Help US with Health Care

[Peter Lloyd]

I'd like some help from this internationally populated group of creative people. It has to do with health care, something people like us, who work for a living, need to have.

Americans have the most expensive and worst health care among prosperous nations. We need help. Unfortunately the current debate is clouded in a fog of misinformation and downright demagoguery. While the bills in Congress are being forged and hammered out, I'd like to help sort out the fact from fiction.

I've already found some sources of sane discussion, which I will publish in the coming weeks on Talent-Centric Blog. But more sources are welcome along with your comments.

In particular, I'd like to hear the straight scoop on what health care is like in the UK, Canada, Germany, France, and other countries around the world. In America, those who do not want anything near a shade of socialism tell us that health care is horrific beyond our borders. I've heard only the opposite. What's up?

Finally, what about some creative solutions to the problem? What combination of public and private protection would be best for us? What works elsewhere? What do we do about our undocumented immigrant population? What do other countries do?

We should discuss it here, of course, but I welcome comments at the source, the Talent-Centric Blog, where I write.

[Bob Lieberman]

Here's a creative solution that is not politically easy but I've heard this kind of medicine is practiced in traditional Japanese culture: You pay the doctor every month to keep you healty. When (and while) you're sick you skip the payments.

[Peter Lloyd]

Brilliant.

I understand that French doctors earn salary increases according to the health of their patients.

[Michael Michalko]

Hi Peter,
What we need is a simple national referendum and let the people decide. Many years ago, this country actually believed in a majority rule. One of the big costs in health care is tort reform. A majority of our elected officials, inluding Obama, are lawyers, does that give you any pause for thought. My brother, a doctor, quit his practice because he had to pay close to $200,000 for malpractice insurance. John Edwards who was a presidential candidate sued so many doctors and hospital in his state that most doctors left his state, leaving the healthcare in his state in a dismal state. Yet this multi-billionaire ran for the presidency with what he called a national healthcare program. Peter ask yourself "Why doens't the government have a national referendum on health care reform? Why do you think that is?

[Peter Lloyd]

Michael,

I think a general referendum would be one of the worst things we could do. And I say that before considering what the outcome might be. This country never believed in the kind of majority rule you cite. It has always been a representative democracy. The Fathers wisely protected us from majority rule. Our Bill of Rights and a number of astute leaders have saved our country any number of times from what the will of the people would have imposed by referendum, including slavery. California must regret its Three Strikes law that has all but destroyed its prison system.

What would we vote on, anyway? For or against health care? Whether or not to improve health care? Or multiple choice on Plan A, B, C, D, or all of the above?

I'm with you on tort reform, but I'd rather have doctors struggling to pay insurance than people who have worked all their lives dying for want of medical care.

But this is not the point I mean to pursue. We have an abysmally inadequate health care system--unaffordable for many and getting worse, poor in service delivery and results and getting worse.

How do we fix it?

[Michael Michalko]

You fix it with tort reform, which you will never see in this country, because the majority of what you call our representatives (Congress) are lawyers who have made fortunes sueing doctors and hospitals. If you want affordable health insurance, focus on the real problem which is tort reform.

[Peter Lloyd]

As you know, Michael, finding the right problem or properly defining the problem is one of the most important steps in problem solving. Tort reform certainly impinges on the problem but does not represent the problem.

In my latest post on the big picture, Health Care: Something Needs to Change. I offer a link to a charmingly lucid and comprehensive overview of the issues involved, Healthcare Napkins All.

It's a slideshow offered by our mutual friend and Hub member Hal Portner.

Peter

[Michael Michalko]

Peter, healthcare has become what it is in this country because of lawyers. The problem is tort reform, which is the one thing the representatives (mostly lawyers) will not address because of the wealth they accrued in our court system suing everyone and anything involved in healthcare. Also because the democrats receive tens of millions of dollars from lawyers to protect this lucrative practice, you will never hear a democrat discuss it or even acknowledge it. I take that back. One democrat did honestly address the problem. Howard Dean the DNC chairman when asked about tort reform, replied the lawyers in Congress will never pass it. That's how they got their wealth. Tort reform more than impinges on the problem. Tort reform is the problem. We don't need bigger more intrusive government, we need the real problem addressed which is tort reform. Oh one last thing. Do you have any idea how many millions Edwards (the presidential candidate) made from suing doctors and hospitals in his state? He too offered a healthcare program when he was running for the presidency. He like you said tort reform is irrelevant.He refused to answer any question about how he accrued his massive wealth. Do a little research and find out how many billions is lost each year through our tort system. Why do you think you see lawyers on tv every night advertising how they can make you money suing some doctor or health agency who tried to help you.

