Oh Andy, You So Crazy

I don't really need to say a lot about this, it's pretty self-explanatory.

First, let me share with you Andy Harris's thoughts on health care..

Now, here's what happened during his orientation meeting on Monday.

Fortunately, he's here to set the record straight.

Personally, I want to thank Harris for enduring the brunt of the government-run and subsidized health care he speaks out against so that millions of other Americans don't have to. 

Way to go, Andy.

Snap Judgements! Co-Signing the Health Bill??

So, uh, what do you think of this?

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hccosign?source=20100322_FB

Matt Lindeboom
I think it's cheesy as hell. And yes, I did sign up to co-sign health care with President Obama.

Ozkirbas
That's dumber than bumper stickers. And bumper stickers are pretty dumb. Doesn't an idea have to work first before people are supposed to be proud of it? Doesn't the Democratic National Committee realize that getting healthcare reform enacted is just the first step in a long, arduous campaign to make sure it keeps itself and America afloat? Or, to make sure it practically works in a real world sense? Or, to ensure that it's well written so that admin judges don't tear it apart? Really? Good job? Pack it in? A good day was had by all? Seriously? Party, party, party - everybody get wasted?


If you promoted the healthcare reform, by all means be happy. You've come a long way. Your dream has been realized. We, as a people, will get to see this idea come into action. But, SERIOUSLY?

David Pratt
I've read over the amendments proposed and the people they would affect, and by and large this seems like a step in the right direction for the country. It's something Presidents have been bemoaning since Teddy Roosevelt was in office, and Obama finally got the job at least partially done.

However, this bill is bereft of the teeth that would have made it something to honestly be proud of. A President says he wants to work to make health care available to every American and it seriously takes 14 months of haggling, dealing, and debating for something which barely resembles the original proposal to pass? This entire fiasco has exposed a great deal of the weaknesses of our current Congress. I hope Democrats realize it's now incumbent upon them to make sure this legislation actually does what it's supposed to do, and I hope Republicans realize their antics have made it seem more than anything like they just flat-out hate America.

Max Nova
I don't really need to sign this. I vote in primaries and local elections, that's my civic duty right there. Voters should stay informed and vote for the best candidate available and let representatives pass the legislation. Sure, call and write letters, donate to a PAC but for me the important thing is to see my Senator and Rep's names on the legislation. Let's not turn every law into a chain letter.

ali d
I feel like we're on the playground.


"I support it more than you!"
"Nuh-uh! I signed it! It's archived!"
"Well I signed it FIRST."
"You didn't sign it?! Well you can't sit at our lunch table anymore! WHAT WILL THE CHILDREN THINK?!"


My gosh, kids, let's let the damn legislation make it all the way through the system before we start aligning our names with it. Talk to me in 2014.

B.Graham
Why would I sign this? I didn’t get a vote in the bill process, I’ve never read it, and half of the things I wanted in it were cut out, so why would I put my name next to something I had nothing to do with, even if I was rooting for it? Just so my name is near the President's? Okay, that's pretty cool, but I'm going to stand my ground! Because this looks like just another attempt at making our facebook generation feel like we are Important and Do Things for doing nothing and having no voice, which I consider an affront to my intelligence as a twentysomething.

Switching Sides: The Case for Universal Health Care

Before you begin reading, please take note that this will be a lengthy essay. I believe that up to this point I have never written anything of such immediate importance to the American people. I owe it to the issue at hand to give it the full length and time necessary to fully articulate what is at stake.

Six months ago, I wrote in "The Three Transgressions" my opinion on how we ourselves have provoked the problems with our Health Care system. Chief among my concerns was addressing the desire for public health care. I deemed it a political diversion, a red herring, something designed to keep our eyes away from the real focus. In some ways, I remain steadfast in this belief. Our reliance on pharmaceutical companies built on the principle of keeping everyone just sick enough is an abomination upon our society. However, on another topic, my view has changed entirely.

We need a system of universal health care. I am going to explain why, and point-by-point address every concern, legitimate or fallacious, which prevents us from a country as caring for all of our citizens, and how we can make this a reality.

1) Universal Coverage and the Natural Monopoly

Politicians who are against social health care or even simply having a public option will tell you that the real way to drive down costs is to deregulate. If we give private health insurers more leeway with how they do business, it will reduce costs for them and let them lower costs for their patients. Lowering costs will lead to competition, further giving insurers cause to make things easier for their customers. That's capitalism at its finest - you introduce competition, and the first thing that will happen is lower prices to attract more people.

The people who tell you this are either deliberately misleading you or actually have no idea how insurance works.

Insurance operates by pooling risk -the more people under one umbrella, the more the risk is spread out.

It is therefore impossible for any private insurer to provide coverage as well as the government can.

I'll explain another way; you are paying for electricity. When you use electricity during the month, the power company bills you for however much you use. If you use less, you pay less. More, and you pay more. What you do with your power does not affect anybody else using the same grid as you. To compare health insurance to this system or others like it is a lie.

There is no business model in the world comparable to insurance. I repeat, there is no business model in the world. You cannot draw comparisons between health insurance and utilities companies, or car sales, or department stores.

The reason is that when you pay for health insurance you are getting nothing. Health insurance companies do not provide a service for you. They bill you each month hoping that you will never in your lifetime call upon them to do anything. And in the event that they do, you still aren't getting a service - hospitals, doctors, drug companies - they provide the service. The insurance company simply pays for it.

But they don't want to pay for it - they want to continue taking your money for nothing. They create any number of scenarios wherein they will not pay. I used to work in car insurance, and had to tell a woman whose car had died, leaving her with no way to get to her job, that there was nothing we could do because she hadn't been in a collision. Health insurance works the same way. Furthermore, in the case of those who cannot become insured due to pre-existing conditions, competition does nothing to help them. Deregulating insurance will do nothing to help those who already cannot obtain it.

So it doesn't matter how little you use your insurance, they will always charge you the same amount for it. Moreover, they have the power to change their rates simply because they want to. Here is the major difference, though, between insurance and any other service you might pay for. When insurance companies do pay out to other people, they recoup the losses by charging everybody else a little bit more. The smaller the pool, the more that ripple is felt.

Therefore, insurance which covers 300 million people is automatically 300 times as cost effective as a private insurer with a million customers.

Therefore, even if you had 2 private companies covering everyone in the country, it would still not be as efficient as the single payer option.

Insurance is a natural monopoly. This means that regardless of how well they work, it is impossible for two competing companies to provide service as well as one without competition. People will try to tell you that this is un-American, that it follows a socialist ideal, and that it will be bad for business and everyone will suffer. These people do not know how insurance works. Either that, or they do and are just lying to you. Either that, or they are simply following an ideological objection rather than a scientific one. There are some people who would rather pay more for the same service because they do not want government in control of health care. This is purely ideological. It is the same thing as arguing religion.

