On Christmas, I wrote an article called “Health-care bill will stimulate economy and create tens of thousands of jobs“.
Within hours it had gone semi-viral with over 3000 hits on the web. Progressive Democrats of America posted it on their home page and I cross-posted at Show Me Progress and Polizeros.
In it, I posed the question, “How is it that throughout the entire health care debate the issue of job creation and economic stimulus has not been brought up?” And offered the plausible conclusion that adding 30 million people into the health care system will translate into an abundance of economic activity and opportunity for millions of Americans: i.e. JOBS.
Suggesting this outcome summoned a hail storm of criticism from opponents of health-care reform, asking rhetorically what kind of “dope” us Democrats/Obama were smoking and how what I had authored must have been satire or else it was pure “hogwash”. Evidently, I touched a nerve by countering head-on a primary talking point of health-care bill adversaries, namely, that it’s a “job killer”. It was as if I’d dipped a few of those tea-bagger’s sweet tea-bags in tart mustard — “Grey Poupon”, of course.
My favorite response I received went beyond shutting down health-care reform and advocated dismantling most of the entire social services system:
“The US Postal Service was established in 1775. You’ve had 234 years to get it solvent, it is broke. Social Security was established in 1935. You’ve had 74 yrs. to get it solvent, it’s broke. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You’ve had 71 yrs. to get it right, it’s broke. The War on Poverty was started in 1964. Taking trillions through taxes and transferring it to the poor; has not improved their lot. Medicare and Medicaid were started in ’65. You’ve had 44 yrs. to get it solvent. Future baby boomer promised funds are at a deficit $106 trillion. Freddie Mac was born in ’70. You’ve had 39 yrs. to get it right. It is broke. TARP, the Stimulus, not helping the grassroots. Help France, not us!!”
What is bringing on this extreme reaction to an initiative seeking better care for folks? We spend ten times as much on defense, why so much resistance on guaranteeing care for poor and rich alike?
We have public education, public libraries — where’s the difficulty in metabolizing a mixed system of public and private health care, like our schools or the way we mail stuff to one another? (private and public options in a mixed-market economy, what every Western democracy embodies including the US)
First, a couple of straw-mans for the naysayers to digest illustrating a clear case of why we need to change the status-quo now — and why that incremental change alone will stimulate economic health and lead to job creation. More mustard.
(You can answer yes or no.)
Q: Do you think health care should be a for-profit enterprise with folks being denied care because they’re poor?
Q: Do you think it’s tolerable that 70% of personal bankruptcies in the US are due to a lack of health-care insurance coverage?
Q: Do you think it’s okay for people to never consider changing jobs — thereby disrupting market forces — because they fear losing their health-care by switching employment?
Q: Do you think folks should live in fear — negatively impacting work productivity — because they’re forced to wade through so much red tape dodging efforts to dump their insurance or deny claims because it makes more profits for health insurance corporations to not provide care?
Those dilemmas listed above are common occurrences in US health care — perpetuation of the status quo will:
1. cost lives needlessly
2. damage productivity in the workplace
3. disrupt and distort market forces in regard to job mobility
4. damage US companies’ ability to compete in the global market
5. continue to cause an epidemic of health-care related bankruptcies
These flaws of our current health care crisis are JOB KILLERS right now, today. So, tea-baggers, unless you can address these issues, put your job-killing talking points away, we are already there.
The health care reform efforts will positively affect each of the above five bullet points, which, in turn, would help strengthen our economy and invigorate all of our livelihoods.
A lift from my health care paper from two years ago,
“Our country is the only industrialized nation without coverage for all her citizens and we spend twice as much per capita than any other nation for our health care – 17% of our GNP. That’s 90% more than Germany, France or Canada. And don’t think that America is paying a premium for quality because the World Health Organization ranks us at 37th, sandwiched between Slovenia and Costa Rica. An overemphasis on corporate profits has swept away the most basic human needs of the American people.
Our health-care is too expensive and it’s broken. Why is it that Health Care in America costs so much?
In our current privatized system, over 30% of the cost pays for expensive Washington lobbyists, exorbitant salaries of CEOs, extravagant corporate jets and flashy advertising campaigns. Money skimmed right off the top before any care is ever provided.”
Simple fact is, the US health care system is broken because of an overemphasis on the profit-side of the business of taking care of folks; a uniquely American affliction as evidenced by the less ‘profit-frothy’ examples of universal health care coverage in the rest of the Western industrialized democracies, with coverage for all and producing significantly better medical outcomes for the average patient. Turbo-capitalism is at odds with the humane-healing part of health care, and in the worst instances, negates the healing mandate of general medicine. In legalese, we have a classic conflict of interest.
Approximately 45,000 people die every year due to preventable causes; they die because of lack of access to a doctor, hospital and medicine. This is inhumane, unjust and unacceptable.
Why? What’s driving the trend of rising premiums, co-pays and deductibles? Costs going up three times faster than wages? People unable to see a doctor? What are the root causes?
