Legislative malpractice

Two physicians, Eugene and Linda Farley (related by marriage, presumably) have a great lead in "Farley and Farley: Single-payer health care is just the right prescription" in the Madison, Wisconsin, Capital Times:

What if a doctor knowingly rejected a proven cure despite years of successful tests among diverse nations, a cost that is just half of the existing treatment and is hugely popular among patients who have experienced it?

Wouldn't that be a shameful lapse in medical ethics?

If so, how will we label those state legislators who appear afraid to seriously consider the Health Security Plan model of "an expanded and improved Medicare for all"? If legislators won't thoroughly debate a proven answer for our health crisis, wouldn't that be a cowardly case of "legislative malpractice"?

This piece could be applied word for word in Colorado, regarding the 208 Commission and Health Care for All Colorado's proposal here:

The Wisconsin [Colorado] proposal would make three key differences in our system:

1. A publicly accountable body would replace the rapacious "middleman" insurers in collecting revenues and paying benefits, thereby shrinking the enormous costs of insurance bureaucracy.

2. Citizens, not an HMO, would have the right to choose their doctor and their hospital. (Both doctors' practices and hospitals would remain in private hands.)

3. Every citizen of Wisconsin would have health care coverage.

Sadly, the first comment in response to this is incredibly ignorant. Insurance propagandists can pat themselves on the back for this one. Purplepenguin writes: "People are already using our current insurance-system to call out for bans on doughnuts & smoking. If this sort of thing is passed, that will only get worse..... Sorry...as good as it sounds, it's not worth the trade-off in freedoms."

Right. Just like smoking and pastries have been banned in all the countries now offering their citizens single-payer, universal healthcare. Right.

Single-payer = less global warming

Jonathan Tasini writes this entertaining piece at Huffington Post.Tasani quotes the New York Times: "In a break with the past, automobile manufacturers have agreed that some increase in fuel economy requirements is appropriate. But they vigorously oppose the Senate bill, complaining that its requirements are too rigid and not economically feasible." Tasani replies to that the same way I would (albeit more succinctly):

That is a lie. Fuel economy requirements are entirely economically feasible. Sure, if the industry -- along with the rest of the business community -- continues to put ideology ahead of economics, then, it will maintain it can't afford better fuel standards.

We are letting these executives get away with helping kill the planet AND deny people decent health care. And every person in America should be enraged because this is dumb economics, too (and, I will say, this as an aside: I am aghast that the Democratic candidates, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich -- I am not making a pitch for him -- are refusing to embrace single-payer even though the economics are clear and, instead, are all rolling out health care plans that keep the private insurance industry in the game.)

WI single-payer proposal

A retired small business owner in Colgate, Wis., writes Single-payer system would bring windfall for businesses in the Small Business Times, a journal for Milwaukee and Southwestern Wisconsin small business news.

His charge is that the campaign contributions from healthcare and insurance industries — now joined by banking and credit card interests that benefit from health savings accounts — have corrupted politicians who can no longer see that the compromises they're making are killing Americans and American business.

He urges small business to support the single-payer bill before the Wisconsin Legislature:

Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, and that's exactly what Sen. Mark Miller (D-Monona) and Rep. Chuck Benedict (D-Beloit) do with the Health Security Act (SB51/AB94). A small additional payroll tax for employers eliminates the 10 to 15 percent they currently spend on health care benefits, and a small additional payroll tax for employees eliminates costs of co-pays, deductibles, dental, vision, and scores of other expenses...

If you are hung up over the government's involvement, get over it. There are some things best left to the government to fund. Fire and police protection, building public roads, and funding health care are just a few. Political campaigns are another, but that's a story for a different day...

Where are the non-healthcare business leaders on this? Many with their heads in the sand. They are trying to reduce costs in this so-called "free market" system, all while turning their heads when their fellow healthcare businesses pick their pocket.

Lohman can be reached at jlohman@execpc.com.

Christianized medicine

Donna Smith, who appears in Michael Moore's new film Sicko and who is very much a Christian, sent along these quotes from the end of a story in the Detroit News.

"This film comes from a spiritual place," Moore says, "so I wanted to go to the headquarters of the sisters who taught me in my early years. They had a profound impact on me."

The idea that it's about "the we, not the me," came from the nuns. "Instead of calling it 'socialized medicine,' it should be called 'Christianized medicine.'"

"This was one of the ground rules that was laid down by Jesus. He said, 'I'm going to ask you a bunch of questions when you get to the pearly gates. When I was hungry did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? When I was sick, did you take care of me? And if you didn't do these things, and you didn't do these for the least of my people, then I'm going to have to say that you can't come in the big house.'"

Michael, according to Maryknoll Father Charlie Dittmeier, is probably a Matthew 25 Christian — a verrry different species than a Matthew 28 Christian.