People who object to this theory will point to the fact that several times in history, utility companies have tried to convince the government that they are a natural monopoly. However, statistics prove that deregulation actually drives down costs significantly in the energy field. To those people, I say again, because I really have to drive this point home, insurance does not operate like any other business in the world.

Universal health coverage will only reduce what everybody pays. Do not believe the argument about increased costs. This really is a better deal than what we have.


2) Efficiency of Care

Let me break down the costs of health insurance for you by country.

#1: United States (13.9% of Gross Domestic Product)
#2: Switzerland (10.9%)
#3: Germany (10.8%)

Those numbers indicate that the United States pays more for health insurance than any other country in the world, followed by Switzerland and Germany, respectively. The common trend here is that all 3 of these countries have privatized health coverage.

The spending on average by other countries with social health care is 7.2% of their GDP. These are countries with Gross Domestic Products significantly less than the United States still spending half of what we do percentage-wise.

Now, the claim many make when this point is raised is that they are receiving inferior coverage. Obviously, that is why so many Canadians cross the border into the United States to receive health care. Their long waits and rationed care make it easier for those with private health care to simply cross the border and get access to our fast, efficient coverage.

This claim is completely wrong. In fact, studies on the issue prove that the level of health care the United States provides is significantly less than that given by countries with socialized systems. The reason so many Canadians come over the border? Organ transplants. The overwhelming majority of expenditures by Canadians is on organ donations. Why do they come to the United States for these?

Because the United States's mortality rates amongst the younger population are incredibly higher than Canada's. They can't get the same access because their countrymen are just too healthy.

Furthermore, Switzerland has already put into place the kind of reforms that we are clamoring for here in America, and is still nearly 50% more expensive than the most expensive social system. When more people get coverage, coverage on average improves. There is absolutely no mathematical data to refute this, and more than enough to support it.

To put it in more visible numbers - the United States, which pays more for health insurance than any other country and, along with Canada, makes up nearly half the world's pharmaceutical market, still has the 9th highest cancer mortality rate in the world. Out of every 100,000 people in the United States, 321.9 die of cancer.

There have been studies published which point to the United States having higher survival rates than nearly any other country when it comes to breast, colon, prostate, or rectal cancer. The reality is that we have the highest survival rates because we have more people getting cancer. More people getting cancer means that, especially when using data involving the four most survivable forms of cancer, of course the United States will appear to have fantastic numbers. The truth is that no matter how good the numbers look, we are another world leader when it comes to cancer deaths.

The fact, mathematically provable, is that France has the best health care in the world. They pay more for universal health care than any other country, but still 40% less than what we pay in the United States. They are more cost efficient, more health efficient, and charge people less. There is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that our quality of health care will suffer due to universal coverage. None. There is only conjecture and ideology. Every scrap of data proves that the opposite is true.


3) Health Care Rationing and "Death Panels"

Another common claim is that, with more people insured, we will not have the supply to meet the demand. Thus the only way to provide for everybody will be to ration off health care. This has led to the belief that there will be "Death Panels" - people who get to decide who lives and who dies based on need for coverage.

I'm reasonably certain most educated people have abandoned this idea, but I still feel it needs to be addressed. Death Panels already exist. If you have health insurance, you are already paying for them. Every day, doctors argue with insurance companies to actually shell out the money to pay for their customer's treatments. Every day, insurance company review boards plan out ways in which they can avoid having to pay anything. Your health care is already rationed. This is a problem now. The argument was put best for me in terms of buying a new car.

You decide to buy a new car. You're very excited.

A friend of yours says "Don't do that - you'll have to pay for insurance, maintenance, gas - it'll be horrible!"

You say "Oh wow, thanks! I'll just keep the car I have."

Do you see the problem here? Our current system has all of the same issues as the ones being espoused as reasons not to have universal coverage. People who cling to the theory that we can expect to have our lifespans controlled by the government apparently find it perfectly acceptable to have this done by private companies instead.

Being a doctor means that you are, at least half the time, on the phone with an insurance company asking why your patient isn't getting coverage. If nothing else, instituting a universal, single-payer system means that doctors will have more time to treat patients. The myth that care will have to be rationed out is exactly that - a myth. Your insurers are doing this to you right now and expecting you to look the other way because they know you will support universal health care if you stop to think about it.

Speaking of time with the doctor, another common point is that there are absurdly long waits in emergency rooms for countries with social systems. It's not uncommon to wait 4 or 5 hours, or longer, awaiting attention for even the worst injuries or ailments. Of course, when people make this argument, they ignore that the same thing happens here. Countries with social health care are not unique in this - sometimes there are more people than a hospital can accommodate at once. This has to do with the doctor to patient ratio, not health insurance involved. Although, as stated above, if there wasn't so much time spent arguing with health insurance companies, that would very likely result in at least a marginal overall improvement in the amount of time doctors could be with patients.

At this point, if you're following along, you have to be asking yourself, "well, why would politicians not support something which is so obviously good for the country?"

Easy. There is a Democratic President in office and Republicans want to make sure that doesn't happen again in 2012. They don't care if you have health care or not, they want to take a stand against a system because they know if it is implemented that it will work. When that happens, it all but guarantees a second term for Barack Obama. They will say anything to prevent this from happening. It is no mistake that the legislators against health care are overwhelmingly Republican. This is not a matter of "conservative" versus "liberal." This is purely political, and the American public is going to suffer for it if we let it happen.

"But what about Democrats who don't support universal health care?"

I'm glad you asked. Let's look at the recent Senate Finance Committee vote which shut down the hope of a public option.

All 10 Republicans on the committee voted against having a public option. 5 Democrats also voted against it, bringing the count to 15-8 against. Those 5 Democrats were Max Baucas (MT), Blanch Lincoln (AK), Bill Nelson (FL), Kent Conrad (ND), and Tom Carper (DE).

Notice anything about those Senators? With the exception of Tom Carper, they are all Democratic Senators from states with a majority of Republican voters. I shouldn't have to draw you a map here.

On this I'm digressing from why health care should be socialized, so let's move on to the next point.


4) Paying for Nothing

Proponents of private insurance insist that with our current system, people only pay for the coverage they want. Socializing medicine means that we'll all be paying for everybody. We don't want to pay for everybody, they say. If someone can't get a job to pay for their own insurance, or has a pre-existing condition not covered, then that's their problem. It's hard enough taking care of yourself, you shouldn't have to worry about everybody else.

Ignoring all the proof that social medicine reduces costs for everybody, we could hope people would at least care a little more about looking out for the less fortunate. But even being as greedy as possible, universal health care is still smarter.

The ballpark figure of uninsured in America is 50,000,000 people. This means that if nothing else changes, if instituting universal health care is the only thing that happens and all other current systems remain in place, we can expect a 16.7% increase in our costs. Leaving alone the fact that this is still a 100% increase in the quality of care for 50,000,000 people, let's examine why this is simply incorrect on the whole.

