I’m new to the cadre of bloggers here on Blogging Blue. I’m looking forward to contributing my perspectives and insights to the conversation.
In this first blog posting, I’d like to share some insights and research reports that support the need for health care reform.
There are several new and interesting reports detailing the costs of the current health care system on individuals and small businesses. These reports are further ammunition for the significant need for health care reform. If we can get the right to actually do some reading, research and analysis on this topic; rather than irrationally screaming about “poor old grandma” or “don’t touch my Medicare” or “death panels”, we might get somewhere with this critical policy issue.
As Paul Krugman reported in his The New York Times opinion column “Missing Richard Nixon“, health insurance premiums have risen from “1.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1970 to 5.5 percent in 2007.” This significant increase is yet another indicator of the health care mess that needs some cleaning up. While he doesn’t give his source, as an economist and published author I’m sure that he has fact checked his data.
A study, from the UCLA Center for Health Policy “The State of Health Care in California (SHIC)“ has found that 13% of all non-elderly Californians “have some kind of medical debt, and more than 800,000 have medical debt exceeding $2,000”. The report also found that “individuals with medical debt are twice as likely as those without debt to forgo or delay needed health care.” The study looks at medical indebtedness by county, finding a wide variation from a low of 7.1% in wealthy San Mateo county to a high of an astounding 39% in Humboldt county in northern California.
In another report, while not a research study, an article in Business Week “When Health Insurers Dump Small Companies“ details how insurers are jacking up small business premiums in the year following significant claims beyond the premiums collected from that insured company. The practice known as “purging” is designed to force the insured company off the insurance companies books. The resulting sticker shock, has led many small businesses to have to eliminate their insurance coverage or to significantly reduce their coverage to keep their premiums in line, as a percentage of their total costs. As the article states in a good example of the piecemeal nature of state insurance regulations “About a dozen states prohibit insurers from basing premiums for businesses with 50 or fewer employees on worker’s health status.” In addition the article reports that the GAO has found that many states have few options for small business coverage including Alabama where “one carrier insures 96% of small businesses.” With this type of pricing and coverage behavior taking place in the small business insurance market, it is no surprise that the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) reports that health care is the number 1 issue for their members
With individuals and small businesses both facing the impact of rising health care costs and indebtedness, it is time to clean up the health care mess with a public option, with a health care exchange, with the elimination of recisions for individual insurance purchasers, with the elimination of life time maximums, with the elimination of pre-existing condition limitations, with taxpayer subsidies for coverage where appropriate and with heightened national regulation of the insurance industry.
If you haven’t already done so, write or call your Ccongressperson and ask them to support these changes.
Welcome to Blogging Blue, MCM. We’re glad to have you on the team!
Thanks much! Looking forward to contributing.
Welcome MadCityMan.
I agree with your general premise, that there’s way too much irrational screaming and not enough rational thought.
Some of the facts you cite are fine (with the exception of Krugman but I’ll get to that later). But the thing is, nobody needs to be convinced that there aren’t problems that need addressing with our current healthcare system. But you jump straight from “there are problems” to “we must support a public option & healthcare exchange.” I don’t believe that that degree of direct government involvement is the best solution to the problem and you’ve provided no support for that conclusion.
On to your Krugman point…
Health insurance premiums have gone up, but that does not on its face indicate a serious problem at all. It might – but there are any number of other factors (aging population, an increase in quality of care, etc) that play a role and the stat needs much more context before drawing that conclusion. Also, it is unwise to assume anything about someone just because they happen to be a published author – James Frey anyone? All that being a published author tells you about a person is that they’ve written a book. Finally, to Klugman himself. He was an economist. Now he is an Op-Ed Columnist. What he writes for the Times is his own personal opinion and should under no circumstances be taken as work of scholarly, peer-reviewed research. Personally, I think the guy is a hack – his partisan bias so clouds his judgement that I find very little worth in what he says. Really, the context I put his words is right along side Limbaugh, O’Reilly or Olbermann. I would absolutely defend his right to say whatever he pleases. I just think his words shouldn’t carry an more weight than any other op-ed writer.
I see that you have given a warm welcome to MCM. What do you read on economics? Calculated Risk? The Economists Blog? Baseline Scenario? Carpe Diem?
If I came on a little strong (especially to a newcomer) I apologize – sorry MCM.
When I said,
I meant that as a challenge – along the lines of, “you haven’t convinced me, but I’m willing to listen to more”. In fact, as a general rule generally that’s the tone I’d like to convey.
Hello,
Thanks for the welcome and the feedback.
You’re right about their needing to be more context for a reasoned discussion and analysis. This was not meant to be the end-all treatise on health care trends and the need for reform.
You must be a Democrat, since so few on the right are willing to spend time researching market conditions, looking at facts, understanding trends, projecting the future and/or embracing necessary change.
In terms of Krugman, he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his economic insights. This isn’t chump change in terms of recognition. While he does write an opinion column, I’m sure that he spends time in researching and preparing his insights unlike the shrill voices of a Beck (OLIGARH anyone?) or Limbaugh.
I happen to like Olbermann’s approach and I love Maddow for her insights and wit. Maddow does great research and unlike the blowhards of the right, willingly apologizes when she makes an error and also allows her guests to speak without talking over them.
Paul
I’m reminded of the old legal adage: If your position is supported by law, pound the law, if its supported by the facts, pound the facts. If it is supported by neither, pound the table.
IMO, there is too much table pounding going on:
“You must be a Democrat, since so few on the right are willing to spend time researching market conditions.”
As a moderate/independent, it is extremely frustrating to see the finger pointing going back and forth between Republicans and Democrats wings. Both sides are equally guilty of such behavior and it makes you sound like 2 year olds” “But Daddy Billy also did it” More imporatantly, it weakens your argument.
One of the cardinal rules of effective written advocacy is never characterize your opponent or their argument. Your readers don’t care what you think of the other side. Instead, just show why their argument is wrong. If you need characterize your opponent to do so, it’s usually a sign that your underlying position is not very strong.
Cheers,