Mike Hall cites, “Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage.” Ca-ching.
Can you imagine an initiative that could actually stop all violent murders in a year? Or stop all deaths due to drunk driving? Miraculous, right? Well, getting everyone access to care could save as many lives as these fantasy scenarios. It is real and currently before our nation for consideration — it needs your support.
Many health care opponents are so xenophobic, unable to accept the possibility that another nation besides the US may have a better handle on solutions toward delivering more effective care for their citizens. We should all listen more and let go of an unholy attachment to broken economic theories that do not reconcile with the art of healing and providing care in an equitable manner. Or is it the rich survive and the poor die? Law of the jungle dot com? Too much of any one thing is bad — we need a balance between ’empathy / compassion’ alongside ‘competition and individual comparative advantage’. Finding tha
t balance is where wisdom comes into play. If a project one tenth of the cost of the Pentagon can save 45,000 lives a year, well, that’s no-brainer to me. Imagine one of those 45,000 being your father, your mother, your sister. Sure, you’d want coverage then wouldn’t you?
I wish we’d all do a little more research, open our minds and resist the temptation to stop parroting Limbaugh-Beck-isms for a moment. Yes, they’re entertaining and stoke so successfully the knee-jerk defensive reaction to protect all the nuts we’ve buried in our backyards. But that’s a button they push like selling beer with attractive blonds. Just because it feels right, doesn’t make it right.
My article on job stimulus through health care reform was simple. We will see more economic activity to provide preventive care for the 30 million or so that will be added to the health-care insurance roster. More economic activity means more work hours, transactions and the provision of additional services. It means jobs — it means stimulus.
We have over 10% unemployment and need job creation to put folks back to work. It’s a positive side to the health care reform package that hasn’t been emphasized to date and I think it should be. BTW, I like French’s, the Grey Poupon is way too horseradishy.
tonva said:
Some increase in health provider roles will be forthcoming. But, larger increases in jobs will undoubtedly be seen in administrative positions having to do w. the economic side of care distribution. Petitioning for, by providers, and denial/approval by insurers will take a big bite out of the approximately 100 billion or more per annum designated for the proposed reform package. Looking back at the 1990’s change to managed care we saw a huge increase in administrative positions across the board w. a barely perceptible increase in providers. This is well documented in the annals of the Physicians for National Health Program. It made sense of course, care was going to be denied in the interest of stamping out waste.
Now in exchange for the no-no’s on cherrypicking pre-existing conditions clauses, and caps on coverage, we will see the employer sponsored health plans take a hit w. higher co-pays and deductibles and restrictions on (lower premium) plans. This will translate into reduced utilization as consumers try to economize on cost. Medicare recipients could experience difficulty in accessing care depending on their particular coverage plan which might also result in decreased utilization due to denial of care.
Big providers such as hospitals already appear to be tightening their belts in anticipation of reduced utilization of their facilities. Provider positions are under review for elimination. Nursing staffs are running on skeleton crew status in many hospitals. Not a hopeful sign.
No one knows what deadly contingencies are lurking at the end of every sentence in this 2000 page Senate bill. But we should know that it is a bill that has been designed, confirmed and approved by corporate lobbyists which means that they will win and consumers will pay.
If the legislation is about job stimulus, well, yes maybe ok.
But if it is about health care provision, then I think, no way.
tonva said:
as for injecting 30 million people into the system, the effects are at this point unknown. Impacting this will be preventative care utilization,as well as the paring back of care utilization by Medicare and the so-called cadillac plans (projected to provide the primary funding for the bill), and the resulting higher co-pays and deductibles incurred by these groups. From the outside it seems that we will have about the same amount of money being shuffled around in the system.
While denial of care per se will supposedly be disallowed, denial of care will continue by reason of policy parameters. If I purchase a policy which costs me 2000 dollars a year and you purchase a policy which costs 6000 dollars a year, who do you think will be eligible for more procedures. Medicaid patients are denied all sorts of procedures, treatments and medications. They are simply not part of what the program covers. With pared back policies, certain treatments, etc. will not be what the policy covers. No doubt you have seen Bob Herbert’s very insightful piece published in the NYT on Monday. http://www.commondreams.org/vi…
I believe that the administration did see this coming and that in fact this outcome is what has been envisioned from the get go. Why then, prohibit SP from being on the table. I actually heard Max Baucus being praised this AM for apologizing that SP had been taken off the table as he called police to take SP proponents to jail. Such hypocrisy!
It is too bad that health care has been lost in the shuffle in the struggle w. this bill. The focus has been on everything but health care, from “tea baggers” to “government takeover” from right vs left, Democrat vs. Republican, change vs. choice etc.
Pardon me for being a purist, but a 35 page single payer reform bill somehow somehow seems more comprehensible and more doable than a 2000 page contorted recipe for the continuation of our current fossilized system.
I congratulate you on your single payer position.