I guess I’m a little confused with all of this concern over socialized healthcare. Seems like we’ve already got it . So what’s the big fuss?

Insurance = Socialism

Insurance is based on the concept of socialism.  Assemble a group and they all contribute to the group for the better of the whole to protect the individual. That’s what insurance is. We all pay in. Some really need it and use it and benefit from the group spread of the risk. Others don’t need it as much and they help cover the others who do with an eye toward having their future needs covered. Insurance is based on the most core principles of socialism.

Medicare = Socialism

Medicare is socialized healthcare. The government groups all people over 65 into a single pool. Everyone paid in with taxes and the government covers the majority of costs. So Medicare is already socialized. Ask anyone using it what they think of it. Most will say they are thankful that it is there, but that it does not do it all.

Medicare = Private Healthcare

Private healthcare rates are generally set based on Medicare rates. There are so many services and procedures that it would be terribly time-consuming and inefficient for an insurance company to negotiate each batch of services with a provider on a case by case basis. So they set most of the rates based on a percentage above what Medicare would pay. In essence, they let Medicare lead as the largest insurer in the market (a socialized one at that) and then just follow their lead. The larger an insurer’s group, the closer their reimbursements are to Medicare’s. The small the group, the more they pay.

Insurance = Socialism = Medicare = Private Insurance

So following through the equation, it’s pretty obvious that we already have socialized healthcare. Getting it more socialized will not solve the problems we have – overuse of the system, high costs, quality of care, and inaccessibility to care.

With fully socialized medicine, anyone can go any time is the idea people have. That will not breed discretion, it will only create more overuse as an “all you can buffet.”

The governement is inefficient and overpays at every turn for things. Costs will not be held in check.

Quality – controlled by the government? Oh my. Anyone ever heard the phrase “Close enough for government work? Look at the VA and its recent struggles.

And where are the additional doctors to address this new open buffet? I see nothing where the effort is being made to bring in more physicians to help address what will be an increased demand.

Does everyone deserve healthcare? Absolutely.

Do we want the governement running it? Absolutely not.

There is much the governement could do to improve healthcare, but taking it over is not part of it. Look for some ideas on where they might be able to help in  the next post.

No matter your candidate or your party, let them know you’re passionate about reforming healthcare!

The new change:healthcare bumper stickers are in!

Shoot me an e-mail at rhendrick [@ symbol] changehealthcare [dot] com with you mailing address, and we will get one to you in time for the remainder of the primaries (unless of course, they move them up some more – there is talk here of moving ours to last week).

In going through my multiplying number of unread feeds I ran across an interesting piece from last week (sorry to those of you who have already done your reading). Politico published Young and Uninsured Turn to Facebook highlighting the large number of young adults interested in health care reform policies of the “08 election.

I wish I could describe my excitement over learning about the interest among youngsters in health care reform (I am an advocate and incredibly interested in making a difference – hence I work for a company called change:healthcare).

My excitement over this issue soon turned to distress when I read the New York Times article about Hospice and this mornings subsequent letters to the editor. On a sad note, about a year ago my grandfather (a wonderful man – Quentin Welty) spent the end of his life, with minimized pain and maximized dignity, being cared for by Hospice. I personally vouch that this organization means the world to families and loved ones who have been blessed with their aid and guidance.

Simply put, I understand the issue facing Medicare. While patient live longer than expected the cost is greater than allotted for. However, I am confused as to why this alerted Medicare to send repay demands rather than seek an alternative solution. This action by Medicare highlights our country’s health care motto “$$$”. The idea of our government compromising hospice programs turns my stomach. Respectful care at the end of life is unarguably a way to take “Respecting our Elders” to the very last minute of life.

With that being said here’s what I ask of you: an answer, an opinion… WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE HEALTH CARE?

In thinking about young adults getting involved in health care policy and reform… I welcome any readers to tell me why they think we should change health care in this country. I have many reasons myself but I found a new one today that hit home for me… “We should change health care so that everyone (who wishes) has access to hospice at the end of life.”

What hits home for you?

How unclear can things possibly get?? Every direction I turn there is a different discussion, different concern, a new point of interest, new topics, new programs, new ideas, new technology, different ways to use your personal health record, different insurance plans, different reimbursement rates… you get the picture. Trying to understand healthcare is exhausting.

