OH HELL FIRE, JUST LET WALMART DO IT, II…
On Monday I linked to Part I of Dr. Patricia Yarberry Allen’s arguments for turning our nation’s health care over to Walmart. Yesterday she published Part II of her argument. The Just-Let-Walmart-Do-It approach didn’t get any stronger.
In its “Better Health Care Together” statement, Wal-Mart outlines four principles for a healthy America. One of these tenets is the belief in the responsibility of individuals to maintain and protect their health.
Health care costs are high, in part, because people make choices. Some are sedentary; many overeat; others ignore accepted medical wisdom around basic public health issues such as universal influenza vaccinations, condom and contraceptive use and smoking cessation.
Ah ha! Health care costs are high because people take risks! I am so tired of this argument because people like Allen don’t make the logical leap that Jonathan repeatedly makes that we shouldn’t stop at overeating, or smoking, but that we should also consider the hazards of eating meat. Or how about the hazards of driving too much? Or living in large cities where environmental toxins are higher. Or maybe we shouldn’t play sports because, well, you know people get hurt when they get hit with a baseball or fall off their bike. I am sick of people picking pet risks to point their finger at while ignoring the very real risks that they may actually take part in.
NPR’s Morning Edition looked at the much touted Safeway Health Care Plan which rewards employees that stop smoking or who lose weight. On the surface it looks rosy, but organizations like the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society see the plan as discrimination, in part because of a phenomenon that Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote about the other day.
This particular health care approach is akin to telling a drowning woman to not get water in her lungs.
Wow! Just wow! That last link…………..
Give that some more time, Jeff. I want to see where you and JR go with it.
Shalom Someone,
What is it about Ta-Nehisi’s reaction to Ezra Klein’s analysis that you find interesting?
B’shalom,
Jeff
The whole thing just read like an excuse for the poor not to make an effort. I’m not doubting that the psychological phenomenon is true – in fact, I very much believe it is – but I also believe that it justifies my views that I ought to be allowed to keep what I have earned.
Shalom Someone,
Please do not confuse reasons or rational explanations with excuses.
B’shalom,
Jeff
And that’s exactly why I shouldn’t have to pay for your medical care. Unless I get to control all decisions you make in regards to your health, then I shouldn’t be held responsible for it.
Why should I have to pay for federal highways in Illinois? I never use them.
Short of Federal Interstates where portions are to be used as landing strips in times of emergency or war, you shouldn’t. The people in the state of Illinois should have to pay for roads in the state of Illinois. Crazy idea, eh?
Shalom Bob,
Our national economy benefits from the easy and rapid transportation of goods along rail, road, water and air infrastructure created by the federal government.
If any state, or group of states, builds an excellent transportation infrastructure that doesn’t connect to anything, the system is useless.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Correct. Which means it would only make sense for those states, and the people in them, to want to fund the highways within their own state.
Shalom Bob,
Remember, The United States of America is, not the United States of America are.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Shalom Bob,
Unless you’re willing to be an insurance pool of one, essentially paying as you go, then you must accept that you will pay for other people’s health foibles in exchange for having your health foibles covered.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Isn’t that a choice I should be allowed to make?
Short of being your own doctor, pharmacist and employer, no, it’s pretty much impossible to make that ‘choice’ yourself.
Or never consuming health care in any form. That might work.
Shalom Antic hue,
What you said.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Shalom Bob,
Yes. It is.
If, and only if, you agree that you will never, ever in your lifetime, avail yourself of emergency room or any other form of health care for which you cannot pay up front.
If you don’t agree to that, then you are a free rider on my healthcare system and I want you paying your fair share before you place a burden on the system.
B’shalom,
Jeff
No, I’m not a “free rider”, because I do have health insurance. But that’s because I made that choice. As it should be.
Shalom Bob,
Since you choose to live in the United States of America — a fortunate choice indeed — then you choose to abide by our laws.
You can take part in the process for change, but you don’t get to opt out just because you’re unhappy with the results.
B’shalom,
Jeff
I don’t really want to speak for Bob, but think of it like this:
When I choose to participate in health insurance, I understand what I am paying for and am agreeing to abide by the insurance company’s policies that spread the risk over its customer base and defray risk through exclusions of individuals or treatment. When the government provides healthcare in any form, the assumption is that it will provide for all, or perhaps only those at higher risk (depending on how or if a true “public option” shakes out). If Bob’s tax dollars are going to pay for this, it is not something he has consented to. I think that’s where he is coming from.
