Last Monday night, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer devoted air time to an exchange between two former secretaries of Health and Human Services—Donna Shalala, who served in the Clinton cabinet, and Michael Leavitt, who served under George W. Bush. One of Leavitt’s comments was particularly striking:
This debate started out about 50 million people who didn’t have insurance. It’s now become about the 250 million who do and the things that will occur to their insurance when we essentially put the entire system under the guidance of the federal government and increase the cost to everyone. The debate has shifted away from just how do we care for those who don’t have insurance to the impact that this law could have on those who do?
It’s a point that the media, for the most part, have missed. Health reform coverage has mostly revolved around what the president and other pols have been saying, and they’ve spent a lot of time promising that the price of coverage will come down—a proposition experts believe at best is debatable—and that insurance reforms will make the big bad insurance companies behave themselves—perhaps another debatable point. What they haven’t talked much about are the health care needs of the poor. Not surprising, I guess, since middle class folks with insurance vote; those begging in the subway don’t.
Which brings me to a subway incident the other day, which suggested another group of missing persons the press has yet to write about—those at the very bottom of the income ladder. A crippled man, legs bowed out, his bent arms clutching to walking sticks, fought to open the heavy door that separates the subway cars—a difficult task even for those whose body works. “Can someone please help me open the door,” he cried out. No one at his end of the car got up to help—not even the tall young fellow standing next to the door, apparently so absorbed with sounds from his iPod that he couldn’t lend a hand.
The man was thin and gaunt, and pleaded for food. “Can someone give me some food,” be begged. He was hungry, and his shaky hand held an empty carton that once contained Tropicana orange juice—his tin cup. I thrust a few dollars into the carton, and he held out his wrinkled hand in thanks.
I saw this man’s predicament in terms of the health care debate and the point Leavitt made on the NewsHour. Where does this man fit in? Or does he? Even if Medicaid—about to expand under reform—catches him and offers a medical olive branch, what about the other things which make a person healthy? Like housing, money for food, and nutritious food itself. If you don’t have good nutrition, you don’t have good health—a point that has surfaced in the debate only as it relates to obesity and the amount that obesity-related illnesses will cost the health care system down the road. Damn those fat people!
Interest groups have linked illness prevention to obesity, playing the blame-the-victim game. But what about the thin man in the subway who is possibly starving? Millions more are like him. What were his health problems? Who was connecting him to services?Where are the reporters who are trained to connect all these dots? Who so far in the health debate has shown the courage to do what’s right for everyone? And what was it that kept New Yorkers in the subway car from holding a door open for a crippled old man?
Some questions to ponder on the day before Thanksgiving.
And what was it that kept New Yorkers in the subway car from holding a door open for a crippled old man?
Here's a guess: maybe they were well aware that walking between subway cars (rather than boarding from the platform) is dangerous. Did it occur to you that those heartless people might not want to be complicit in giving the "crippled old man" another "health problem" to worry about? That door is heavy and hard-to-open for a reason.
It's absolutely true that discussion about the necessity of health-care reform ought to focus on the poor and uninsured, not just the "What's in it for me?" concerns of the relatively well off. But this kind of generalized hand-wringing is a good example of how not to broaden the health-care reform debate in a useful way.
#1 Posted by Mollie, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 11:19 AM
We've been told that we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good so we must settle for a partial and inadequate debate about healthcare. Yet this morning NPR gave serious attention to the imagined fears of health reform from a gun-rights group (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120809045).
In the NYT's interview with William Hsiao, the Harvard professor who designed Taiwan's system in the early 90's, he said the Taiwanese govt went out in search for the homeless to make sure they knew they could enroll for coverage. Most of this country does not even realize that could be possible here.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health-care-abroad-taiwan/?apage=2#comments
Q. What percent of the population is now insured?
A. Within the first year, Taiwan managed to insure 95 percent of the population. That increased that by another percent or so each year, until they reached 98 percent. They had trouble with that last 2 percent, because some were living overseas and others were homeless. The government literally sent people to find the homeless under bridges and enroll them. Now they have close to 99 percent enrollment.
#2 Posted by MB, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 11:48 AM
And the crazy thing is, Taiwan's system is base on American Medicare.
How hard would it have been to sell Universal Medicare. They did it in Taiwan.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 26 Nov 2009 at 12:50 PM
I saw this man’s predicament in terms of the health care debate and the point Leavitt made on the NewsHour. Where does this man fit in? Or does he? Even if Medicaid—about to expand under reform—catches him and offers a medical olive branch, what about the other things which make a person healthy? Like housing, money for food, and nutritious food itself
The question I think people need to be asking... Is "why is this man in the subway alone, unsupervised"? He obviously qualifies for services but chooses to forego them. Apparently, he is exercising his freedom of choice - he could chose to render himself the ward of the nanny state, but instead he chooses to bum off the charity of others on his own terms.