So here is my attempt to clear (only a small portion) of this murky mess called “healthcare” and bring a couple things I feel are important to the forefront.

Bottom line: For the 6th year in a row the number of uninsured individuals has increased. We have yet to find a way to decrease this number… not at all… not one bit. Personally, I’m not looking for a solution that wipes this 40 some million uninsured off the map. I’m more interested in making 2007 (or 2008 if need be) the first year that this number decreases.

SCHIP: Unfortunately this program to increase the number of children with health insurance has turned into political party line propaganda. Nina Owcharenko from Health Affairs Blog summarizes the debate quite nicely in SCHIP: It’s Not Just About the Children, “One side in the debate is using SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) reauthorization to incrementally expand the role of government in the health care system. The other is trying to minimize the role of government and argues for a more market-based solution to the troubles in the health care system.” I have already given my opinion on SCHIP in another blog Learning to Value America’s Youth if interested.

Democrat or Republican?: Each party’s views can be summed up quite easily (all in my words).
Democrat Party says, “The healthcare crisis is real and needs a real solution. The only way this will happen is if the government gets involved and provides logical answers.”
Katrina says, “Umm ok like what? Universal Healthcare? HA!”

Republican Party says, “The government needs to continue to support programs like Medicare, keeping its role minimal and support private sector, economy fueling solutions.”
Katrina says, “HA! Because that has done Americans so much good in the past (note that I mentioned above that we are on year 6 of the number of uninsured Americans increasing).”

Consumer Driven Health Plans: Due to the increasing cost of healthcare many employers have been forced to minimize coverage for employees or offer more affordable alternatives. Enter the Consumer Driven Health Plan (CDHP), a high deductible (over $500) plan that emphasizes consumer engagement. These plans may or may not be accompanied by an HSA or HRA.

At first glance this alternative seems like a great idea. They save the employer money and have potential to save the employee money as well. However, many companies are forgetting that without the right tools and education a CDHP is like giving a 5-year-old keys to a car and seeing if they crash.

Beside my bad analogy, I think with preparatory education on the CDHP options and the healthcare marketplace – along with the proper tools to help employees gauge healthcare costs and quality – that CDHPs are a great solution, or at least a step in the right direction.
Lastly, I would like to applaud Presidential hopeful Mr. John Edwards for accidentally pointing out good things about his democratic competitor Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He was quoted in Clinton Edwards Tussle Over Lobbyists (AP Monday) “I think the lesson from that [her previous attempt at healthcare reform], my lesson, is not the same as hers,” Edwards said. “Her lesson is give them a seat the table. I think if you give the drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists a seat at the table, they’ll eat all the food.” Unfortunately (for him) he continued to say, “There’s a fundamental difference between Senator Clinton and myself about how we bring about the change we need,” Edwards said. “We have to take their power away from them. I don’t believe we can compromise with them.”

I do not know who I will vote for for president in ‘08, but I do know that cooperation and compromise are fundamental abilities of a good leader. So why does this quote from Edwards bring about my applause??

I am praising Clinton for recognizing one fundamental element of America’s healthcare system, that the insurance companies and drug companies have a lot of control. I must disagree with Edwards, if any change is going to be made compromise just must come first. Good luck getting yourself out of a hole with a little help from the men holding the rope and shovel!

Chris Fleming of Health Affairs Blog has highlighted the debate surrounding State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization, discontinuities, and enrollment in his blog. Undeniably this is such an important topic. I wrote a research paper this spring on uninsured children and the variations across SCHIP. Unfortunately the discussion is warranted (referencing the first article and second article he pointed out in Health Affairs). There are gaps in coverage, low enrollment, and eligibility changes and interruptions.

Though the function of my research paper was not to express my opinion, rather to report information, I certainly developed one by the end of it.

Reading all of these different individuals’ research on the SCHIP debate frustrates me.

• First, they cannot seem provide me with any new information in addition to what I discovered last spring.

• Second, how is everyone missing the point? Really. I want to read an article by an individual that has an opinion on how our policy makers have failed once again and created a patchy program. I do not need to read more statistics. Give me a solution.

Consequently I have decided to share my opinion on the topic…. And I would love to hear anyone else’s opinion or proposed solution.

