Health Care and The Deathstar

Tonight we were once again addressed by the President of the United States in what can be seen as the end of the month long intermission that we have had from the healthcare reform debate. For months now we have heard about death panels and never ending lines in Japan as people wait to see a doctor. What the President wanted to do was to get his message to the people in a softer light than has been cast by so many in the last few months.

While there is no argument that the President is great at giving a speech, there are a few different points that need to be addressed. First off, there are some things that everyone agrees about. Those things include access for everyone to affordable health care, the right for people to group together to get better prices on insurance, including those who pay for their own insurance, the need for the people to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and that insurance companies should be able to provide incentives for those who participate in wellness programs. While these all are very good thing that we need to see in the near future, it is more important to work on the things that there is so much disagreement on. The President tried to correct what he referred to as "misconceptions" in the healthcare reform bill, but there are flaws in what the President feels is solid health care reform.

First, the dreaded "Death Panels" that have been the source of so much debate. This come from the idea that there will be a panel that seniors will have to go before where the panel will decided if paying for health care for these individuals is worth the cost, or should they no longer provide coverage. The President firmly denies these allegations in a very Animal Farm type statement. I believe that the President and members of Congress believe with all of their hearts that these panels will not happen, but what they fail to realize is that the possibility of these panels is there. It will not come in the next 5 or even 10 years, but one day down the road, the bureaucracy of the US Government will start to work its wonders as the need for a set system of rules will bring the likelihood of the denial of benefits creeping closer and closer simply because they do not met a set standard of criteria. While this may not be the problem that it has been made out to be, it will be very important down the road when for the individual that is sitting before the board praying that the government will continue to pay for their treatment.

Second, in what is bound to be the most talked about moment from the speech, the President stated that the program would not cover any illegal aliens, to which Rep. Joe Wilson shouted out "You Lie!" This moment(above), which was clearly disrespectful and should be apologized for, only shows a small hint of a much larger argument of illegal immigration. The questions is who will pay for the hundreds and thousands of illegal aliens who cross the border simply because they are sick and know that they will receive health care free of charge because the people of America cannot stand to see a person in need turned away. Will the border hospitals be forced to continue the current practice of paying for the service of those who get help in their hospitals who cannot pay for themselves? This is a question that needs to be address and not simply brushed off, unless of course we can manage to build a fence that is 1000 feet tall and 1000 feet deep and extends the entire length of the border, and since we don't foresee that happening, we need to address the real problems of this health care that will be provided, coverage or not.

Last, the President wants this coverage to be mandatory for every American. He referred to auto insurance as a successful example of how it will work. Let us look at the problems with this. For one, there is an option with auto insurance. If you don't want to pay for the insurance, you can choose not to drive. That is a real option for some. The ability to remove oneself from the system is a right that we hold dear in America. Forcing everyone to have insurance is just not possible in the current system. How do we do this? We need to have the insurance eligibility based on taxes.

What do you mean taxes? Well simply, to get coverage you must file a valid tax return for the prior 3 to 5 years. This will do two things; first, it will make sure that the American taxpayers are the ones that are receiving the benefits from their taxes. The second, it will encourage a substantial increase in the paying of taxes in the United States. If you provide a benefit for paying taxes, as well as a punishment for the lack of doing such, the tax revenue would jump substantially. This would help pay for the program as well as encourage responsible government participation on the part of the people.

To make this work, there would need to be a punishment for the lack of participation. How can we do that? It is clear that we cannot deny emergency care for those who need it, regardless if they pay taxes or not. What we can do however, is to deny other government benefits to those who do not file tax returns for the last several years. What can these be? No student grants, no subsidies for businesses, and no benefit that helps someone in situations that do not risk the health of the individual. By doing this, the government would be able to encourage the payment of taxes, as well as the healthcare coverage for most of America.

It should be noted that even the President of the United States can see that there are healthcare systems that work, for example he noted the Intermountain Health Care Systems in Utah. It "provides above average healthcare, at below average prices" stated President Obama. It is clear that low cost healthcare is possible. The President was referring to the non-profit organization (including the insurance arm under the name of Select Health) that was started by the LDS Church that now provides some of the best medical care in the world, let alone the mid-west. They recently opened what has been come to be called the Deathstar, as it was believed the new state of the art hospital built in Salt Lake City would kill off any other hospital in the area. Yet this single organization now provides better coverage at lower cost, while always keeping the need and rights of the patients as their main concern and not how much money they can make for their share holders. Now if only the government could figure that out.

There are many other things that need to be address, and we will continue with the discussion in the next post.

Summer Vacation

Anyone who makes it a point to keep himself informed about what is happening in the world of US politics is aware that the biggest issue that faces lawmakers today is that of health care reform. We heard about it during the election season as every candidate laid out a plan for the best way to overhaul the system that we know will not survive longer than a few more years. There has been arguments for years about what will happen when the Social Security Fund runs dry and no longer will those of us who have been paying into the system our whole lives be able to receive any of the benefits that have been promised us when we reach the ripe old age of 65. Now, after years of complaints that the government is not doing anything to help, the time has come to start making some decisions, or at least think about making a decision.