We have already established that as coverage range increases, so does the quality of coverage. The numbers from other nations don't lie. Now, let's think about what happens currently to disprove that 16.7% with some hard examples.

The "250,000,000 already insured" that opponents of the universal system like to throw around ignores a basic fact. As many as 25,000,000 and likely much more of that number are underinsured. This presents the same basic problem as those with no insurance at all. Rising costs have led to people simply not being able to afford even employer-based health coverage. Even though they are listed as insured on surveys, they still do not have the coverage necessary to provide for them when they need it.

What does this mean for you? Well, when hospitals have to provide care for someone who can't pay for it, they often just list it as bad debt. That bad debt does not simply disappear. It gets written off and paid for by charities, the government, or passed on into what the medical industry charges private insurers. The money has to come from somewhere, but in every case it still comes from you. Do not be fooled by the claims of paying for people who can't afford their coverage - you are doing this right now. You might not see it, but every time your health insurance premium rises for no reason, or there's a budget shortfall and your local school doesn't get a big enough grant, you can bet that somewhere in the reason are the uninsured and underinsured of America.

Covering everybody will only make it cheaper. Right now these people avoid the doctor as much as they can because they don't have insurance. Ultimately, they end up in the hospital anyway, with a disease or injury far more progressed than it would be otherwise. This means treatment takes longer, costs more, and may perhaps do less. If that patient dies? Their bill does not disappear. You pay for it. You are paying for it now whether we have social health care or not. If that person did not have to worry about insurance, they may have gone when their illness was still treatable, reducing the costs involved for everybody.

Don't let greed or indifference blind you to the obvious. There is no financial reason not to have universal health care.


As I stated earlier, the only serious objection someone can raise to universal health care is that they do not want the government controlling the industry. This, again, is an ideological problem, not one based in fact. And in this case, the ideology is going to end up being more expensive for the entire country. I am not here posing a moral argument for universal health care or espousing my overwhelming support for our President or his administration. I am presenting the facts, unadulterated, which prove beyond the shadow of a doubt a universal system is superior to a privatized one. Calls of "socialism," "Death panels," ad infinitum, are red herrings meant to distract voters from something proposed for our benefit and for our own good being turned into a purely political issue.

These facts were presented to me in roughly the same form I now give them to you. I entered a debate on the side of keeping health insurance private, but my arguments simply could not stand up to the overwhelming tide of contrary evidence I was assailed with. Once I did the research proving the opposition's claims were true, my prior objections seemed nothing short of plain silly.

So now I turn to you. There has never been a time in the span of my life where health care was more prominent an issue and the reality of universal health coverage closer to us. This is where we must band together as a nation - put aside labels of political affiliation and realize that this really is the right thing to do. Your Senators, your Governors and Congressmen, your elected representatives of all office, they will listen to you if you speak loudly enough. Enough voices acting as one can accomplish anything, and it is high time they began acting to accomplish the right things.

I urge you, call your legislators. Send them letters. If necessary, rally so that they can see your numbers. We see news programs all the time showing footage of people banding together in large groups only to display their own ignorance or petty wants. This is something which is legitimately good for everybody. It is right for all of us. We can take this moment to educate ourselves and fight for something positive for us, our children, and our grandchildren. All we have to do is become active on this one thing and we can ensure a real, lasting, positive change.

Thank you, and God bless.

Sources:
Health Care for all Colorado
What is a Natural Monopoly?
NCHC: Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs
Why Does U.S. Health Care Cost So Much?
Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries
WHO Statistical Information System
Business Roundtable Health Care Value Comparability Study
Newsweek: We Already Have Health-Care Rationing
"Rationing" Health Care: What Does It Mean?
NCHC - Facts About Healthcare - Health Coverage
CNN Money - "Underinsured" Americans may raise all health care costs
How Many Are Underinsured? Trends Among U.S. Adults, 2003 and 2007
Why I Answered Ozkirbas's Question The Way I Did

Health Care Roundtable

Hello again, Roundtable reader. Welcome to a very special edition of These Gentlemen's signature segment. Once again, we have combined our efforts to form a complex series of opinions on a matter for debate. This week, the Gentlemen tackle the question currently embroiling the country in heated argument. As always, we are open to your contributions as well, but first, take a look at how the Gentlemen answered the following:

You are sitting in the Senate Chamber during the debate on Health Care reform. You are suddenly called upon to give your opinion on the issue. What do you say?

Let us delve immediately into the answers, lest I be accused of being too long.


Bronchitis Graham

My opinion, so far, is to agree with whoever was talking last. So there's that factor. And then there's the rant factor. I'm so mad about it at this point I might not say anything of consequence at all. And then there's my speech style. It would not be sensitive or political. It might be mean. I might call them assholes. I might tell them a personal story or about that commercial I saw in 7th grade about the little boy who had to go to school when he had a fever because it was going to be his only meal that day, come to find out a huge percentage of children struggle with hunger all over the country every day. That doesn't even have anything to do with the health care debate, but I might tell it anyway.

Because I'm not a good debater. I'm not a politician. I'm not a legislator. I am a citizen, living under a government whose job it is to protect me. And I expect it to protect me, keep me safe, keep me healthy if it can. I trust it to not steal from me or allow me to be taken advantage of. I trust it to not allow others to trap me in a circular system that encourages doctors to order unnecessary tests, x-rays, specialists that I have to pay for. I trust it to build a safety net so I don't lose everything if I get in a car wreck (knock on wood) or be in debt for the rest of my life if I fall down a flight of stairs (true story).

I just want something done, and something

done soon. And for everyone to just stop bickering. That's what I'd say.


John Ozkirbas


Sirs and Madams of the Senate, honored am I to be our representative conscience in these dark times, the chamber's council when morality turns to gray, and your north star through the blackest nights. You, fellow senators, turn to me at a pivotal moment in our nation's history for an answer to one of our country's most pressing questions. Should we, as a nation, embrace socialized medicine and universalize Health Care? Can't you tell that I love the sound of my own voice.

The concept, my friends and colleagues, is a noble one. Thousands upon thousands of American workers live their lives daily without the assurance and comfort of the grand blanket we know and love as medical insurance. Their jobs do not offer insurance and they cannot afford to purchase it on their own! Diabetics thirst for their insulin! The injured desperately seek surgery! The Osteopathic hunger for calcium! The ill are dire for well-being! What is a country to do about its standard of living? Universal Health Care does seem to be an answer. But is it the answer? While the needs of the American uninsured remain apparent, evidence regarding decreasing medical standards seem to exist in countries that have implemented socialized medicine programs, as well. Untimely waiting abounds! Cue Jumping ensues! Doctors short on resources! Treatment methods compromised! Private-owned medical insurance becomes a wealthy commodity! Oh, the confusion!

