Politicized health care, the real illness

“You know,” I said to Greg Dattilo as we walked toward the Minnesota State Capitol building, “this is what is really wrong with health care.”

“What do you mean?” he asked.

“Well, we’re going to a legislative meeting where politicians are going to decide the future of our health care system. That’s what I mean.” The Minnesota Health Care Access Commission, chaired by two liberal politicians, was about to hear testimony. Well, it was really about to hear what it wanted to hear to justify further polarization of health care.

When Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, it subjected health care to the pressures of elective politics.

Politicians love a void, because they step in and fill it. It’s really a vicious circle. They “solve” a problem and create new ones that they get to solve.

For instance, in 1960, 4.5 million elderly Americans had no health insurance (though they did have health care). In fact, about 22% of Americans went without health insurance, but no one went without health care.

Congress created Medicare and Medicaid and health care spending went through the roof. Congress stepped in to solve the crisis and created HMOs. Double-digit spending ensued. All across America, legislators got into the act, and someone invented the uninsured statistic to prove that politicians needed to do even more.

That bothersome uninsured rate, by the way, has held pretty much steady during the last many years, but it is The Big Crisis of Today which only politicians can solve. Hence, a Health Care Access Commission must meet and decide the fate of our health care system.
Micro-managing health care is a politician’s dream. Tens of billions of dollars are at stake, and interest groups pay big money to get a politician’s ear. The sheet power of even an average state legislator is magnified through their vote on the floor of the house or senate, or better yet (for them), in committee.

What I am looking for are politicians who want to consumerize health care, placing the power of shaping our system into the hands of We the People (what a novel idea; free people making their own decisions about how to live). It takes a Big Man or Big Woman to give up so much power voluntarily, and this is what is really wrong with U.S. health care.

Pollsters tell us that US health care sits atop election year political issues, but not in the way it should. Rather than ask government to back away, American’s misunderstanding of the role of government and politics begs politicians to do more.

Those who have watched health care reform for decades believe that Americans do not have the stomach for government-run health care. Were this true, we would expect a backlash among voters during the next five years, as Congress, a new president, legislators, and governors – politicians – work to solve our current crisis. I worry about this, because I see that few people understand how dangerous and unhealthy such a system will be. What follows after the imposition of a government health care system? Decades more of politicians deciding our health care future.

Politics is what is really wrong with US health care.

Americans spend billions on health care

We need DogiCaid before it’s too late

My “Business Week” magazine came on Saturday. Dated August 6, 2007, the cover features a very ugly (in my opinion) dog. The dog is wearing gold bling and a diamond tiara.

“The Pet Economy” sits in huge, blocked letters next to the ugly, fancied-up dog. And herein lies a most interesting factoid.

“Americans now spend $41 billion on their pets,” says the article on page 44. We learn here that $41 billion exceeds the GDP of 78 nations.

Of that $41 billion, $9.9 billion goes to supplies and over-the-counter medical products. (The article doesn’t mention doggie generics, but maybe a Congressional committee could investigate this to cut the cost of doggie pharmaceuticals.)

Another $9.8 billion is paid to veterinarians. Outrageous sums of money like this demands federal government intervention. Clearly, doggie care has gotten out of control. We need a DogiCaid program for low income cat and dog lovers.

Actually, my real reflection about this is based on the much-repeated mantra of the government-knows-best health reformers, the one that goes, “Americans spend twice as much on health care as do other nations.”

Hey, Americans spend $41 billion on their pets! We have bigger houses. More cars. TV sets. Our grocery stores are the world’s envy.

We spend nearly $10 billion on doggie health care.

Americans spend 16 percent of U.S. GDP on health care because we can. And the wealthier we become as a nation, the more we will spend on health care. While we do not spend it wisely, and health care cost is a great concern, the fact that we spend it should not astonish anyone.

We spend $41 billion on our pets!

What is SCHIP's goal?

Watch out. Medicare for everyone is being introduced incrementally.

Several years ago, Republicans created the State Children's Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). They hoped it would allow low income parents to purchase or find health insurance for their children. As is too often the case, there have been unintended results.

First, it gave some employers the ability to off-load a portion of their dependent coverage for low income workers. Why have the group plan pay when the state is willing?

Second, states expanded this program for children so that some low income adults would qualify(it should now be State Children's And Adult Low Income Insurance Plan-SCHALIAIP). Great. A program for children is now a program for adults.

Third, Congress, as usual, needs to spend more on programs that grew beyond their original concept, costing billions more in tax dollars.

But even considering these issues, what strikes me is the hidden agenda.

For those who want the U.S. to embrace a government health plan run from Washington, D.C., this is the perfect subterfuge. Grace-Marie Turner recently wrote that raising the enrollment guidelines to include children in families with income up to 400 percent of the poverty level would include more than 70 percent of all children - to age 25.

This feels an awful lot like Medicare from birth to 25, and Medicare from 65 to death. I suggested this to Grace-Marie and she missed my point. She correctly stated that this is Medicaid for everyone.

But my point is simpler: Once 70 percent of children have spent all of their lives on a government health plan, why would they want anything different? They wouldn't have a clue about the benefits of a free market health system because they will have never participated. When Congressman Iama Statist introduces the Comprehensive Universal Health Insurance Plan (CUHIP), far greater than 50 percent of Americans will already be on the dole, and it will pass.

Goodbye free market health care.

Leave SCHIP at 200 percent of poverty level for now. Then find a way to dump it and replace it with a new free market plan. Please.

They say this is killing us?

The last few days brought profound news to the health care reform movement. Sure to change everything.

First, we learned that a can of soda a day causes heart disease. This we learned as news anchors soberly warned us as we watched images of very obese people wander across the TV; most of them sucking down a soda (even diet soda) along with a Big Mac or DQ Blizzard. Right. Sodas cause heart disease.

Second, we learned that being fat is something you catch from a friend or family member. Now the Authorities That Be (ATB) claimed that just living or hanging with fatties will make you fat. Once again, there were those TV images of large people grazing at the buffet, and washing it down with a soda. But it's not their fault. It's just that they hang with the wrong people.

Third, today we learned from the ATB at Childrens' Defense Fund that health insurance deters crime. Yes, that's what they said! If we just get all the children insured, it will reduce the crime rate. Does that mean that most crimes are committed by sick kids without insurance. I'd love to see that study.

My college statistics professor's first profound statement was, "Correlation does not prove cause." Do they still teach that?