President Obama is pushing his healthcare overhaul onto not only congress, but also the American People as he goes from press conference to town hall meeting trying to persuade us with his charm and his never ending slogan, "Change". This program is meeting resistance as people are beginning to understand just how much of a change Obama's plan really is. Democrats in congress have even decided that they are going to wait until after their month long break in August before they call for a vote on the bill. Is this a mistake? Absolutely not.

There are two reasons while Congress should wait to vote on the current healthcare reform bill. First, as has been discussed before, it is important that each side have an opportunity to argue their case. A month long break gives not only the GOP the opportunity to come out against the bill, arguing that it is a socialist program that would only move us farther from the democracy that we cherish, but also give the Democratic Party the opportunity to get their message out to the people. A break will only give the American People the chance to become informed and make a decision based on a better understanding of the issue. They can then relate their feelings back to their representatives in congress, and hopefully, the members of congress will take the desires of their constituents into consideration when they then cast their votes on the issue.

Second, the cost of any major overhaul of Government policy has effects that can last for decades. Take the New Deal that came around as a result of the Great Depression. It had some good effects and some that did not go over quite so well. We now have a highway system that allows not only for travel, but growth, expansion and commerce in ways that were not possible 75 years ago. We also got Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and several other government programs that, while they have done some good for people in need, have always been a broken system, and have placed us in the predicament we now face.

Would it not be prudent then, too take the time to think about what the long term effects will be of any major change. How are we going to pay for these systems? Will the systems hold up under government control? Or will this new, and rather costly, universal coverage only be a temporary patch for a problem that could fill the hole in the ozone.

For Congress, they should enjoy their summer vacation, but they must remember that the choice they make when they come back will have consequences that last long after they leave office. Maybe between the parties and the cabins they can take some time and think about the problem placed before them. Who knows? We might just end up with a better system than we started with.

The Smokeless Battlefield

As the world's understanding of the effects of lighting up a cigarette continues to expand, governments around the world are working to not only make it more difficult to smoke, but to ban smoking all together. Not to be outdone, the United States Military is making recommendations that smoking among soldiers be ban over the next 5 to 10 years.

This is a move that is being seen in two very different lights. Current smokers believe that there is no need for a smoking ban in the military. Some of the top officers even feel that a hit of nicotine is needed during the stressful times of war. What those top officials fail to realize is the overall benefit that a smoking ban would have on the US Armed Forces.

There are three major problems with the current rules towards tobacco in the Armed Forces. First is the relative cost that we require soldiers to pay for their tobacco. For years the taxes associated with tobacco sales have increased, paying for government program after government program. We have come to realize that because people will buy tobacco no matter how much it cost, it is a good way to fund programs that my otherwise not exist. In particular, programs that provide healthcare for large groups choose to tax tobacco because tobacco use is the single most expensive factor in increasing the overall cost of healthcare in the United States. While this method has been used for years to discourage people from smoking, one very large group has been exempt from its effects. As many know, goods purchased on a military base are provided tax free. This includes tobacco products. A carton of cigarettes that may cost $45 or $50 to a civilian may only cost $20 to a member of the military. When taxes are placed on the tobacco products, it has no effect on the cost of tobacco for a soldier. This can be seen clearly as the average number of smokers in the US military is one in three, while the rest of the country, including smokers in the military, only comes to one smoker for every five Americans. If we continue to do nothing to discourage soldiers from smoking, the difference will become even greater.

The second major problem with soldiers smoking is the ever present health effects. There are very few in the United States who do not know that smoking is bad for their health. Those who choose not to believe in the health risks are simply ignoring the wealth of information to continue indulging themselves in their habits. We know that smoking leads to some of the most horrible cancers and diseases that we still face in modern medicine. We have all seen the pictures of diseased lungs and hearts, and the physical destruction that smoking can do to our bodies. We even know that one in three smokers will eventually suffer a smoking related death. Then there are the short term effects that soldiers should care about. Shortness of breath is one of the last things that a soldiers needs when he is in a fight for his life.

The last problem is one that almost everyone tends to care about, money. The overall cost to the government that is a direct result of smoking is astronomical. First you have the cost of the tobacco. For years, every soldier was issued tobacco with every meal, costing the government hundreds of millions a year. Then there are the medical costs. Soldiers are given a unique benefit for their service, free health care for life. When soldiers are allowed to smoke, they are all but guaranteeing that the government will spend thousands, if not millions, more on the healthcare cost for that single individual. If the government was not forced to pay this healthcare costs, the money spent could be used to provide for hundreds of other government sponsored programs, or maybe even put back into the pockets of every American that pays taxes.

This ban is far past due. It is possible to fight and not need a cigarette. Two thirds of the Armed Forces manage to accomplish it. We should encourage the government to implement the ban, even if it takes ten years. Our soldiers should be fighting the enemy, and not lung cancer.