health care and confidence
The question of whether or not to nationalize health care is often framed within a discussion of poverty. This is a little off target. First of all, for the poorest Americans, there are already free health care options provided by the state – under the umbrella of Medicaid. Programs vary from state to state, but they’re available, and many Americans make use of them. You really do have to be at or beneath the poverty line for these to kick in, but if you are indeed among the poorest Americans, you’re covered.
Also, since this is health we’re talking about – and a flourishing society must also be a healthy one – cost is not really the most important factor here either. Obviously in discussing the mechanism and implementation of some form of nationalized health care, cost becomes a necessary challenge to overcome. It can be done, as many other industrialized nations have shown (with varying outcomes) but it should not be a determinative issue.
What really is important in this discussion, aside from the moral imperative of providing for the sick, is how health care coverage effects consumer and worker behavior and confidence. For instance, if I happen to be over the poverty line – which I am – but under the wealthy-enough-to-buy-my-own health care line, then I am left totally dependent on employer health benefits. That’s not really a predicament that makes me feel very confident.
So, especially during a recession, this leads a lot of people to suddenly lose their health care, because they suddenly lose their jobs. Beyond this, though, if you switch jobs, or just want mobility, you are forced to go without health care for a while. A lot of employers don’t provide any benefits while a new employee is in their “probationary” period – for maybe three months, maybe a year. It only takes one event to lead an uninsured new employee into bankruptcy.
There are also those of us who think perhaps further education is in the cards. People get one degree, work for a few years, and then go back for an advanced degree. But what if you have kids? College is already hard to afford, but purchasing insurance for the whole family while you attend grad school is really, really hard. This effects our potential high-skilled labor pool.
Another important thing to consider during a recession is that it places workers in a much less competitive place than during boom times. Employers can start scaling back wages, benefits, and so forth and they get away with it precisely because the confidence of their employees is shot.
These are very real obstacles for the economy and for the middle class. People who might otherwise look for better jobs or go back to school, don’t because they lack the proper confidence that health insurance provides. This only gets worse in a recession/depression, the one time where confidence really matters.
One concern often voiced is that confidence in the health care system itself might fall if we were to go public, but I’d argue three things: first of all, it’s been tried elsewhere and people are generally happy with it – in Sweden, the UK, Japan, Germany (all of which have their own unique programs, of course). Second, there is a more fundamental issue at stake than our feelings about having to wait longer to see a doctor. People are being bankrupted by their lack of access to medical care – not just quality medical care, but any medical care at all. In this day and age, nobody should have to face bankruptcy because they get sick.
And finally, there is no reason why competitive practices can’t remain a fundamental part of the system that is eventually created to keep innovation high and costs low. It is an illusion entirely that non-profit models will do away entirely with competition, innovation, etc. There is that risk, of course, but other countries have done some amazing things in this regard, such as Germany. Even in the UK, where health care is entirely free, competition remains an important element of the system.
Yes, a single-payer system and its incumbent cost-controls could be bad for doctors and hospitals – but it might be really good for businesses and employees. And it might be really good for families and communities, something for social conservatives to take into consideration. And yes, we may need some serious innovations to make the transition as smooth as possible, but I don’t see any other real options going forward. The system as it stands simply isn’t working.
This is the whole point of society, to gather individuals together and to work to protect them and look out for their welfare in a larger community. Within this system there is generally a market, the accrual of wealth, the advent of arts and leisure. But at its core, society is built to provide strength in numbers. If we fail to do this, we are missing the whole point of society to begin with. If we fail to properly educate our children, or provide for the health of our neighbors, or to build up a strong middle class, we’ll find ourselves a nation lacking confidence and solidarity, replacing it instead with materialism and the false confidence of debt. A system which profits off of the sick, sometimes at the expense of their very livelihood, does not seem too morally sound. I understand the benefits of the market, but perhaps this is another area where those benefits are outweighed by the larger social costs.
One little follow-up thought about cost controls — the private insurance industry already exerts significant effort to control the amount it pays out, and I have a hard time believing that a single-payer public model would really lead to a hit for doctors and hospitals.Report
Good point, Dan. In some countries like Japan it certainly has, and I think net income for doctors in countries like the UK is lower than here, but overall I don’t think these outweigh the benefits.Report
Employer-based health insurance is not even a remotely free market – the customer (the employer) and the consumer (the employee) have vastly different interests. The insurer thus need not worry much about whether it is serving the consumer of its services – only whether it is serving its customer. While universal single-payer may work ok in other countries (keeping in mind that some of the allegedly socialist European countries actually have a freer health care market than we have and definitely do not have universal single-payer), we also need to keep in mind that our bureacracy is different from other nations’ bureacracies. Anyhow, I made my own proposal for health care reform awhile ago here:
http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/10/libertarian-argument-for-limited-single.html
Bottom-line – I’m in favor of expanding existing programs like SCHIP, etc. significantly. But there also needs to be a corresponding push towards individual rather than employer based health insurance.Report
There have been attempts by healthcare providers to lower costs and be competitive in innovative ways but they are stopped by some regulation — one doctor recently was going to charge a certain amount a month to patients, which was a reasonable amount, but the regulations stopped him, because they said he can’t act as an insurance company. Government has gummed up the system — we’d be better off starting over with free market solutions and charity hospitals, without all the stifling government regulations, Medicaide and Medicare. High powered physicians wouldn’t able to receive protection from competetive solutions like PAs and the costs would come down significantly. Add in tort reform, and you will be close to a solution.Report
The free market is a beautiful theory, but in practice I simply don’t believe it works for something like health care. For one thing consumers of health care will never be wise enough or savvy enough to really know what the best options are for their actual health needs. Also, I think there is a real danger of private monopolization.