Here's the difference:

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus told his disciples that those who fed the hungry and gave water to the thirsty, those who clothed the naked and visited the sick or in prison will go to heaven. “I tell you the truth, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me,” said Jesus.

Those who don't will go to hell: “Depart from me, you who are cursed,” he begins. “… I was a stranger, and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes, and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”

Now Matthew 28: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

















I wrote last year in the Catholic Sentinel about what a difference that makes in real life:

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — The middle-aged woman waiting for a connecting flight is an Evangelical Christian, proud of what her church is doing in Cambodia. There is an orphanage for 30 children and a school for more than 200. But most important, they were building churches so fast that she couldn’t keep track of them: A dozen just this year.

The Catholic Church, she said, doesn’t have much of a presence in Cambodia.

How about Catholic Relief Services, Caritas, the Jesuits, the Maryknollers, the PIME fathers and all the other Catholic NGOs and orders?

She shook her head. “All they do is help people,” she said. “They’re not really spreading the Good News.”

Bless that woman for giving me such a great lead.

That great photo, by the way, is from Rick D'Elia, who has recently emailed from Rwanda.

Propaganda vs. whole systems thinking

Ivan Miller is one of the seven authors of single-payer proposals that were submitted to the Colorado 208 Commission — the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform. His proposal was based on an idea that he explains in his book, Balanced Choice.

He notes that initial polling often shows an 60-70 percent of the public supporting progressive measures — like single-payer healthcare, a bottle bill, or other environmental and social justice proposals for the public good. Then there’s a massive campaign against it, beginning with focus groups figuring out just what works to make people question their best instincts. The proposals typically are defeated by 15 – 20 percent or more.

It's enough to make you wish TV had never been invented. The internet may already be changing things, but not for the majority of Americans who watch substantially more television than our counterparts in other Western democracies.

In his interview on Oprah, Michael Moore talked about how we Americans are different than citizens of other democracies, that we're more about "me" than "we." It may be that we have more distrust of government and more of an individualist ethic than the Brits — but it's hard to believe that we're more individualistic than the Australians — and they have universal healthcare.

The difference may be rather that our laws are screwed up. Moore also pointed out that it's illegal for corporations not to maximize their profits. Which should be illegal — after all, we don't force individuals to maximize their profits at the expense of doing the right thing.

One of the pundits on PBS tonight explained that in regard to the current dust-up on Bush's initiative on global warming, part of the problem is that Americans just want to fix the problem, while Europeans are big on process. (It could also be that it's arrogant for Bush to swagger in and demand that the rest of the leaders line up to learn his particular dance when he's been out to lunch for years while they've been working on their steps together.)

That problem — going after particular symptoms rather than fixing a bad system — is also part of the problem in the United States regarding healthcare. George Dunn, a Methodist minister on the board of Health Care for All Colorado, points out that Americans hate systems thinking — which is another way of saying process. So we end up with piecemeal solutions.

Crappy piecemeal solutions.

Why does this look like a cartoon?

It's from the front page of the Washington Post, my home page since I fully digested how badly the New York Times has handled journalism over the past decade or so. The Post hasn't been a lot better — marginal. But you can still read the columnists at the Post.

Bono looks like a tired dad with a graying, talkative 9-year-old. Or is it Boomhauer and Hank, from King of the Hill?

See Michael Moore's interview on Oprah

The whole thing, including some great excerpts from the movie, are at One Good Move.

What's the priority?

There's a great quote about single-payer in Hartford Business. The quote is from Connecticut's new state insurance regulator, a guy that the headline says, "Comes With Close Ties To The Industry."

Now when I was writing stories (but not heads), I'd get something like that into the paper and think that surely some of our readers would get it. As Norm Jenson over at One Good Move says, "I thought these things might be clues."

This new regulator warns about the dangers of a single payer system.

“'I don’t know how that would integrate with the private market. I don’t see that happening,' he said."

"Ah-hah" moment. This may be the same problem that some of the commissioners on Colorado's 208 Commission have. They can see that a universal risk pool is most efficient; they can see that it's immoral and bad for business to leave citizens without healthcare (or with inadequate healthcare) and bankrupted when they get sick — but how the hell do you shoehorn a single-payer system into the private market?

Can't be done, they sadly conclude.

As do we who advocate for single-payer. Can't be done. Which way you go from there says a lot about your priorities. Is your priority propping up an unjust and inefficient private market, or is it getting quality healthcare to people in an efficient and just manner?

Which side are you on?

Sicko's even at Business Week

Sicko's even at Business Week — and with a positive review. Which is as it should be. Our healthcare system is bad for business.