The liberal response to this man's condition is to expand the definition of "rights" by incorporating more and more entitlements.
When a liberal claims the existence of a "right" to health care... What he or she really means is that ultimately the government should force one person to serve another person. Then the question becomes extent- exactly what types of services should be given to the entitled?
When it is claimed that one has a "right" to food... The next step is to expand this "right" to include "nutritious food". The final step would be to demand that Somebody Else provide "delicious" food to the entitled person
The Founders and the Enlightenment philosophers both realized that fundamental rights are personal in nature - they do not impose any duty upon others, aside from the duty to avoid trampling on the rights of others. The freedom of press does mean that the government must provide typewriters to its citizens. The right to bear arms does not mean that government owes anyone a pistol.
The "rights" (actually entitlements) created in the liberal mindset are actually duties or forfeitures of the labor or property of others. The"right" to an education demands that a teacher provide services to someone. The "right" to a "minimum" or a "living wage" demands that employers transfer their property to employees in excess of the market worth of their labor.
However, if you asked this poor man if he would trade his liberty for "nutritious food" in an institution- he would tell you to buzz off.
As for the reactions of the passengers - people in closed environments are scared and easily embarrassed. I don't think it's fair to read any sort of social disability into the behavior of these people.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 28 Nov 2009 at 07:59 PM
Why don't you talk to the poor and get their opinions instead of pontificating your opinion as if you speak for them?
And that's a question for all journalists, not just the folks here.
As the unemployment rate rises and unemployment checks freeze and people without choices take to living in their cars, if not the streets, it's not like there's a shortage of poor to talk to.
And so close to Christmas too.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 01:46 AM
Thimbles wrote: "Why don't you talk to the poor and get their opinions instead of pontificating your opinion as if you speak for them?"
padikiller responds: Had you read the article, you would know that the poor man in this instance made his opinions perfectly clear. He wanted the labor and property of other people. Something for nothing.
The question is whether the government should force other people to labor for people like this man or to surrender their property to them.
Certainly there are people who simply can't care for themselves, and any civilized society should care for these people- this is what charities do.. But most of these people are capable of working to some extent but just don't want to work - they want something for nothing. Consequently, any resources given to them through the labor of others represents a double net drain on society- this labor could more fairly and efficiently go to other efforts to advance society instead of perpetuating unemployment..
The question that currently divides American politics is "how much should we expect people to support themselves before we toss them the labor and property of others"?
I submit that demanding that people support themselves to the best of their abilities, before they are supported by the state, is a core value of a free society. It demonstrates faith and optimism in the power individuals to make positive contributions to their families, communities and government. It rewards people for their effort, creativity and good decisions and demands accountability for sloth and poor judgment.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 10:26 AM
Read the article. Man expressed a desire for food. Question was about health care. The health care question wasn't asked to him.
Quit the producerist nonsense,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerist
you apostle of the Randian church
Times are tough, circumstances are complicated, poor are easily demonized as shiftless losers who don't want to work.
Some people may fall in to that category, but what you're doing is taking a social problem and pretending it's a psychological one. Therefore, if all problems are psychological/individual there is no policy solution that can solve the problems of an individual personality.
But social problems can be solved through policy and, right now, 10% unemployment and growing is a social problem. Underfunded, shoddy schools are another social problem which requires a policy.
Blaming the individual is just a way of justifying a society's neglect. Other countries don't do this.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 02:00 PM
Thimbles wrote: Blaming the individual is just a way of justifying a society's neglect. Other countries don't do this.
padikiller: And individualism is one huge reason why our country is better than other countries-objectively speaking, looking at the numbers. It's why millions upon millions of people flocked here from other countries- not to get handouts, but to have the opportunity to take risks. It's why we need fences to keep illegal immigrants out of our country while the communist countries need fences, walls and guns to keep their own citizens imprisoned.
Times are tough because we keep printing money to pay for people's mistakes. We are taking the risk out of the free market economy by steallng the reward that is due to those who worked hard and made good decisions and "redstributing" it those who don't work and who make poor decisions.. Consequently the dollar is losing value and companies aren't hiring.
It doesn't help that we have a goofball in the White House who has never run a damned thing in his life and who never even once had to make payroll. His policies are just silly and his promises are so empty that I doubt he'll make it through his first term, the way things are going, without getting impeached. The greatest reason I'm not hiring two employees I could really use, is because I'm not willing to pay a fine for failing to provide them "government approved" health care if any of these stupid, communist health care bills actually get passed.