Both perspectives provide a fair amount of concern for the medical system and the people within it. Regardless, Senators, given the financial situation of the country, I feel that now is not the time to implement a social program on as grand a scale as this. We will tell the American people that we are sorry, but that we cannot afford it right now. Be sure to remind them that if they are extra-special good this year and if they go to school and work every day, maybe Santa will bring them socialized medicine for Christmas.


Max Nova

I've gone through this response a few times in my head, and I have already ranted a bit about this topic on my lovely blog, which I'm sure all of you Senators read religiously.

Many of you, the ones on the red team, have thrown around the word "socialization of health care," and I feel it's time for your team to put up or shut up, because you have let the scourge of Medicare and Medicaid go on for far too long. So now's your chance, let's see a resolution right now from your team to end this existing "socialization" right now. *Dramatic Pause* Ah I see you all still want to get reelected in the next two/four/six years. So then your all full of shit. (Can I say shit on CSPAN?) Well shit. Fuck the FCC, then.

Anyway, now for the blue team. You've sucked ass at framing the issue. People hate the health care system. American who can afford it or who get it from their employers gorge themselves on it like a Midwestern family at a Denny's, and they still hate it. Whatever you do to get everyone covered will be an improvement, so get your shit together. Oh shit, I said shit again. Anyway, get everyone covered, it doesn't matter how, a public plan, twisting arms, etc. Get this shit sorted, we've got a lot of important issues still on deck. For one thing, we need some immigration reform, and the red team seem to really dislike people from other countries.


David Pratt


First, I stand slowly. I pause to cast a meaningful look in the direction of both Connecticut's Chris Dodd and Utah's Orrin Hatch. Then, I say the following.

Distinguished Senators, we have come here today to address the health care problem facing our nation. Nearly 20% of our population is without guaranteed health care of any kind. Data suggests that at various points, nearly 33% may have spent time without a plan to cover them. Small business - which makes up two-fifths of the nation's employers - often cannot afford to offer their employees health coverage, and those that can find employees who are unable to cover their share of the premium.

While we argue the cost to the taxpayers, we ignore what it already costs us every year to provide treatment to those without insurance. Let me share with you some numbers from the National Coalition on Health Care. It costs the country $100 billion - that's ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS - every year to cover the health costs of those without insurance. This is often for disease or conditions which could be treated far more efficiently if caught earlier, or are even altogether preventable. Hospitals spend an additional $34 billion to provide treatment for the uninsured. For Americans themselves, it's another $37 billion for private and public payers for the health care coverage of the uninsured, and on top of that, it's estimated that those without insurance pay $26 billion a year out of pocket.

That amounts to just shy of $200 billion dollars paid out every year because we do not have universal health care. Yet here stand the detractors of this bill, arguing that the cost of implementing it will drive us into irreconcilable debt. My question to you is - with the price tag of keeping Americans uninsured measuring up to a trillion dollars over 5 years, how do we justify not putting a system guaranteeing coverage into place?

I'll tell you how. We stop trying to put a bandage on a wound that needs a tourniquet.

We don't need a universal health care system. Privatized health care has worked in this country since the days of lodges and shriners. The very idea that we have created an industry on and death disgusts me. If you really want to help this country, here's what you're going to do instead of sit here and debate. You're not going to turn this into a political issue which you can scare people with to garner votes in the next election. You're going to genuinely make a move to help Americans. Now listen close.

Put a cap on malpractice lawsuits. Doctors are running scared in fear of these, and each ridiculous award for somebody's frivolous case drives up the cost of health coverage for everybody else. We need to educate the people about what health care entails, and how difficult the work of our doctors and surgeons is. I'm not asking you to keep bad doctors employed, but there's no reason we should penalize good doctors for their mistakes. Those costs tear apart the doctors, the hospitals, and ultimately the American taxpayer.

Find cures for diseases. Not treatments, cures. Fund stem cell research, which will, if properly funded, reduce the costs of health care in this nation by billions of dollars over the next 10 years. Genetic disorders and degenerative diseases can be reversed. There is no reason for us not to pursue a course of action which will so greatly improve the lives of so many in America and around the world. We have a responsibility to the American public to use the resources at our disposal to do more than maintain the status quo. It is time to find a cure for cancer. It is time to find a cure for AIDS.

And stop trying to scare the public, you contemptible vultures. Preying on their fears is going to make the situation so much worse that it can be called nothing less than morally reprehensible. Seek to educate your constituents - notify them of your concerns in a responsible manner. Hold town hall meetings where you can individually address their questions and doubts. This goes far beyond health care, this is for every two-bit politician in this room who wants to pander to the audience rather than do their job. Assuming an elected position is a responsibility and a sacred trust. If this entire issue has done nothing else, it has highlighted exactly how many of you fail to live up to that burden.

Finally, before I take my leave of you today, I just want to ask why no one has put an end to this Sarah Palin creature yet. Senator McCain, you have my utmost respect, but all I can do at this point is pray your substantial legacy will not be forever tarnished by the sin of unleashing that beast on our nation. Don't get me wrong, I'd hit it, but only for purely physical reasons.

Good luck in your debate, gentlemen, and I will see you again in 2020.


Daniel Strauss

I stand up, and I say this.

"Now, I'm a simple man. I don't have any long list of qualifications to be here. In fact, as passionate as I am about this issue, I don't know many of the facts or details. And to be totally honest, I haven't listened to what you gentlemen have been saying today. But I do know this. Every American in this country deserves free health care. They deserve a plan that covers them, no matter what, and for any necessary medicine or surgery. Because if we're not keeping our people healthy, then we're not keeping our people. And the way I see it, government was created by the people, to serve the people. So let's serve the people.

Now. I'll be seeing myself out, seeing as how I shouldn't even be here in the first place."

Then, I'd leave.


Ali Daniels


Holy. Crap. There is so much out there on health care reform that it made my head spin. So here goes:

Clearly, health care reform is a hot button and important topic in America, and for good reason. There are over 46 million Americans uninsured (and that statistic is growing almost daily as insurance companies drop the coverage of increasing numbers of families) who are praying that they or their family members just don't get sick. When the sad and inevitable happens, though, they still need to utilize emergency care services (especially because they typically forego unaffordable preventative care). If they can't pay their medical bills, then the debt falls to the hospital and then to the government, eventually landing taxpayers with the bill. At the same time, hospitals raise their fees to cover unpaid treatments, forcing insurance companies to increase the premiums of the insured because they're footing a higher bill. Prices are too high and continue to soar while too many Americans have inadequate coverage. Something has to change, and it has to change quickly.

And do I have an opinion on what that change should be? Oh do I. But if I'm standing on the Senate floor, it means that I'm there because a state elected me to represent its residents' opinions and best interests. And since I've only ever lived in the great state of Maryland, I'm going to assume that they put me there. So I asked around, and before I give my opinion on health care reform, here's what a sampling of Maryland (and D.C. - because someone has to represent them) constituents has to say about the proposed bill:

(*NOTE: As I only had a week to pull this info together, my sample size is only as big as my gmail address book, meaning these thoughts come entirely from Caucasian, middle to upper-middle class Marylanders. I did, however, do my best to get a healthy mix of conservatives and liberals, ranging from their mid-20s to their early 60s who are both individuals and members of families.)