"Anything—including a film—that can bring this issue into the public eye is good for the debate," says heart surgeon Dr. William Plested, president of the American Medical Assn. "So, I'm cheering on Michael Moore, even though I haven't seen the film."

Business Week has a nice trailer for the film there.

Can we reform the system? Or are the cynics right, and it's "unfeasible"? If that's the case, we're in the decline and fall of our democracy. Here's a comment from a recent Washington Post back and forth with Steven Pearlstein:

If you look at wealth inequality from an historical point of view, you will see that countries with a vast difference in the percent of wealth held by the upper 1 percent (say) as compared with the lower 90 percent (say) soon go down the tubes. The reason is that wealth translates into political power, and soon the country is making decisions that benefit the top 1 percent and not the country as a whole. This is discussed in detail in Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy." Since this is a feedback situation, it tends to happen and has at least started to happen several times in our history. The strength of America has been that just when the trend starts to enter the strong feedback stage, something has happened that redistributes the wealth. The rise of unions and FDR are two such examples. What we have to worry about is that the trend of wealth piling up in the top 1 percent or 0.1 percent is increasing and we see the country taking positions that benefit only the Rich. Two examples are taxing dividends and capital gains at a lower rate and the attempt to abolish the estate tax. I am sure you can come up with many more such examples.

Time to redistribute, wouldn't you say? Or are we too "free market" to save the country?

Colorado woman's cameo in Sicko

Donna Smith, a journalist faced with crippling healthcare costs despite being insured, was one of eight Americans who traveled with Michael Moore to Cuba in March for treatment there. Moore filmed the trip for his documentary Sicko, which opens later this month. Donna writes movingly about the experience at Huffington Post and at Healthcare Now.

At Moore's site, there's this introduction to Smith in an AP story about the recent New York screening of Sicko. "Donna Smith, in from Denver with her husband, Larry, was in tears when she spoke. The film opens with their painful story: Plagued with health problems, they were forced to sell their home and move into the storage room of their daughter's house because they couldn't cope with health costs, even though they were insured.

"'Health care is an embarrassment to our nation,' Donna told Moore. 'You give dignity to every American in this film.'"

At the heart of Donna's story is the psychic trauma that our healthcare system inflicts on people like her — people, she says, "who play by the rules" (she's always had health insurance) but are still victimized by our system. From the Healthcare Now piece:

As I walked to where I would stay in the hospital [in Cuba] for my evaluation, I felt something deeply painful beginning to surface. I felt my gut tighten and even a stab of pain in my chest as I flashed over all the incidents of the past 20 years when I struggled to get health care and when I was made to feel disgusting. My brain swirled with images of payment plans (some signed literally at surgical bedside), applications for community benefits, rising health insurance deductions, angry health providers dunning us for small balances not covered by insurance (though many had been paid thousands already), and countless other humiliations in spite of the fact that I had never allowed my family to go without health insurance...

Over the next few days, I began to absorb the healing power of this form of medicine. Just the knowledge that each human being is valuable, that each life is sacred and worthy, began to heal so much of the sickness of my spirit that also caused some of the sickness of my body. And so my journey into a new life was started. For perhaps the first time in my life, I felt that my Creator had given a glimpse of unconditional love and peace.

Donna is articulate and passionate about this issue — she knows first hand that our system is so unjust that it's fair to call it barbaric. It certainly has no relationship to the Christianity that Americans think of as guiding this country.

I always find myself admiring people like Donna for sticking with their faith despite the evidence arrayed against it — mostly evidence about how miserably most individual "Christians" and "Christian nations" fail to live up to their ideals. She's right there with Bill Moyers in terms of being a better example of what a Christian should be.

Donna's bout with cancer together with her husband's many medical problems forced the two to leave South Dakota, where she had edited a small daily newspaper. She's in suburban Denver now, still struggling with healthcare costs — although in better shape than she had been before Cuba.

I spoke with her tonight, and she says that she arrived in Cuba on nine medications, and left on only four — and feeling much better.

One of the meds she's still dependent on is an asthma inhaler costing $175 — each. Her insurance will pay for it — after she spends enough to cover her deductible. The Smiths' real worries, however, are regarding her husband, Larry, who was too ill to travel safely to Cuba. Donna said that her sense that it should have been Larry there getting treatment was the hard part of her trip to Cuba.

And Moore's fact-checkers. They were tough to take as well. Contrary to mainstream media's depiction of Moore being more interested in telling a good story than he is in sticking to the facts, Donna said that his staff was relentless when it came to insisting on documentation for everything that she and Larry told them about their story.

I'm sorry that the Smiths have had their lives turned upside down by the idiocies of our system. I'm thankful that she's taking this experience and speaking out to make the world a better place. "God gave us brains so we could use them," she told me tonight.

Hope so.