But, I'm not a Republican by any means. The Wall Street morons who stupidly risked their wealth on risky derivatives are much less deserving of handouts any than the able-bodied heroin addict in Times Square is, and I would have impeached Bush for his hand in the money-printing operation.
Moving on... Social problems can be solved through policy, you say? Like how?
The U.S. Department of "Education" has overseen the decline of our schools to the point that 90% of incoming college freshman at CUNY can't solve an 8th grade algebra problem.
The "Great Society" has overseen the construction of a welfare class that is completely dependent upon the government for housing, food, medical care and spending money.
Show me a social issue - teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, high school drop out rates, racism, you name it, and I'll give you a half a dozen examples of failed government policies that have exacerbated the problems.
You want to talk about health care? Medicare turns down claims at three times the rates of private insurance companies and yet somehow manages to spend twice the percentage of its funds on fraudulent claims than the average profit percentage of the private health insurance companies.
Anyone who has any faith in the government's ability to provide services is deranged.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 02:54 PM
: And individualism is one huge reason why our country is better than other countries-objectively speaking, looking at the numbers.
Says WHO?
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 03:11 PM
Thimble asked: : Says WHO?
padikller answers: Says your believed Wikipedia, for one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
"As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world. In 2006, the number of immigrants totaled 37.5 million"
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 03:29 PM
Your immigration rate is not a "objectively rated" measure of better.
Give me a measure like literacy rate, longevity, child birth survival rates, GINI scores, levels of debt, etc:
You can use your own country's factbook if you like.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
Show us the numbers, other than economic because we know the US has been the economic super power since WW2, where the US is objectivly better.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 03:47 PM
Thimbles prattled: Your immigration rate is not a "objectively rated" measure of better.
padikiler laughs: LOL!
So the fact that more people voluntarily choose to immigrate to the U.S than any other nation on Earth is not "objective" measure of "better"?
Are you on crack? You want "measures" you "like" instead of objective proof of what people really do?
Too bad! We're talking about measures that immigrants like... And WHERE do they choose to go? Here. Why? Because it's "better" (for the time being, at least) than anywhere else in the world.
If you want to get into the details.... Why not consider the "measures" that matter to hard-working ambitious people?
Like the "opportunity index"? Or the "freedom index"? Or the "right to create wealth index"?
You want to talk about Infant mortality? This is a prime example of policy failure.
Black infant mortality is 2.5 times white infant mortality in the U.S. The white infant mortality rate is about 5.7 deaths per 1000 live births - a rate in line with the European Union's rate.
So why are black infants more likely to die than white infants? In large part because their mothers are too fat, that's why:
http://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/publichealth/news/?p=67
This despite the fact that black Americans are nearly EIGHT TIMES overrepresented on the welfare roles (10% of the popuation and nearly 40% of the welfare roles) while white Americans are TWO TIMES underrepresented (80% of the population and 40% of the welfare roles).
Clearly, fifty years of welfare hasn't done anything but make things worse.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 04:43 PM
101,000 people die in the US each year of preventable causes related to them not having access to healthcare that they would get in nations in the rest of the developed world, which takes care to "insure" that people DON'T fall through the cracks. Most of them HAVE "insurance". But they still get terrible care.
Here we "insure" that they do fall through the cracks, it seems. After all, people over 40 often need health care, they rarely can afford to contribute millions to campaigns for "access", and they each ONLY have one vote.
Will they give the Democrats free credit in 2012 if they have a gun to their heads? No, of course not.
The Democrats aren't that stupid, to think they would, isn't it obvious that they WANT to lose this fake "debate". That's why they took single payer off the table in the backroom deals before even beginning the stage show.
#13 Posted by Frank, CJR on Mon 30 Nov 2009 at 10:28 PM
Frank wrote: 101,000 people die in the US each year of preventable causes related to them not having access to healthcare that they would get in nations in the rest of the developed world.
padikiller responds: B A L O N E Y.
When the premier of Quebec needed cancer treatment... Where did he go? America, that's where.
When a Canadian Liberal Member of Parliament (who publicly stated that she was a against a 'two tier" healthcare system for her lowly constituents) needed cancer treatment.... Where did she go? The U.S., of course! Where else?
When King Hussein of Jordan had cancer, where did he go? Here.
The biggest "preventable causes" of death in the U.S. are tobacco consumption and obesity.
If a bum on the street collapses in the U.S., a $500,000 ambulance takes him to a multi-million dollar ER where the bum is stablilized free of charge.
This is just the reality. See how this bum would fare anywhere else.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 30 Nov 2009 at 11:27 PM