"We need reform but they are doing so by cutting diagnostics and doctors' salaries while increasing patient load. What we really need is medical liability reform so doctors stop needing to practice defensive medicine."

"I won't be happy until we have a single-payer system."

"What I feel completely comfortable saying now is that this country's medical-healthcare system is horrific; reform is necessary to keep the American people and the economy afloat."

"The Congressional Budget Office has already said the bill is unsustainable. Certainly, American health care, which is the BEST in the world or why do all those Canadians, Brits, and Middle Eastern potentates come to the USA for health care instead of Europe, can be made better and more equitable. The Obama plan for health care reform is the equivalent of using a pick ax to remove a splinter."

"This does not even begin to consider the abortion/euthanasia issue and the immoral treatment of those issues in the current proposals. The aged and sickly and unwanted will lose what little dignity they have left and be reduced to mere 'numbers' who are sacrificed in the name of 'containing costs.'"

"Why not address some of the waste in health care--people on Medicaid get many more benefits than us in some ways. Why not trim trim fluff that insurance pays for? Medical insurance could be redefined and reallocated but don't mess up the whole system."

"It's the right thing to do, to provide health care to the masses. And what time could be better than now for debate? The costs of health care is strangling business profits. I prefer to overhaul government controls of the insurance industry to facilitate delivery of health care to the maximum amount of people at the lowest possible cost through the private sector before expanding the federal system."

"I think people really fear change, and that stops things. We elected Obama because we wanted him to change things - I say let him go."

And I, as average Joanna single American woman, am extremely wary of both HR3200 and the Senate HELP Committee Plan (I'll be surprised if a GOP bill even gets off the ground at this point). They are both unsatisfactory and, as they stand right now, leave too many issues unresolved while creating new ones. Neither does enough to address the greater problem of health care fraud, a problem that is resulting in hundreds of billions of lost dollars every year, making coverage costs skyrocket because insurance companies are paying out to dummy physicians and doctored care claims. (Add to this the curtailing of frivolous lawsuits so that doctors don't have to pay exorbitant malpractice insurance so that they, in turn, can lower their fees so that we're requesting less money from insurance companies.) We need to stop people from taking advantage of our current system before we create new programs for them to swindle.

My primary concern regarding these new programs (both would expand the coverage provided by Medicaid and SCHIP in addition to creating a government-run public insurance option) is their funding - where is the money going to come from? Obama has claimed that his proposal/the proposals put forth by Congress will be paid for primarily by re-appropriation of excess funds that are misused by current programs. There is an incredible amount of data from the Congressional Budget Office and Obama's own Office of Management and Budget, however, showing that in the long run, a lot of these programs probably aren't going to save us money. Both project that adopting these bills would increase the federal budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. Put plainly, the plan does not pay for itself. Taxpayers (read: US. Not our parents.) will end up picking up the slack. (And this is in addition to the increased tax already proposed on those making more than $350,000/year, which could potentially harm small business owners.) I need to see that the revenue from these bills is going to outweigh the cost before I can support one of them.

I'm not entirely sold on a public option yet either, for two reasons:

1) Both HR3200 and the HELP plan require participation in a health care program, which, I believe, runs the risk of forcing Americans who have lost their jobs, are changing jobs, or who simply want to change coverage, to be coerced into a public government plan that they might not want, which could snowball into tighter government control of who can have what policies. I don't think the government should EVER be the only source of health care.

2) How would a government program deal with the proposed volume of its public option? If the public option will be as good as the Obama administration is claiming it will be, then millions of sick Americans are going to flock to this program, and I have not seen evidence that a government option will have the resources available to contend with that volume of patients. I want to know where they're going to get the health care professionals who are willing to work on a government salary and how they're going to guarantee that those employees are not going to be overworked, understaffed, and underpaid while dealing with far too many patients than they could possibly take on, thereby gravely lowering the quality of patient care.

I'm all about a public option providing competition and driving down the prices of private competitors, but right now I think there is too much potential for these programs to turn into a train wreck.

There are already so many issues with the current insurance system. If we try to generate too much new policy too quickly, we're liable to overlook the current problems while creating new ones. I think we're trying to do too much too fast. It's my recommendation that we take smaller measures to fix the already prevalent issues within the private sector of insurance to curtail spending and include more people in coverage, and then later, if still necessary, add a public option.

Steve Bragale

Obama has been so vague and hands off in this debate that it's hard to tell where this debate is going. He's gone everywhere

from single payer to co-op during his political career. Meanwhile we have town halls where people with health insurance are erupting over a plan that threatens their "liberty". I heard early on that the deficit would increase to over 300 billion dollars over the next ten years because of one version of a health care plan. Sounds epic, but it's only $10 a month per person. Or, $1000 per month for the richest 1% of Americans. This is a money issue. We have the money. Let's correct this.

Jason Schlafstein

Canada.
















So now let the actual discussion begin. All the contrasting cards are on the table. How does the opinion of our Gentlemen stack up to yours? And Gentlemen, what are your thoughts on what your fellows had to say?

Let us hear your thoughts. A matter this pressing requires public debate, and that is what the Roundtable is here to accomplish.

The Best Case for Sick Leave

[Disclaimer: Lest you think there is any racial implications to this argument, imagine that the world is currently in the grips of the Canadian Geese Flu and that I only eat at French-Canadian restaurants.]

[Second disclaimer: I know this will probably turn a lot of people off from eating at restaurants, so do not read this if you are a hypochondriac or germophobe.]

From the posting in the last roundtable, it's obvious that we are a pretty pro-universal health care group. I'd like to throw a little more fuel on the fire.

Judith Warner, who always has excellent web columns/blogs on the NY Times, had a great one today. At this point it defies all logical reasoning that a vast number of restaurant employees have neither paid health care nor sick days. Think for a second about the places you eat and all of the people involved in preparing, serving and removing that food.

I'd like to take things a step further from her argument and continue on from my Buy Local post earlier. Support restaurants that support their workers. While at first it might seem crazy to ask a restaurant manager straight up if they provide health care and sick days to their workers, the US already looks batshit crazy to the rest of the world.

The Roundtable, Volume 2, Part 5

As we come off the heels of our most successful Roundtable yet, with 10 of 11 possible Gentlemen responding, I was very much looking forward to the next installment. Not only was the question being posed one of nation-wide change, but it was, for the first time, open to the general public to respond. My anticipation for this being an even greater Roundtable than the one prior was high.

I won't call the reality exactly unfortunate. The responses tendered were, for the most part, very well thought out and obviously a reflection of passion for the subject by the author. However, this week I am sorry to say we received only 5 entries from Gentlemen, supplemented by 2 very well-written Guest Gentlemen. Far from lackluster, but below expectations.

