Healthcare and some

Hello all, it has been way too long. I have been involved in a number of political related events since my last post. I’ve seen more Presidential Candidates, finally giving the Dems some love, moderated political discussions on healthcare and social security reform, and traveled to Washington D.C.

I guess I’ll try to relay the month of July in Chronological order.

My first noteworthy activity was attending a Bill Richardson campaign event in Waterloo. My take on him is that he has a few good jokes, some good ideas, and a strong desire to spend lots of money without raising taxes. This leads me say I will not be caucusing for the man. He believes that if we stopped spending money on the war we could just use it to pay for our social programs. Great, except for our nation spirals into debt faster and faster each day. Are we supposed to continue to borrow money so we can pay for his programs? He does not seemed concern with the long term effects of continuing to amass a huge debt to foreign nations.

My next experience was moderating town hall type discussions on health care and social security for AARP. I was accompanied by three fellow FINS, on this interesting tour into the minds of average Iowans. The program called Divided We Fail (DWF) asked people to discuss three different approaches to change healthcare and social security. The first was for the government to provide the safety net and institute socialized medicine. Second, Individuals need to be responsible for themselves and the government has no role in the healthcare system and people should have private social security accounts. The third was a mixture of responsibility between business, government, and the individual. Several trends emerged throughout the process in my account, as well as some outlandish and wild predictions, which I will share a few. However, I only attended seven meetings in Iowa out of 40. There were also meetings in the states of Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina because of their early caucuses and primaries.

Disclaimer: My recollection is my own view and by no means represents the view of AARP or anything of that nature.

Approach 1 the Government needs to provide a safety net. Well I will bet it will not come as a shock that the majority of people don’t trust the government. Too much wasted spending, corrupt officials, (insert your own reason you feel the government sucks), and too much red tape/ bureaucracy.

People had significant fears for socialized medicine. Canada was the poster child for this issue, being cited as the reason socialized medicine doesn’t work. Too long of wait, worse doctors, less choice in picking which doctor you see. Many people also stated they feel the government screwed up Medicare so badly that it had proved to be incompetent of tackling healthcare issues.

Illegal immigration was also brought up in several communities when speaking of this approach. People were angry that they had to pay tax dollars to support illegal immigrants going to the emergency room.

Veteran’s affairs hospitals were cited both as a positive and a negative. Some say that it works; others stated they believed the system was extremely flawed. One positive was the ability to negotiate drug prices, a negative being the Walter Reed scandal.

Positives –yes some were stated.

A woman stated that she was on vacation in Great Britain and became ill. She was able to go to the doctor free of charge, FYI the Brits have socialized medicine. She was very grateful that they treated her aliments. In the US foreign travelers who do not have insurance in the US or at all are stuck with the health care bills. This can lead to these people skipping out on paying which is a negative situation for hospitals, insurance companies and purchasers, American taxpayers, and the individual who skipped out on the payment.

• Everyone would have access to preventative care, which could save money in cases where catching an aliment on the front end saved a trip to the emergency room visit later.

• The government should regulate prescription drug cost, and ban prescription drug ads.

Second – Do it yourself

If the government lowered taxes so people had more control of their money, individuals would be better able to take care of their healthcare needs and financial security.

Negatives

• Many hardworking people do not have health insurance, and are unable to save for the future. One accident or mishap could sink a family.

• The majority of Iowan senior citizens would live below the poverty line without social security.

• The idea of private social security accounts was frightening. First people felt they wouldn’t know how to manage a private account, investing and the sort. Second, they felt that it would greatly benefit the rich and hurt the people who need it the most.

• Many people felt one accident or family disaster away from financial ruin.

Positives

• People like the idea of more personal control. They also seemed attracted to the “American Dream”. If you work hard, you will be financially secure.

• It would make people responsible and force them to work instead of relying on government aid.

Third – Combined effort

I would say this was probably the most popular choice. People believed the government should play a role in banning pharmaceutical commercials just as they have done to cigarette commercials. Another responsibility of the government would be to teach financial planning in public schools. They thought businesses should provide benefits such as insurance and retirement options. Small business pools for insurance were discussed when it was mentioned that many small business owners could not afford to provide insurance for their employees. People also wanted incentives to insure that individuals would do their part to stay healthy, have a job, and save money.

Personally, I think that we received a genuine feel for what people believed, but I felt like we heard from many people with false perceptions of our own health care system as well as systems in other countries.

France has a very strong healthcare system. It is not completely private and not completely socialized.

The US government spends a larger percentage of the national budget on healthcare and more per capita than Europeans do.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2007/gb20070613_921562.htm

What is worse is that the, “U.S. ranks last or near last on basic performance measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.” (Same article.)

According to the World Health Organization, the average life expectancy is higher in France, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan than in the United States. The US also has a higher infant mortality rate than all of the countries listed above. http://www.who.int/research/en/

The chance of a person dying between the age of 15 and 60 is higher in the US than in Canada or 20 plus European countries. (WHO)

I feel we should stop basing our thoughts on universal healthcare with false stereotypes and take a serious look at the facts before we decide which direction our healthcare system should head.

Sorry for the lack of a bibliography, however all of the data I used can be found on those websites if you are willing to mine a little bit.