It's the Economy, of Healthcare, Stupid
Come the next election, I'm planning to be a single-issue voter. Of course, our manifold and burgeoning wars, our problems with public education, environmental issues, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, screwy international trade agreements and odd-ball corporate subsidy programs, corrupt lobbying and campaign finance schemes, impotent and short-sighted diplomatic efforts, that's all important, but this time, I think I'm voting the straight health-care ticket.
Consider the following from my own small circle of friends:
T., a five-year cancer survivor, can't go to graduate school. Her oncologist suggests a two-year course of prophylactic treatment, COBRA runs only for 18 months, the same with student health insurance. She can't buy insurance on her own, so no school.
N. is trying to buy health insurance but her recent unexpected pregnancy won't be covered; it's a pre-existing condition.
M., bitten badly on the face by a dog, had to spend chunk of her retirement savings to pay for 'cosmetic' surgery.
S. would love to marry her long-time partner, but as a ten-year cancer survivor, she can't afford the insurance risk of a 'family status change' that could leave her virtually uninsured for two years.
E. can't find a doctor who takes Medicare.
J. faced a two-year wait for a hearing aid.
W., a single man living near the Castro was turned down for insurance; perhaps they fear he's gay.
K. can't take a recent job offer; his young son suffers from a medical condition and his pediatrician advocates a 'watch and wait' strategy. Unfortunately, if the son's condition suddenly worsens, under K's new health plan, tied to his employment, he'd have to wait 18 months for insurance coverage.
If I added in only a few tragic instances from the recent news, this post would be 72 pages long.
I recently faced an angry dressing-down from my French neighbor, furious that we people living in a rich republic don't take to the streets to demand a national health program. I fear she's right; we ought to be throwing bricks.
I would argue that it's not just a 'people suffering' problem, it's a money-wasting-bad-for-the-economy problem. Reading candidates' statements on the issue, so far, I'm going with John Edwards. He seems to get it and with a sick wife, I think he feels it too.
Next up, how to throw a brick effectively.
posted by Corresponding Secretary General at 10:40 AM
3 Comments:
You're right. I'm afraid that the crisis will have to hit the tipping point where somebody loses an election for not doing anything about it.
Health care, gravitating as it is toward becoming a luxury item, is sucking the life-blood of American productivity, creativity, and ability to take risks. This failure is hobbling our competitiveness, our confidence, and in particular the idea that our children will have a better life than us. The CS's many examples, and many I know, all speak to an unholy waste of talent, drive and ability.
Edwards is to be commended for a specific plan, and I'm impressed by his growth as a candidate, by his work on poverty, by his handling of his wife illness, by his strong progressive bent tempered by his southern roots.
It is shyness on Health care, more than anything, that has already ruled Sen. Clinton out for me in the primaries.
It's so bad, such a drain on our national psyche, that I would gladly support windfall profits taxes on the medical industry, and on pharmaceutical executives and doctors, personally. I will trade limits on damages - even standardizing legal awards. I'm out of patience. I'm not convinced that the much-vaunted innovation of the American medical system means much of anything, statistically. No one's asking me, though.
So here's where I am: you've got a plan that can cover 95% of us? You have the ability to sell the plan to Congress and the states? That's the stuff. Show us.
Would that I had your eloquence.
Post a Comment
<< Home