Thus, I will have to strive in the following week to bring about even greater success in our weekly conversation. However, in this week's edition, our 7 contributors examine what they would do given the power to eliminate whatever they see as America's greatest problem. While not as numerous as I had hoped, These Gentlemen nonetheless continue to impress. Continue to read and debate the points of the Roundtable, and look forward to more of our brain trust next week, when the Roundtable returns yet again.


Bombay Graham

Education. Forget Healthcare, the recession, the war in Iraq, the war on drugs, the war on poverty. I would put every cent/man/company I could into public education.

Renovating schools, training teachers, modernizing classrooms, raising salaries, instituting the arts, redrawing district lines to reflect population as opposed to money vs. not money, standardizing expectations (ie. only teachers who are trained in a subject can teach it), funding AP classes and tests, funding and staffing after-school activities so parents don't have to pay for them, instituting child care programs for teachers and students, training teachers and programs for special-needs students, rehauling tenure, funding equipment for science, the arts, and physical education, filling libraries, and funding and staffing both college prep and career oriented classes.

I would do everything I could to make school a haven, and a way up and out of whatever situations students find themselves in across the country. Most of what the system needs is pure money, but a lot of it is politics, too. But you said unlimited, and that's what I would do.


Max Nova

So the easy way out would be to say Universal Health Care. Obviously the lack of Universal Health Care in the states is a big deal, and there are various technical ways to correct things. But we've had a bit of that discussion before, so instead I'd like to suggest passing a law forcing all goods and services to take into account all reasonable externalities and reflect those in the cost. This would level the playing field against polluters or those businesses who make short sighted decisions to save a buck in production costs now. The execution would be tough, I admit, but we could employ a lot more economists and policy wonks, so that would be good for the economy. Here's an example. When you buy a soda, there's a lot of things going on. First of all you're slowly contributing to your own poor health, which over time will take it's toll on society's bottom line. You are also consuming corn syrup, and that corn is grown in huge monocultures on the midwest. These "farms" are environmentally and biologically dangerous in the long run. Large amounts of pestisides are needed to keep the corn from being destroyed by insects. The repeated use of the same land drains the soil of the complex nutrients that should be making plants better for us. And this list goes on. These and other externalities need to start being reflected in the costs of what we consume.


David Pratt

I admit to a slightly unfair advantage when it comes to the Roundtable. I am able to read everybody else's response well before composing my own. Sometimes this can influence my own decisions in what I post or how I phrase things. In this situation, I'm happy to say, I am a lone voice in the crowd.

If I could do one thing to get rid of America's greatest problem, I would break our addiction to corn. That's right, corn. It's the most insidious tangle in the complicated knot of our system, and I will gladly tell you why.

Corn products are in everything. Corn starch, corn meal, dextrose, high fructose corn syrup; it goes into practically every mass-produced food item on the line. Not just our snacks and sweets, either. Here's where it gets nasty. Livestock in this country is fed corn meal instead of grass. The stomach of a cow is designed to process grass; by eating corn they can easily become sick. To combat this, powerful antibiotics are injected into the cows. As time passes, the cows need stronger and stronger antibodies, and so they're given increased doses or more intense medicines. They then transfer them into humans upon consumption. As we consume the cow antibiotics, we too then require stronger medicine the next time we get sick.

The reason we feed cows corn instead of grass is that we just grow so much of the stuff that we've got to do something with it. So, we profit from it. We take up all the extra corn grown on crop-based farms and sell them to livestock-based farms. This means the corn is not going towards other uses, such as providing foreign aid for third-world countries or domestic help for our own starving citizens. It's not going towards being converted into fuel for ethanol, creating a gas alternative and helping keep oil prices down. No, corn is being used to keep cows fat and sick.

As they would say in ancient Rome or Earth-3, Cui Bono?

Factory farms. Pharmaceutical corporations. Big oil.

Given boundless time and resources, I would eliminate corn from the top of the food chain. Cows would be fed a diet of natural grass. Excessive corn grown would go towards feeding hungry humans or gas substtutes. We'd start putting natural sugar in our food and taking out preservatives altogether. As our food becomes healthier and our need for stronger antibiotics decreases, the price of medication would plummet. Americans would be healthier. With more money to spend as health care becomes affordable, they rejuvenate the economy. This is also driven by the fact that foreign oil is no longer preventing them from being able to afford trips out. The money farmers make selling the corn abroad or to the government, or tax write-offs they receive from donating it to aid programs more than makes up for anything they lose by poisoning the country with it.

I would run corn out of town. It helps that it's already yellow.


John Ozkirbas

Unlimited Time and Resources!? Boy oh boy. OH BOY.

I'm gonna be honest, I would horribly abuse this new power the President has given me. Like, "personal commercial airplane with the word 'Ozkirbas' scribed in red italics on the side, completely with its own matching aircraft carrier" abusive. And then I'd lie to the president - tell him I was on a PR tour to save American foreign policy in the Middle East and use that as a cover to dump loads of money into another project.

I would start dumping money into various accounts to fund a phantom third party to run against the two primaries in the following election, attempting to push the election focus away from the exclusive view of two behemoth parties (and a bunch of little ones no one takes seriously). This "third" would, of course, be an even handed mix of Democratic and Republican ideals and I would attempt to pull as many representatives away from these two parties as I possibly could. Ideally, they would be swayed by policy alone, but that's not likely so I'll probably have to resort to bribing people. I'll pretty much just give Congressmen money for bridges, highways, ports, and intrastate economic stimuli on the promise that they come to my new political party. And then, on the eve of whatever election, I would just sit back, disappear, and see what happens. I think it would really shake things up.

The main problem in America, from my perspective, is political and moral polarization. With the flux of persons moving to states according to political ideology, Americans have begun to drift apart into two irreconcilable halves. Left by themselves to grow to two extremes, we could, eventually, begin looking at some serious civil turmoil in the future. My plan (as hair-brained as it sounds) would effectively disrupt the status quo and call at least primary representatives to question the parties for which they stand. Hopefully, they can take some of the people they represent with them and start blurring the lines between the two big parties a little bit. It might sound crazy, yes. Stupid, slightly. But, it would address the problem of which, in all seriousness, I feel America is facing today. And, if not today, then sometime in the near or distant future.

But then again... with Unlimited Funds? I could do all that. Maybe score myself a new pool table, too.


Daniel Strauss


Every single person in the United States has GOT to have healthcare. Period. End of story. So I'd use the money for that. And I think it'd be pretty simple, you know, just nationalize healthcare. So easy

Ali Daniels

The economy received its bailout(s). The environment has Al Gore. Hilary Clinton's going to mop up the Middle East. I'd say the adults of the United States have been saved from themselves time and again, only to screw it all up once more. So I think it's time that the kids have their chance. Let's reform the American educational system. Please?