I do think that there is room for certain free market principles to be applied – I think low cost clinics could be very, very good for instance. But I think the free market has moved more doctors away from general practice (which is where the real health benefits occur for most Americans) and toward much more lucrative practice in specialties.Report
Mark – at your article you write:
You see, I think keeping these programs and having all these different entities operating is actually more complicated than turning toward one program for all health care concerns. Why have Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and whatever else comes along to fill in the gaps?Report
General practice is more suited for someone with PA or RN type training, which would be much less expensive. But licensure restrictions protects MDs. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the validity of free market solutions. I worked in a private healthcare facility in the early eighties before government regulation for that type of facility became so stringent — I can’t go into the differences in cost and quality of care here, but beleive me, the freer we were to make smart decisions, the better off everyone was.Report
Well, I wouldn’t have a problem with consolidating them into one program. But someone really should have the ability to decide what medical coverage best suits them – for plenty of people, a high-deductible but less costly insurer would work wonderfully. The very concept of insurance is meant to provide a hedge against disaster; it’s not supposed to be intended as sort of a catch-all for everything.
As for the issue of over-specialization, well, I’d say that our current structure of insurance probably plays a pretty big role in that, although that’s not an area where I’ve got enough familiarity to discuss things rationally.Report
There can indeed be room for choice – once again I think Germany’s system may be most palatable to the American people, as it does incorporate choice, means-testing (for cost scaling) etc.Report
What percentage of health care is used by what age groups?
If, for example, a plurality of health care is used by those 80 and up, that would be something worth discussing, wouldn’t it?Report
“For one thing consumers of health care will never be wise enough or savvy enough to really know what the best options are for their actual health needs.”
Word.Report
Jaybird – of course it’s worth a discussion but, then again, if everyone is covered it doesn’t really matter all that much. Old people are bound to take up more funds, as are alcoholics, the obese, and mentally and physically handicapped people. That’s the nature of the beast.Report
“a flourishing society must also be a healthy one”
Is this true? I think you can look at a place like Pittsburgh from 1910 to 1960 and consider it “flourishing.” It built the steel for most things that matter. It built a vibrant middle class, too, not to mention a vibrant local culture, complete with its own accent.
Do you think people who lived in Pittsburgh from 1910-1960 were healthy, using any commonly acepted version of the word? I mean even by contemporary standards? Ever hear of Donora? A black cloud of pollution descended on it, I think in the 1940s, and stayed for a week or something.
So it really suckled to live there inn that sense. But, you know, it flourished. Right? This is not to argue FOR black clouds of pollutions. But I do think relatively unhealthy people can thrive, as a society.
As for “one event leading to bankruptcy,” I just don’t see it. I had a cousin who decided to go without health insurance in his 20s. Because he spent the money in bars. Until he got sick and had to have surgery. It cost several hundred thousand dollars. He didn’t pay a dime. The hospital basically forgave the bill. As I thik they were required to do by Maryland law.
More recently, I worked on a landscaping crew last summer. One guy had a heart attack and ended up in an ICU. He had surgery. A few days later, the foreman said, “This is why we need socialized medicine.”
“Why,” I asked.
“So he could get his surgery.”
“He got his surgery,” I said. “The doctor performed the operation.”
“Yeah,” he said. “But…”
Then there was nothing to say after that.
Seems to me that, in point of fact, we do have socialized medicine after a fashion. Seriously. Let’s say I forego insurance. Even crusade against it as immoral for some reason. make a huge spectacle of myself. And the next day I have a stroke and someone takes me to the hospital.
They take care of me. Right? I believe they do. And are required to do so by law. Now, this might not be efficient. But i terms of people actually getting care, from what i understand, they get it. even when they are 20-something barflies who could afford insurance but chose to forego it in favor of Wild Turkey.Report
“Old people are bound to take up more funds, as are alcoholics, the obese, and mentally and physically handicapped people. That’s the nature of the beast.”
But you do also have to come to terms with the fact that nationalized medicine basically guarantees the growth of the creepy nanny statism that has come into fashion of late. Maybe you are OK with that. But that alone is something that I see as a sufficient argument against nationalization.
It doesn’t hurt much of it’s your ox being gored. But just wait util they ban something you do.Report
The employer-based insurance system also creates problems for those who would otherwise become entrepreneurs. It is extremely expensive, and often not even possible, to insure the self-employed, or those who work for small firms. So starting your own business usually means losing insurance.
This is probably the reason why women are now more likely to start their own businesses than are men. Dad is more likely to have a job with family insurance benefits, which means he can’t move into the entrepreneurial sector without putting his children at risk.
I would also point out, though I know it’s beside your point here, that it’s not true that if you’re poor enough, you qualify for Medicaid. It depends on the state. In California, for example, even the poorest adults do not qualify if they are not either disabled, or have at least one minor child, or qualify for a few special programs, as for instance, in California, if you have breast cancer.
Most middle-class people think that if you’re just poor enough, you’re taken care of, but it just isn’t true.Report
Great points, Nancy. I wasn’t aware of California’s laws in that matter, though that does surprise me. Here in AZ it is much less strict.Report