenses, and cuts in overall coverage as a result. Even the providers are disillusioned by the complexity of the available plans, and their compensation. Many of the doctor’s here in Pennsylvania are opting out. Insurance plans are no longer a recruitment tool_ they are a liability. Although employers are generally reluctant to concede power to government, they might be willing, given the current climate, to put the monkey on someone else's back.
I'm not for socialized health care. From what I hear from Canadians and the UK, it's all well and good, but it's so slow. We have one person here in Canada that needs surgery, but is in a line of hundreds where only a dozen are done each year. That's not a functional system. I've heard news reports of ambulances running from hospital to hospital because they can't find any that are receiving patients, that's not good either. I'm not as on top of what's going on in Europe, but the little I hear sounds like Canada.
What we have here now isn't great, but at least you can see specialists and get surguries.. if you're lucky enough to have the financial backing. I have decent insurance through work, and I really haven't had any big problems with it. I see who I want when I want. It won't pay for splints, which is annoying and costly, but they've paid nearly everything else. On the other hand, I live in NH and work in MA. If I worked in NH, I'd have zero TMJ coverage. I've never seen a policy in my state that doesn't flat out exclude it. That is so wrong.
Insurers can't exclude things willy-nilly. You're either providing comprehensive health insurance, or you're not. You can't exclude things because they're costly and the science isn't quite there. The patients are still suffering even though it makes the insurer's bottom line look good. That's evil and should be criminal. Health care shouldn't be for-profit, although it would seem that for-profit runs it better than the government can in a socialized system. So what we do?
Romney starts mandatory coverage in MA before leaving the governorship. Every MA resident has to have health insurance. If work doesn't provide it, they can qualify for state plans that vary depending on their income level. Trouble is, there are a lot of really watered down, nearly useless plans. It's a mixed bag. Everyone gets covered, but the coverage isn't so good. It's a start though.
I think to really help, we need online medical records. None of this sending patients here and there gathering xrays and scan results and surgical reports. That's a waste of time and money. We have these things called computers now. A patient's history should follow them. I was in the ER last week and they didn't know the first thing about me. I'm wondering now if what happened was a conflict of medicines, that shouldn't happen in this day and age! Doctors should be presented automatically with a list of active prescriptions, recent test results, surgical histories and all of that.
Doctors need to be accountable. I've seen many doctors for a few appointments and then I get handed off. Over and over and over. That's a waste of my time, their time, and my insurer's money. It's inexecusable behavior. If the doctor can't make headway on the problem, he shouldn't get paid. They either produce results, or they find a new career. There is zero accountable in medicine from what I can see as a patient. As long as you don't kill anyone, just refer them away when you can't milk them for anymore money.
Then there's the whole prescription medicine scam.. but I think I've ranted enough.
I'm with Romney so far. I think what he did in MA is a mixed bag, but it's an honest attempt at something. He accomplished something. It can be monitored and adjusted. I do benefit from it, although the law doesn't apply to me since I'm not a MA resident. It demands that companies provide insurance or pay penalties and I believe the penalties subsidize the state plans.