Every child in America deserves a QUALITY free education. They deserve to be able to read, write, and do math. They deserve to be taught how to think critically for themselves. They deserve teachers who know their names and can spend at least 5 minutes a day concentrating solely on their individual needs. They deserve BOOKS, dammit. With unlimited time and resources, each public school in the US would be given its own committee to ensure that new government standards were being implemented and upheld, and that the CHILDREN were being put first in each and every decision.

I would start by improving the profession of teaching. It's an exhausting and often thankless job, and yet, without it I would contend that there would be no future generations of citizens of the United States. So often, teachers that we desperately need are scared out of the classroom because they find that the intense amounts of work they have to do to reach today's youth is not anywhere close to commensurate with the pay that they're receiving. They know they can get a better salary at an easier job, so they don't find it worthwhile to stay and work in destitute classrooms with problem children, inadequate curricula, and unreasonable administrators. So I would give teachers a significant raise and allow them to have more control over their classroom's curriculum (provided, of course, that they're working with their fellow teachers to ensure that each curriculum prepares students for the next grade/class level they're approaching). These teachers would have to work harder for their students in order to receive these benefits though, and I would likely implement a series of teacher evaluations by the students to ensure that the kids are being engaged in the material.

Then I'd make sure that every single school building in America got a major overhaul. There would be enough classrooms so that students would no longer be cram-packed 50 to a room. There would be enough teachers so that students could have 15-30 person classes and each of them could get individual attention when they needed it. Every school would have technologically advanced teaching tools, instead of just the schools with the support of wealthy parents. And, to be even crazier, each student would get his or her own textbook for each class! No buying, renting, borrowing, sharing, or going without. One book for one child.

Finally, strong extra-curricular programs would be instituted in after-school programs throughout the country. Kids would be able to experience music, art, and theatre first hand, continue practical study of math or science if it interests them, and/or participate in well-funded sports programs, all with coaches who could be strong role models.

Hopefully all of this would result in children who are excited and engaged by their school experieces, leading them to pursue further studies and other "wholesome activities" rather than looking to street life or getting stuck in minimum wage jobs. Eventually, I'd hope to see an enormous new generation of college-bound intellectuals ready to learn about and tackle the earth's problems. And hopefully they'd do a hell of a lot better than we are.

Guest Gentleman: Brett Abelman

The first thought that comes to my mind when given such a hypothetical is: "No matter how much time and how many resources I might have, people still get in the way." The biggest problem in America, in my mind, is that no matter what problem you try and tackle - welfare, gay marriage, Iran, changes to Facebook - there are people who disagree with your approach, and lots of them, and they'll disagree so violently that in trying to improve things you're likely to do more harm than good, or at least cause the Internet to become plastered with 10,000 more incorrect usages of the word "fascist."

Liberal, conservative, it doesn't matter, mudslinging and fact-twisting will sink any attempt at true problem-solving. So, there's three ways for a would-be reformer to respond to the inevitable backlash. One, try and win over the masses - good luck, unless you're willing to stoop to actual brainwashing. Two, ignore the ignorant pricks who disagree - cuz after all, you know you're right, and they'll come around to your point of view as soon as they're getting cheap universal health care, right? I believe that is both overconfident and morally suspect (after all, in Bush's head, wasn't that the approach he and his administration were taking in regards to, well, everything?) and so I prefer option three, which is my actual answer to the Roundtable question now that you've read this far:

Education! (Cue confetti and noisemakers.) The answer, I believe, is to educate, educate, educate, because to do so will be to tackle the root problems of so much that plagues us today: ignorance, apathy and gullibility.

It doesn't have to be anything wildly progressive - after all, trying to teach (reasonable) stuff like sex ed can cause a major shitstorm - no, all you have to do is truly leave no child behind, teach the kids how to think critically, and eventually, given enough Time, society will enter an era when nah-nah-I-don't-hear-you, flame-throwing, straw man-and-spin doctor arguments are a thing of the past, because they won't work on all those smart young people. All that will be left to use in public debate will be facts, wit and reason. But what would it take to grab America's children by their butts and lift them up out of the mire of mediocracy? (I apologize for that imagery.) Simple: serious Resources. But since they be all, like, UNLIMITED in this here scenario, that's no trouble.

Use money and manpower to pack our schools with the best teachers - steal them back from the corporations that used good pay and crispier fries in their cafeterias to lure the good people away to office jobs. Heck, establish a 30-student-to-one-counselor ratio, and pay those counselors to follow that same small group of students from kindergarten through college, like Mr. Feeney in Boy Meets World. Teach mandatory classes in civics, conflict mediation, and how to use a credit card. If an approach isn't working at a particular school, try another, or let the kids skedaddle to a different school, offer rewards, whatever it takes. You'd have to fight dirty, in a way, but if you can (once more I apologize for the imagery) beat the under-served and disaffected youth into intellectual submission with the club of Resources, then the results will domino and in a generation or so, the public discourse will be elevated and real solutions and progress will be possible. Or, well, at the very least, when political factions do butt heads in this happy future, they'll do so with a much more refined air, like eighteenth-century British reformer John Wilkes who, when his rival the Earl of Sandwich shouted at him, "Sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!," responded, "That, sir, depends on whether I first embrace your Lordship's principles or your Lordship's mistresses." Zing! Syllepsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllepsis#Syllepsis) for the win!

In conclusion: education is the root of all. I went to high school in a small, small town that let many kids slip through; learned helplessness was both real and epidemic, and these kids dropped out, went to jail, repeatedely declared themselves "stupid." Many of them I know from personal experience to be naturally bright; the main difference between myself and them is that I was lucky enough to have attentive mentors and affluent preschools early on. If they had just been given attention, not given up on, they would not only be better informed, but happier. It is a rare person who can build themselves up on their own when they've been disregarded since childhood; it merely is a lack of Resources and effort (along with some institutional prejudices) that constitute the chasm. With the President's gift, I would fill that chasm up. Everything else will follow, and I believe that with utmost sincerity.


Guest Gentleman: Alex Keiper

So I spent maybe twelve seconds trying to come up with an interesting or original problem to address, perhaps something that would allow me to be pithy and clever, but then I gave up because clearly it HAS to be education. Once you fix that, you’re well on the way to solving a myriad of other problems.

When I say ‘fix’ I’m not talking about buying new textbooks and better microscopes. With no price limit, I would raise teachers’ salaries, hire more teachers, pay college tuition for people who want to be teachers… basically do whatever it takes to get a ton of incredible teachers into our schools. Then we could actually impose rigorous standards on those teachers, since there would be plenty to replace those who were inadequate. I’m not kidding; I spent half of my sophomore year American history class listening to discussions about hunting and watching Band of Brothers. We need teachers who can actually make students want to be in class, learning.

