Secundus

Thursday
Sep 09th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home The Body Politic

The Body Politic

President Obama's Healthcare

President Obama's Healthcare

Searching for Direction versus giving Direction

Recently, I wrote that the "Universal Healthcare" program wasn't the President's plan and that his platform was "Healthcare Reform".

One can certainly theorize as to whether he would want a single payer system and full, all out Socialized Healthcare. After all, there is a lot of conflicting material (some from the President himself) out there and plenty of static coming from concerned citizens on all sides of the issue. To quote Buffalo Springfield: "A thousand people in the street, Singing songs and carrying signs, Mostly say, hooray for our side". With all that, it's certainly hard to get a handle on exactly what the President really wants.

Therein lies the problem: "Obama's Healthcare" is an unknown. We can guess as to what he wants Health Care in America to become, but we shouldn't have to. What we can safely say is that he wants the Golden Fleece, the Holy Grail of the Democratic party; he's looking for a historical legacy that will be his magnum Opus to define his 1st term; yet he hasn't LED on this issue because he'll settle for anything as long as it even faintly resembles the coveted trophy of "Universal Healthcare" and he'll possibly settle for something far less, just to save face.

Some will say his pushing Congress to pass a bill demonstrates leadership on the issue , yet anyone who's ever had an moment of leadership training or experience knows leading means taking the reigns, assuming responsibility, devising and executing a plan. So far President Obama has chided House members, worked (if you can call returning the softball pitches the media continues to throw at him working) the media and he's had his people (namely Rahm Emanuel)  work over the Blue Dog Democrats, but again, that's not leadership and it's certainly not the hope and change he was voted into office to enact.

If the President really wanted Universal Healthcare over a first term legacy HE would create a team to develop a plan (ala what Hillary Clinton tried to do in 1993), then vet it by public feedback sessions; changing it as needed from the public feedback. Remember those campaign promises of not rushing legislation through?  How about the promises of the most transparent administration ever? He took 6 months to pick a dog, shouldn't America take at least that long to hammer out a substantive Health Care Reform plan?

Once a substantive program has been vetted through a lengthy exposure to the public, President Obama could then take the plan to the House  and Senate  and say "Here is what the people want- do what you were hired to do and pass the peoples will!" That would be huge, a display of true leadership and follow through on the campaign promises that put him into office.

Instead, he's being the (bad) Boss at work we've all had at one point or another, the one who says the company needs to achieve a goal to survive, dumps the onus onto the department heads and says "get it done" . Trouble is he doesn't offer any support, coordination, planning or logistics to achieve this goal. If it fails, he tells the board (in this case the American public) the team failed because the two departments (House, Senate) couldn't get their act together and are being replaced. Of course if anything close to the goal is met, he will be the first to take credit for it with the board and will become the new centerpiece to his resume and leverage in future compensation negotiations.

Health Care reform is something nearly everyone agrees on, we just don't agree what needs to be done; Mr. President, It's not too late to take the reigns - Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 13 August 2009 08:26 )

 

Universal (but not equal) Healthcare

Universal (but not equal) Healthcare

Let's take the politics out of this discussion. No Republicans,
Democrats, Libertarians or Socialists. No Truthers, Birther's or any other Social or Political group or icon.

Let's also take out personalities: Don't like Palin? Swell; Think Obama is evil incarnate? Great! Let's couch our American Idol meets Survivor mentality, stop demonizing and vilifying individuals and segments of America. It detracts from the issues at hand; the most topical of which is Universal Health Care.

First off, let's make this clear: Universal Health Care isn't the President's plan. In all fairness, the President has not endorsed anything beyond the broad stroke of "reform". It reminds me of the line in the movie "O'Brother" where the Governors idiot son says "Maybe we should get us some of that reform" but, I digress.

The plan that's currently being tossed around is a plan in the House of Representatives. It's about 1000 pages; Have you read it? No? Neither have I. Think anyone who is in position to vote on it has read it all? Nope. That's ok, we don't need to focus on it because that's not the big issue.

The big issue is putting you, your family, your loved ones health and very life in the hands of bureaucratic process and procedure under the guise of Universal Healthcare.

