One of the more interesting and informative pieces of journalism to cross my computer screen in recent months was a story from Kaiser Health News that was a simple compilation of answers to this question: If you ended up in an elevator with Rep. Boehner, what single thing would you urge him to do about health care in this country?
It was sort of a man-and-woman-on-the-street interview with people whose jobs revolve around health care in some way, ranging from selling insurance, advising politicos, and working in Washington think tanks to running trade associations, hospitals, and advocacy groups. As readers of my posts know, I am a big fan of MOS stories, as we call them in the trade. It is a way for journalists to connect with their audiences—a connection noticeably missing in much of last year’s reportage about reform and in this year’s conversation about Social Security.
Asking people what they think about this or that serves up lots of fodder for journos hungering for stories. And a careful reading of the responses to the Kaiser question didn’t disappoint. The answers reveal clues about what we can expect from yet another protracted debate on health reform.
What struck me most was the absence of a strong commitment to providing insurance, private or otherwise, to the growing number of uninsured. Most of the thirty-six people Kaiser featured didn’t mention them. Heavens! I thought that was the reason the war was fought in the first place. But we should know by now that the reasons for going to war are not always the ones that keep combatants fighting until the bitter end. Sara Rosenbaum, a lawyer who chairs the department of health policy at George Washington University, was the only one with a bold comment about the uninsured. Here’s the advice she gave Boehner:
Please think about the 50 million uninsured, a number that will surely grow exponentially in the coming years and that will swallow us all. Stable and affordable insurance is in the national interest. It can be achieved only through a shared commitment to a system in which all members of society pool their health and their resources. Government plays a vital role in protecting us all.
A few others laced their answers with a passing nod to the uninsured. Dr. Bruce Siegel, who heads the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, said we are on our way to covering almost every American with health insurance: “Let’s not turn back now.” Thomas Johnson, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, said the top priority was making sure there’s access to everyone provided in an efficient manner, and then he suggested finding out whether the cost of expansion is affordable for the feds and the states.
I was also struck by the parochialism of their answers, which points to a lack of consensus on what to do next. Many wanted Boehner to first address their own concerns. Rose Ann DeMoro, whose organization the California Nurses Association and the National Nurses Organizing Committee supports a single payer approach, wants Boehner to allow states to experiment with that idea on their own. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, asked Boehner to make sure people don’t die needless deaths from preventable disease—not an unexpected plea from someone in the public health business. Dr. Elena Rios, president of the National Hispanic Medical Association, wants to continue building safety net clinics, along with a strong effort for disease prevention in the Hispanic population.
Louis Goodman, CEO of the Texas Medical Association, asked Boehner to immediately act on the scheduled fee cut for doctors, which he called “a gaping wound in Medicare.” In plain English, that’s the 30 percent cut in revenue he claims doctors will experience soon. A few listed the concerns of small business as their top priority for Boehner. Janet Trautwein, head of the National Association of Health Underwriters, recommended changing the law to make it more workable and business-friendly so employers can continue providing coverage.
- 1
- 2
You know what You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check http://bit.ly/bandYw .If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!
#1 Posted by kimberlyjoe, CJR on Tue 9 Nov 2010 at 03:35 AM
If I were Boehner, I would propose single payer. That way his friends get to keep private healthcare ownership and our system is changed only minimally. People pay for healthcare via taxes, and everybody gets decent healthcare. No insurance companies. No 50% waste. No caste system.
Or, we could go to socialized healthcare which means government ownership of doctors and hospitals. That's the radical solution.
Boener and Obama's endgame has been going on for too long, and a quarter of a million people die each year needlessly because of people like them - they are increasingly disliked and its bad for this country for people to be so angry.
Not a single American won't admit that these kinds of idiot politicians have been a failure, an utter failure.
Its time for them to step down and turn the reigns over to the Green party or the Independents. No more good cop bad cop. No more delays. They HAVE to fix this health insurance nightmare.
EACH and EVERY Canadian saves almost HALF A MILLION DOLLARS over each of their lifetimes because they have quality healthcare for free.
Thats the money we each must pay for crap health insurance's extra bills. And it buys NOTHING. Paying for them with taxes would mean a better deal.
With single payer, we would get healthcare when we got sick, instead of laid off, employers could hire based on suitability for a position, not age, and we could see some life in our economy, instead of the current brain drain.
#2 Posted by Malachi, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 11:17 AM
The reason people don't mention the 2014 law is because everybody knew it couldn't work, and nobody expects it to. Thats just PR. Look at Massachusetts. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I was talking to you. Folks, read Trudy's articles on Massachusetts. Premiums going up 40% a year, and people getting less and less healthcare. Older peopel being asked to pay thousands of dollars a month for 65% coverage, leaving them unable to afford care and having to move out of state.
Of course, this is all because Americans have not been able to afford the insane health insurance industry waste margin since the 90s.
Since the health insurance industry and the hassle of dealing with them literally DOUBLES the cost of healthcare and a similar issue exists with drugs, versus a single government buyer and payer (like Canada) we increasingly economically marginalized Americans must pay often double or triple what richer governments of other developed countries pay for their drugs.
And Americans- thanks to the backroom politician/drug company dealings adding so much cost, end up getting older, less specific drugs too.When they can afford them. Huge numbers of people are dying because of this. (which of course saves money on Social Security.. but..)
IN fact, studies have shown that the exponentially higher cost of drugs Americans pay is one of the main reasons that prevents many sick Americans from seeing doctors AT ALL!
*Throw the bastards out and put independent, nonaligned politicians in there.*
#3 Posted by Malachi, CJR on Tue 11 Jan 2011 at 11:38 AM