Surprisingly, when I solicited topic suggestions from the audience, none of you suggested "health care reform"! But good news, you get to read my manifesto anyway :)
I try to stay away from potentially divisive/flame-war-type topics on this blog because I'm really not into stirring up controversy. I'm also aware that my readers span the political spectrum, and I don't want to alienate anyone. But I have a bee in my bonnet, so to speak, about medical care in this country. Why have a blog if not to spout my own opinions?
(I've been working on this post for several days. Don't think I wrote it all this morning in a post-turkey burst of energy!)
It's time for our annual health insurance enrollment. DF's employer offers many different options (too many, in my opinion), and it's always a challenge to make a choice. We want to get the best value for our money; we also want to have access to good quality care. I'm used to wading through the miasma of co-pays vs. deductibles, co-insurance, in vs. out of network... This year we've got the added wrinkle of having established relationships with several doctors and specialists for the boys' numerous post-NICU checkups. So we have to take all these factors into consideration, and the resulting swirl of data is giving me a headache.
Have you ever stopped to think about how crazy our health insurance system really is in this country? I mean, why do we have employer-provided insurance at all? (Short answer: it was a post-Depression payroll tax dodge scheme that stuck. For a longer answer, read these articles.) Why isn't medical care something that we, as a society, collectively provide for everyone?
Think about public education. We have decided, as a nation, that it's in our best interests to have educated children that turn into productive adults. They will become the workers who are needed to keep fueling our economy, after all. So, we all pay taxes to support public schools. In most states, I think education funding comes from property taxes. (Except for homeless people, we are all paying property taxes, either directly as homeowners, or indirectly as renters when we pay the landlord.) Then all kids get to go to school for free. It doesn't matter if you have 0 kids, 2 kids, or 10 kids - your property taxes don't change. It also doesn't matter if all 10 of your kids require special education services, or if you opt out of the public system for private or home school.
Now, think about health care. Isn't it our best interests, as a nation, to have healthy people? Shouldn't we all, collectively, share in the funding burden for medical care? Healthy people can work more, thereby contributing to the economy. And that's in addition to the rationale of health care as a rather basic human need.
But how is our system organized right now? People who can afford insurance buy it, or have it provided by their employer. If they're really poor, the government picks up the tab (but not semi-poor). Or if they're old, the government also picks up the tab. Isn't this sort of non-sensical? People need medical care regardless of their employment status, income level, or age. Can't we all agree on that at least?
My boys and I were very heavy users of the health care system this year. We have insurance through Aetna. We'd been customers of the company for about 2 years before the babies were born. Through my various medical complications and the boys' 6-week stay in the NICU, we quickly cost the company more than we're paying in premiums, and we also hit our out of pocket maximum for the year. That means that all the other Aetna customers are footing the bill (via their premium payments) for our medical expenses. While I'm grateful to have insurance so we don't wind up bankrupt because of medical bills, I don't think it's fair that only other Aetna customers are covering our costs. Again, back to my harping on "society," it is in the collective national interest that my children grow up healthy to become contributing citizens, and that I am also healthy enough to take care of them. So it would be more equitable for everyone to bear the cost of our health care through the tax system instead of just a select group of customers who also purchase insurance through Aetna.
Incidentally, I also think that the medical billing system is totally insane and out of control. I got an Explanation of Benefits for one part of the NICU stay that said the hospital had billed something like $100K, and Aetna's negotiated rate was in the neighborhood of $25K. Seriously?? I feel like the hospital just sets their price artificially high so they can give insurance companies a discount and everyone thinks they're getting a deal. Why can't we just pay medical providers the actual cost for their services without all the gimmicks? Also, why are medical bills so impossible to decipher?
I was disappointed in the final version of Obamacare that Congress passed. In my opinion, it didn't do enough to really reform the system. Why did certain members of Congress insist on dropping the public option? I was excited about that! Now all we have is a lame system of subsidies that basically transfers money from tax payers to health insurance companies, where CEOs are paid millions of dollars a year. Is this really the most effective use of our national resources?
No! To solve these problems, we need a single payer health care system, funded by taxes. Let's eliminate all private insurance. That would really save a lot of money! Think of it like this: right now, there is a giant bag of money that represents all medical spending in this country, including health insurance premiums. If we got rid of insurance companies and had the government pay for all medical care, we would stop wasting money on so much administration/overhead and lining CEOs' pockets. (Ok, yes, I'm talking about cutting jobs, but that is what happens when times change.)
Ideally I'd prefer something like England's National Health System. They believe that good health care should be available to all, regardless of wealth. Yes! That's what I'm saying! Under the Salmonista plan, the medical industry would be nationalized; all medical personnel would become government employees and medical facilities also would be government-run. But I have a feeling that will never fly in this country as it smacks too much of socialism. I could probably settle for the Bernie Sanders' plan, aka Medicare for All. It's like the Canadian system, but better. Plus we have several other countries to look at as models of a single-payer system. We can learn from their mistakes. Maybe the Swedish system is more our style - it's slightly less centralized.
Now, people are probably going to complain about this plan because it raises taxes. But guess what, you're going to have more money because you don't have to buy health insurance anymore, or save money to cover unexpected medical bills. Also your employer won't have to provide you insurance, so maybe you'll get a raise! So I think it would be a wash for middle class people who already have insurance, probably. (See, this is why I'd be a bad politician. You can't really sell people on new policies with the slogan, "It's a wash, probably!") And it would really help people on the lower end of the income spectrum who currently can't afford health care or who are drowning in medical debt.
In conclusion, we need to get with the program of the rest of the developed world and provide health care for all Americans through a national tax.
Thank you for reading my morning diatribe :)
(Disclosure time: if you've seen the movie The Blind Side, remember that scene where the tutor admits her political leanings? Yeah...um, full disclosure, I'm a Democrat. But I'm actually further to the left than that, usually. I voted for the Green Party candidate for TN governor in the last election because I was disillusioned with the major parties. I hope all you Southerners will still be my friend!)
File under: NaBloPoMo Day 27
No comments:
Post a Comment