In our land of equality, people wrongly assume that once there is Universal Healthcare, everyone will be entitled to equal care and the bad old days will be over.

Sadly, Universal Health care really isn't Universally equal, It's more like Universal Animal Farm Health Care, where all patients are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Allow me to introduce you to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel; White House Health Care policy advisor. For the record this isn't a rally against Dr. Emanuel; as I previously noted, I'm trying to keep people and specific platforms separate from this piece. Dr. Emanuel's words are merely highlighted to display that such ideas are currently being tabled and are not relegated to some far off dystopian future.

The hyperlink listed below highlights one of Dr. Emanuel's writings as well as his original piece (in .PDF) as originally published. While the analysis is on a rather Conservative blog, please don't let the messenger (or the man/example) distract you from the actual issue:

http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/complete-lives-system/

Should this become policy, a child with Autism that is found to have a tumor, doesn't get to have it removed as he isn't going to be a contributing member of society.
On the other end of the age spectrum,  Grandpa needs some surgery done on his hands; he's pushing 70 and is showing signs of forgetfullnes. It might just be the medication he's taking, then again it might be the onset of Dementia, how much do we invest in his continued care, should he/we really pay for operative procedures or can he just live with the pain in his hands? Oh wait it's not our decision, it's a decision that's made by a bureaucrat's interpretation of policy!

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."

Too bad the child wasn't a little older and a little less disabled and Grandpa wasn't a little sharper or younger, they'd stand a better chance at receiving a higher level of Universal (but not equal) care!

Moving on, most will agree that, prevention and treatment go hand in hand; this often leads to taxation of items that are deemed contrary to public health. For the sake of example we can look at the near endless parade of cigarette taxes or more specifically, Oregon's recent "Sin Tax" proposal; a 1900% beer tax: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/16/oregon-beer-tax-of-1900-p_n_167318.html Again, just because it's on a partisan site, don't allow the source to distract from the content. Even if you aren't a smoker or beer drinker, it's likely some sin tax would impact your pocketbook. To paraphrase Adam Ant - Don't Drink, Don't Smoke, Ok, What do you do? Ride a motorcycle? Oh, risky! Tax it! Engage in behavior that statistically puts you at a higher risk for infectious diseases? Tax Maximus, Astroglide and other specialty personal lubricants!  You know, now that I look at you, those extra pounds you're wearing are probably not good for you either, better tax fast food, beef, dairy and sugars; maybe simply tax plus sizes or better yet, do both to help supplement the added cost it takes to care for your lifestyle.

Finally, we get down to projecting the natural evolution of the weighted metrics used to dole out the varying "levels of Universal but not equal Healthcare".

There's always the natural increase in overhead and cost that has to be dealt with and historically, when has the Government ever done with less (long term) and not increased its operative budget?

It's safe to forecast that there will come a point where taxation isn't enough and added measures have to be enacted.

Whereas previously the Gov't used to tax your (potentially health impacting) behavior, now the Gov't  (to maintain Universal Care) is forced to consider your high risk status in regards to the level of treatment you are "entitled" to receive; thereby creating a longer que where the cost is incurred at a slower pace and a certain percentage of patients die prior to treatment.

In such a environment, It's not unreasonable to extrapolate a scenario in which the Govt assigns a homosexual man in need of treatment for AIDS a more restrictive treatment schedule than a heterosexual man that contracted AIDS from drug abuse! (See CDC report below notating AIDS was contracted by homosexual men at a rate in excess of 6 fold over men that contracted AIDS through injection drug use)

Now, you might not be a homosexual man in need of treatment for AIDS, but like before, odds are there's something you do that's contrary to your optimum health. Eventually, with Universal Care, your guilty pleasures will no longer be about helmet laws, cancer warnings or sin taxes impacting your pocketbook, its how soon and what type of treatment you or your loved ones will receive.

We've all heard Jefferson's quote "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." In this case, the government that's big enough to supply you with everything you need, is also the one that decides if you really need it and when you might get it!

Updated(David Scott):

in an exclusive on Hot Air, Fred Thompson chimes in on the end of life provision and why it was and still should be a valid concern for all of us.




Last Updated ( Wednesday, 19 August 2009 03:34 )

RSS Syndicator

Excerpts
Secundus Full