[Peter Lloyd]

Michael,

Tort reform the term is about as defined as "bad guys" or "dishonest people" or "greed." Equating Edwads's income with tort reform makes huge assumptions, including that all of what he did was somehow wrong. Are you saying the millions made by Edwards or anyone else is somehow ill-gotten? Are you suggesting that doctors don't make mistakes and that everyone who sues abuses the system?

I've taken the time in my blog posts to outline huge problems. It is clear from my research that we in the United States are spending more on health care, getting inferior results, and remain the only civilized nation that does not cover everyone. As soon as we make up our minds that everyone will be covered, then I will consider all the ways to accomplish that objective, including tort reform.

Peter

[Michael Michalko]

To me, personal and individual responsibility is as basic as life and liberty. The difference between us Peter is that you believe in forced collectivism by the state and I believe in the rights of the individual to make his or her own decisions. I am opposed to any effort by the state to force collectivism on its citizens, and that includes healthcare.

[Peter Lloyd]

Forced collectivism, no! You're reverting to the conservative knee-jerk reaction to common-sense fair play. According to our mission statement, the US Constitution, We the People have organized ourselves, among other reasons, to "promote the general welfare."

We all make the economy work. It won't work without the waiter, the car washer, the bus driver. So why should they be unable to afford health care in the richest nation in the world?

Why should people who sit on the sidelines, produce nothing, and do nothing more than gamble on the outcome of imaginary financial instruments, hoard the majority of wealth?

Collectivism has nothing to do with it, Michael. It just makes good sense for all to contribute to the well being of each other. Even Pharaoh understood that the slaves did more and better work when he fed them more and rested them once in a while.

Peter

[Michael Michalko]

I believe in the rights of the individual and you believe the state knows what is in our best interest. It is, in fact, collectivism versus the rights of the individual. I have no interest in having a Pharaoh (the government), however kind, managing my life. When government (Republican and Democrat) spends its energy increasing and consolidating power under the pretense of taking care of its citizens, corruption and ruin are its necessary consequences. We have been on this road constructed by both political parties since WWII and have only begun to realize the wars, depression, and unsustainable deficits this road has not only led us but future generations as well.

[Peter Lloyd]

Michael,

Something about this interface does not allow me to reply to your later message, so I'll reply to the previous and quote the later.

I believe in the rights of the individual and you believe the state knows what is in our best interest. It is, in fact, collectivism versus the rights of the individual. I have no interest in having a Pharaoh (the government), however kind, managing my life. When government (Republican and Democrat) spends its energy increasing and consolidating power under the pretense of taking care of its citizens, corruption and ruin are its necessary consequences. We have been on this road constructed by both political parties since WWII and have only begun to realize the wars, depression, and unsustainable deficits this road has not only led us but future generations as well.

You grossly misinterpret me, when you write that I "believe the state knows what is in our best interest." I don't know where you get such an idea.

You seem to interpret the idea of many helping all as collectivism. But it's just common sense. Ben Franklin convinced Boston proprietors to all pitch in and pay for sidewalks and gutters and streets as a public project rather than each pay for the same in front of his store.

Do you call your fire department, police department, street sweepers, road maintenance crews, public libraries, parks, water fountains, and the like collectivism? Isn't painting the fire engines chartreuse rather than red the state saying what's best for us?

I admit to small-time corruption in my city's government, but it hasn't led to anything like the "ruin" you predict here in Newport. We usually get to the bottom of it, fix it, and move on. If you want to talk about corruption, address the unregulated side of capitalism. Bernie Madoff, for example. Just one of countless parasites siphoning the life blood out of the economy for personal gain. Life blood pumped into it by people who get up every morning, get their kids off to school, work all day, often six days a week, and find they can't afford to pay for the care of their kids.

You sweep their problems under the carpet of "personal responsibility." What more do you expect them to do? Work day and night? What about the homeless woman who accosted me on the street yesterday, half-consciously repeating, "three dolla, please, three dolla, three, dolla...?" What exactly do you want to tell her about personal responsibility? Why is she on the street in the richest country in the world? Could it be because mental institutions can't make a profit from treating her?

I, like you, have no interest in a government running my life. However, I accept the responsibility of taking care of those who can't keep up with the system that makes it possible for me to thrive.

It used to be that the strongest brutes ruled and in some tribal states, they still do. To be civilized is to organize in such a way that the product of our brains and creativity rises above brute force and animal instinct. Whatever system makes this possible must ensure that everyone benefits from their contribution to it. From those who dig the ditches and load the trucks to those who lead the seminars and write the books.

Right now, too many of us cannot afford to take care of ourselves even though we contribute our full share of labor. At the same time, too many of us contribute little or nothing and enjoy the best seats at the finest tables.

The power you speak of is not consolidated in the hands of politicians with sinister designs on controlling our lives. It is consolidated in corporations addicted to profit to whose lobbyists politicians sell their votes while attempting to maintain the guise of representative government.

Peter