Brian McLaren on Health Care
2009 August 15
In the midst of baseless rumors and scare tactics about “enemy lists” and a “death panel,” here is a reasonable plea by Brian McLaren. What a great time it is for reasonable discussion by right, left and middle!
66 Responses
leave one →
Mike,
When you introduce an article using words like ‘baseless’ and ‘scare tactics’, it’s hard to me to believe you’re ready for a reasonable discussion with all viewpoints getting equal treatment.
Glenn
Here’s a very smart man’s view on this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/18/whose_medical_decisions_97926.html
Rex
If people began to pay out of pocket for doctors visits, the cost of those visits would necessarily go down. A lot. Much of the cost is due to having to deal with insurance. Another major factor is people going to the doctor when they don’t need to cause of the moral hazard of having to pay 20 dollars instead of a hundred.
Right now, if you go to a Minute Clinic, Take Care Clinic, or something similar (nurse practitioner in a Walgreens of CVS) the charge is 60 dollars. You can get your medicine for cheap, most of the time 4 dollars (at Publix it is free). A family of 4 making 40 grand a year can probably afford that, but like I said up above, I don’t have a problem with the government loading up and matching contributions to an HSA by people who are poor. 40,000 a year for a family of five is less than 200% of the federal poverty line. I don’t have a problem with a subsidy for those people. But it would still be better to give them the money and let them make the choices than choose doctors for them, and tell them what is and isn’t covered.
And having catastrophic coverage, even now, doesn’t break the bank. My wife and I have a crappy plan that we pay out of pocket for. 5000 dollar deductible, no maternity coverage, and we pay 150 a month for coverage and 25 a month for our HSA. Even with this plan, her ER visit for kidney stones, for which we were charged 4500 dollars, our insurance negotiated down to 500. They didn’t cover anything, they just had pre negotiated rates with this hospital. So insurance even for the uninsured exists out there than is relatively inexpensive, and not entirely horrible.
And on denying coverage to those with pre existing conditions… I don’t think anyone has a good answer for that. At one level, it is completely unfair to deny people coverage because they have been sick before, and at the other level, it doesn’t make sense that I should be able to sign up for new insurance, knowing my medical bills are going to be outrageous because I’m sick, and expect to just pay them a couple hundred dollars a month when they are going to be regularly paying out much more than that. That’s something I don’t have an answer to. Maybe government coverage is right in that situation, but then again, that’s just forcing all those costs on other people. Its a messed up situation. At some level you gotta look at it, messed up as it is, and say ” 100 years ago strep throat could kill you. now look what we can do”. Even though we haven’t figured out how to pay for it yet.
This article is a must read on the health care debate. Its from a democrat, and its basically a more in depth proposal of what I suggested. I just read it this morning, and I didn’t realize that there were any other people out there proposing what I’ve thought would be the best idea.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Glenn, a reasonable discussion need not give all “viewpoints” equal treatment. When some claim to have a valid stance but found it on lies and misrepresentations, then reasonable people exclude them from the conversation.
Many of us have dismissed the “death panel” crowd because the contravening reality is so plain. If you want to explain how we’ve misread things, then we would welcome it: people generally don’t like to have a bad read on reality.
Sowell’s piece is suggestion and innuendo, not an argument. It’s the appeal to fear that, as I mentioned above, is not the province of Christians.
Jeff W,
I respectfully disagree. You must _initially_ give all viewpoints equal treatment. When they start to break down because they are not based on truth, then it’s logical to dismiss them. My problem is the perception that many claim them to be baseless before they breakdown or are even examined. The sensational sound of ‘death panel’ causes many to proclaim them as baseless because of the extreme wording alone.
You claim Sowell’s pieces (I’m sure you’ve read all 4 parts) are full of innuendo. But, he seemed to use direct quotes from President Obama and Dr. Emanuel…
[President Obama] said, “the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out there.” He added: “It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. That is why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.”
But when you select people like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to give “independent” guidance, you have already chosen a policy through your choice of advisors, who simply provide political cover. The net result can be exactly the same as if those providing that guidance were openly called “death panels.”
Given that Dr. Emanual is the President’s Special Advisor for Health Policy, and given Dr. Emanual’s publication, where is the innuendo (i.e. malicious, indirect implications)? That the Dr. will be inconsistent with his own published beliefs?
What I suspect is ideologies are prevailing, not reality.