As for those students who still don’t want to be there- I would pay them. Seriously. Give monetary incentives for turning in assignments and doing well on tests, and make it payable at the end of the semester, contingent upon attendance. Yes, I’m sure there are huge flaws in that plan, but there has to be a way to force students into classrooms, and at the moment money seems like reasonable motivation.

And, once we’re done paying the teachers and bribing the students, then sure, throw in the textbooks and microscopes.

The Three Transgressions

Last week I went to work with a sinus infection. Hardly the worst ailment in the world. My nose alternated between being stuffed up and runny. My throat hurt. It was uncomfortable to breathe and swallow. All in all, not the most debilitating medical issue in the world, but it still worried me. Because I, like millions of Americans, do not have health care of any sort. In the face of these masses working every day with illness trying to get by, a sinus infection is little cause for complaint. It did, however, give me reason to pause. As I stood out in the cold to unload a pile of scrapped theater scenery, as I walked through a cloud of sawdust, as I swept up mounds of dust and garbage, I thought long and hard about how we came to this as a society.

And I realized we do it to ourselves. The transgressions are our own. Three transgressions, actually. But more grievous errors regarding the well-being of this society I cannot imagine.


1: We Make Health a Business

This is the most glaringly terrible practice we have in regards to our own health and well-being. We're talking about people's lives. We're talking about their ability to go on each day and continue to work and provide for themselves and their families. Does this sound like a field which should involve meetings about next quarter projections and profit margins? No. It's actually the most terrifying part of our society. Not racism, not poverty, not hunger; the idea that we have made a business out of whether or not people live or die.

I would like to trust pharmaceutical companies. I would like to imagine that there's a board meeting happening right now where men in expensive suits are sitting in a darkened room with a projector running, the scent of smoke and sweat in the air. I dream of a time when these corporate executives spend long evenings pouring over endless research documents hoping that they can be the first company to produce a cure for cancer. Or AIDS. Or herpes. Or the common cold. I would like to. But I just can't imagine a corporation working towards the goal of putting itself out of business.

The sheer and complete backwards nature of our pharmaceutical system is that we have founded an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars to make sure we never get quite healthy enough to stop buying their products. It's far more profitable for them if HIV remains a condition controlled through expensive drug cocktails. They are in the business of control, not cures. Control gives them a steady revenue stream. Cures ensure a cash flow disappears forever. Which do you think is part of their business model?

The only upside to this is a good deal of research regarding cures for diseases is actually funded by our federal government and carried out by private institutions. Of course, when something looks promising, it must undergo years of trials before it can be approved by the FDA - an agency notoriously riddled with scandal from officials on the take by major pharmaceutical corporations.


2: We Do It To Ourselves

There's a story everyone knows about the old lady who spilled coffee in her lap and sued McDonalds. No one told her coffee was hot. McDonalds admits their coffee is served at especially extreme temperatures, but everyone in the world should be aware that coffee is hot. If you spill it on yourself you will get burned. The woman won millions against McDonalds, and now the fast food chain denotes "Warning: Hot!" on all of their styrofoam coffee cups. That's the most famous of the second of our three transgressions. Frivolous lawsuits.

Doctors work hard. From the moment they decide to become a doctor, they go through unfathomable effort to achieve that goal. College consists of biology, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry, and more. Then comes the MCAT, the most difficult standardized test ever devised. Once that hurdle is cleared, it's off to medical school, where you spend four years devoid of a social life. You study the mind-boggling number of human illnesses, injuries, and genetic disorders. You sleep little, as days are marked by classes that leave your brain swimming and your body smelling of formaldehyde. Then comes internship. The on-call room. 48-hour shifts. Residency. 10 years after you began you're finally where you wanted to be.

Then someone sues you for malpractice. And it all goes down the drain.

As a nation we are actually suing ourselves out of proper health care. As the cost of malpractice insurance skyrockets, so to does the cost of medical bills as doctors struggle to keep up. General practitioners are vanishing at an alarming rate as more and more doctors specialize to make more money. This is not to disparage them - the cost risk involved with being in general practice just isn't worth it anymore. And it's our fault.

Yes, if a surgeon leaves an instrument inside of you, he was irresponsible. You should be recompensed for the danger you were placed in. But if he doesn't? If you walk out of the surgery with slightly less mobility, but alive, do you sue? If you have to give up running marathons but the trade off is you get to keep both legs, do you feel the hospital is to blame? Fear of being sued dominates hospital mentality, because we don't seem to realize what we're doing. When we go after millions of dollars for what in the long run amounts to an inconvenience for us, we're taking those millions of dollars from a hospital. We're taking them from sick children and cancer patients. We're draining them out of MRI machines and ultrasounds. We're stealing from each other because we feel wronged.

I don't feel every malpractice case has been frivolous. Certainly not. But I do feel that we as a society, from the people who file charges to the lawyers who vigorously encourage us to do so, have completely ignored who we're really hurting. Our children, our neighbors, and ourselves. It helps no one when we take from medical care.


3: We Think We Need Universal Health Care

We don't. We really don't.

People repeatedly point to Canada as an example of universal health care in action. Everyone, regardless of class, receives free health care provided by the government. Seems like a good system. Until you take into account the fact that the wealthier Canadian citizens don't like sitting in line for six months, so they come to America for care. Meanwhile, the poor are still left waiting for treatment that in many cases comes too late due to the backlog of patients. The problem is not universal health care, it never was. It's that on top of our first two transgressions, we keep demanding this of a government that can't possibly provide it.

The wealthy will always have a greater advantage than the poor. That's the benefit of being wealthy. Until we convince the government that a war on drugs is about as useful as a war on pancakes and switch to a war on poverty, nothing will change. Insofar as health care is concerned, let's review. We let massive corporations be in charge of our medicine. We sue our health care providers to the point that they can't afford to treat us any longer. Then we tell the government we want them to make this all free. Well, maybe they will. And maybe six-hour stopovers in the waiting room will become six months. Or six years, seeing as how our population is much greater than that of Canada.

We don't need universal health care, and when we demand it we obfuscate the true issue and give politicians another way to avoid dealing with it. Should the government be doing more to lower costs? Of course. But they can do it by breaking the backs of pharmaceutical companies and passing legislation protecting doctors from frivolous malpractice suits. They can do it by educating the public so that those suits which do see court have juries that fully understand what is at stake and can make rulings accordingly. We need changes as a society on how we approach health care. Making it free for everyone will only put a tremendous burden on our government, again taking money from other programs that desperately need the funding, and only weaken our health as a nation in the end.



Have I said anything new? I don't know. Perhaps not. But therein lies our fourth and final transgression, the one that is not listed in the first three because it applies to far more than simply health care.

We don't do anything about it. We never ask the right questions. We never seriously pursue the real answers. We never become outraged. We never act. And so things remain the same, or get worse, as those who benefit from our complacency grow rich on our silence.

There's our problems, laid out for us, clear as day. So, who wants to be the first to change?