I agree that we need to make an effort to fix the healthcare system, but I do not believe a public option is the answer, nor is much else that I’ve seen coming out of Washington on the legislative front.
Pretty much what he said.
Although I’m actually not against a public option. I want to see five things out of health care reform.
1.) It cannot raise taxes or increase the deficit. As with any budget, if you want to spend money on one thing, you have to cut spending somewhere else.
2.) It needs to include provisions to increase competition in the free market. This includes allowing customers to buy health insurance across state lines. In fact, I think any laws preventing individuals from buying across state lines should already be outlawed, as they are prohibiting interstate commerce.
3.) Any public option *must* compete fairly and equally with private companies. This means it cannot be supported via the public teat, cannot have special laws created to support or protect it and must follow all laws that private insurance companies do.
4.) Tort reform. This is one of the main things that drives up health costs as it is. This is a pretty major thing that no one in Washington seems to want to tackle.
5.) Absolutely, positively, NO MANDATE. Period.
So, I’m kind of tired of the whole healthcare debate, but I guess I owe you a response.
1 and 5 are incompatible; you can’t make it revenue neutral and have no mandate, be cause with no mandate you have a free-rider problem that will bankrupt the system.
4 will not solve any problems. 36 states have some form of medical tort reform and none have better results in controlling health care costs compared to those who don’t. Besides, medical malpractice has accounted for less than 15% of the cost increases, or less than 0.5% of overall medical costs.
Not sure you have much to worry about with 3, or that 2 can make as big a difference as you might think. Enforcing policies on regional pricing is more likely to do that.
Not sure why you can’t cut spending elsewhere to pay for the public option. We spend crap-tons on military and defense. Not to mention other wasteful programs.
Shalom Bob,
The single most important change we could make regarding our national finances would be to eliminate the off-the-books option.
I truly believe that if the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars had been on the budget and counted against the national deficit we would have never attacked Iraq and we would have been in and out of Afghanistan in a matter of weeks or months, instead of the generations we’re looking at now.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Shalom Bob,
Point one is incompatible with Macroeconomics. National governments must be able to borrow money.
Point two makes sense, but may run afoul of the 10th amendment. I’m not clear on the full implications there.
Point three I don’t have any problems with. The question has to be how do you define special laws and support. The crux of a public option is that it gathers everyone who doesn’t already have health insurance that they’re happy with into the pool and because it operates as a not-for-profit, it immediately reduces the overhead costs associated with keeping shareholders happy.
Point four is a straw man. The percentage of health care costs attributable to legal settlements is minuscule.
Point five just doesn’t make sense. We have mandates for Social Security, why should health care be any different? Those who opt out and don’t have health insurance are a far greater threat to the system than any malpractice costs could ever be.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Re: Point One: Never said the government shouldn’t be allowed to borrow money. Just not for this.
Point Two: I believe the Federal Government has a right to protect interstate commerce. I’m not sure why Health Insurance isn’t protected by that. Could you imagine if, say, the state of Illinois wrote laws saying that I couldn’t go into Indiana and buy groceries?
Point Three: I don’t want to see a law written that says something like “Insurers must do X – Government Option is exempt from this.”
Point Four: Payouts might be a small percentage, but how many unnecessary tests and procedures are done to prevent possible lawsuits? Any idea how much most medical professionals pay out for malpractice insurance? Hint: It’s more than I make in a year. The legal mess that the health care system is entangled in is beyond payouts for the occasional lawsuit.
Point Five: Don’t believe in mandates for retirement savings either. Individuals should be allowed to make their own beds and sleep in them.
Shalom Someone,
In the United States, when the results of an election are finalized, we accept the results until the election.
When we accept the results of the election, we also accept and consent to (until the next election) the rules as promulgated by those elected.
If we don’t want to accept either we have three choices: first, complain, but do nothing else; second complain and actively engage in the electoral process to address our complaints; or third, vote with our feet and leave the country.
Of the three options, only the second makes sense for citizens of the United States.
B’shalom,
Jeff
To be clear, Obama and the Democrats that control Congress do not represent me. I oppose them, and, frankly, I hope they fail in their endeavors.
I am active in politics through my persistent letter-writing and my donations to and membership in certain organizations. I also educate those I encounter on my beliefs where possible and appropriate. That does not mean I consent to what the government is doing with my money. Make sense?
Shalom Someone,
Thank you for being an American who does write letters. We need many more like you.
B’shalom,
Jeff