Justin,
When I mentioned people being denied insurance because of pre-existing clauses…those were also people who had to seek out new insurance because their previous insurance dropped them due to their illness. My father was one of those people.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex, That’s terrible! Honestly, I have never heard of that. I don’t believe an insurance company can just drop an insured because of illness. Now I have seen companies keep raising the premiums at the mandated renewal dates, or an employee with illness lose their employer provided benefits along with their job. But never just an outright drop of coverage for no other reason than illness.
Real Scare Tactics
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=13652214
I think I smell a rat.
C,
I doesn’t happen in that exact way. What does happen is that my father received a notice that his insurance would no longer cover his diabetes illness but because of his diabetes, he was regarded as “unhealthy” which meant that not only would they no longer cover his diabetes but they also raised his premium rates to a rediculous price. Eventually when his policy period coverage was up, he was dropped all together. That was back in the eighties. My father died in ’97 from pancreatic cancer which was not covered either because he had survived throat cancer and had a cancerous spot removed from his face. I know my father’s panceatic cancer would have been terminal no matter what treatment he received but I also know that my father’s choice of treatment (which was not too fight) was influenced by his fear of leaving my mother with an unbearable medical bill to pay off after he was gone.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Certainly an awful time to go through. Those kinds of practices must definitely come to an end.
It always amazes me when people claim to be pro-life but against universal health care. Either the right to live is truly a right or it’s a privilege for the economically endowed. The lack of Universal Health Insurance will kill over 20,000 Americans this year. It time to consider the dignity of life more important than corporate profits.
In America’s capitalistic free enterprise system there are some areas of public welfare where profit motives are imprudent. Police, fire protection, national defense, schools, libraries, public parks, food inspections, and roads are just a few areas where for-profit motives get in the way of the public welfare. I believe health care is one of those areas as well.
“In the midst of baseless rumors and scare tactics about “enemy lists” and a “death panel,” here is a reasonable plea by Brian McLaren. What a great time it is for reasonable discussion by right, left and middle!”
I guess we know what side you come down on Mike. Don’t you love it when Liberals say things it’s “informative” or a “discussion” but when Conservatives do it’s “Scare tactics” or what have you. Thank you, once again Mike, for showing us your true colors (as you try to hide behind a “non-partisan” blog). What a joke.
Motormouth,
I don’t think you can compare universal health care and anti abortion. You can make the case with war and pro life, and the death penalty and pro life, but lack of health insurance doesn’t kill people. Diseases kill people. We can try to do a better job providing health care (don’t read insurance, they aren’t the same thing) to people… but not providing federal nationalized health care is not the same as murdering someone, be it a baby, an “enemy” or someone guilty of a capital crime.
Justin, you also cannot compare Pro-Life to the death penalty as, with abortion, the child does not have a choice. They are murdered. With the dealth penalty(which I also oppose), the convict had a choice on whether or not to kill an innocent. They chose to kill. Good point though.
Also, I just cannot find that pesky, elusive, clause in the Constitution that makes health care a right or, for that matter, that allows for Govco to take money from one group of people, by force, and give it to others.
Are death panels really a baseless rumor, or scare tactic? Perhaps you should do a bit more research…
Start here:
http://tinyurl.com/lhhhvc
Hey, Mike, sometime ago you Tweeted a note to self, to bring your iPod and earphones to your next _____ office visit so you wouldn’t be subjected to Glenn Beck’s “shouting” or some such.
You’ve also (rightly) reminded us of your sister-in-law’s wonderful work to liberate child slaves in Ghana.
*****
Now that the only reason the truth about ACORN is known is that the aforementioned Glenn Beck did his homework on the group and stimulated some good, old-fashioned investigative journalism by a couple of 20-somethings (members of the demographic you’re targeting in your new work, BTW!)…
And now that we know ACORN is all too willing to lend its “expertise” to help conceal enterprises that pimp out teenaged girls for others’, ahem, enjoyment…
…well, the silence around these parts is deafening.
*****
Since this post, Sarah Palin has written a very thoughtful, public, inductive account of her “death panels” reasoning that has been validated in its general contours by a number of others, including (notably) Obama supporter Camille Paglia;
Glenn Beck and the 20-something pair have conclusively exposed the sinister underbelly of those “harmless community organizers,” eliciting a Senate vote to de-fund the ACORN organization and causing the Census Bureau to reject ACORN’s involvement with the 2010 census;
Charlie Gibson has embarrassed himself with a wilfully negligent brand of “journalistic curiosity;” and
Jimmy Carter continues to embarrass himself by crying “wolf” about imaginary racism in our substantive criticism of Obama’s leftist policies.
Just for the record.
Cheerfully,
qb