To me SCHIP is about developing and supporting the youth of our country. We have developed and supported our country’s children for years through public schooling. We give every child the chance to succeed in life through educational opportunities from youth to adolescence. “Knowledge equals power”… right?

Well kind of. In this country it’s more along the lines… “Knowledge and health contribute to wealth and wealth equals power.” For this reason I believe that every child should additionally be afforded the chance to maintain a good bill of health. I cannot see how anyone, especially children, who doesn’t have access to a doctor, or medication, or any other care they need from the health arena (e.g. psychiatry, physical therapy), can truly succeed in school, much less life.

The answer is not about increasing enrollment, making single mothers, fathers and families fill out application forms, standardizing eligibility, or closing gaps in coverage. The answer is providing every child with free education and free healthcare.

If this were the premise of childhood (free education and free healthcare) I might reconsider my opinion on needing a more “universal” healthcare system. Who knows, I might even believe that our government was providing children with an equal (well at least a more honest) chance of succeeding as adults.

At the end of the day I simply wouldn’t feel so bad about turning people loose at 18, expecting them to contribute to society and figure out their own healthcare.

We were all told as children to respect our elders, and obviously our country does that. We provide social security and healthcare (Medicare) to the individuals that have contributed to what our country has become today. This country also needs to learn to value our children, the future contributors, by giving them every opportunity to learn and remain healthy throughout childhood.

So who’s to blame for America’s healthcare problems? In part 1 or my 2 part series, I had told you the reasons why I feel that individuals and physicians and health practitioner deserve some of the blame for our systems complications.

Note: www.charlesclarknovels.com made a wonderful comment on part 1, highlighting accountability (if you’re interested go back and read his comment on part 1). In an industry dominated by tiers of power, responsibility plays a part. However, accountability may be more important. Its one thing to be responsible for your actions, its another to be accountable for the way in which they effect others. And yes unfortunately, Stark is taking a very long nap, and many individuals are taking advantage of his slumber.

Moving on, I have two more culprits to add to my first two. Here it goes…

3.) Insurance companies

Insurance costs and the industry’s connection to employment (which is unpredictable and unstable) make private health insurance primarily available only to the middle and upper class.

As companies began to focus on experience rating and classifications of employment, individuals with minimal income or chronic health conditions have been increasingly pushed out of the private insurance arena. The cost burden of private insurance has been shifted to the employers who continue to push the additional costs directly to their employees. Individuals with the increased burden of medical problems are having to additionally handle the increased cost burden of the industry.

Arguably though, the biggest problem with insurance companies rests in their organizational structure. The solutions this industry was intended to provide have alternatively enabled the rising cost of healthcare. Rising costs have directly led to higher premiums and deductibles that place a financial burden on the individuals with private insurance.

4.) The Government

All and all, I would have to argue that the government deserves most of the blame for America’s confounding healthcare problems. Though Medicare and Medicaid have improved care to the elderly and the impoverished, the programs simply fall short of providing a solution. Still to this day, after Medicare and Medicaid were created more than 40 years ago, a large number of patients remain unaware of the services and care options afforded to them through these government programs.

Not only are patients suffering from the lack of a unified and reliable government healthcare program, but the institutions providing the care assume the burden. Under funded and struggling with the uninsured, many institutions are taking responsibility for individuals’ lack of coverage. Unfortunately there isn’t even a set amount of government money given to health institutions to defray the cost and burden of treating the uninsured. This places many medical institutions on the verge of closing every year, which would only furthers the burden on the system…

Recently Michael Moore attempted to tackle “who’s to blame?” As many of you know he has quite the art for blaming big institutions like the government and insurance companies. Unfortunately, its not that simple. Practitioners and individuals deserve some of the blame as well. But ultimately I must point my finger at the fact that our government has allowed individuals and practitioners to absorb the burden of their continued lack of unified involvement. If the government were to take more responsibility for the current problems of our system, then the other parties could not opt out of the blame. Each of these sectors, individuals, practitioners, insurance companies, and the government, contributes to the problem in their own unique way.

Our healthcare system needs a reevaluation of responsibility and collective reform of the system in all four of these sectors. Individuals need to begin to take more responsibility for their health, practitioners need to follow up and stop blaming the system, insurance companies need to consider alternative methods of coverage, and most importantly the government needs to begin to view healthcare as a basic human right before any real changes could be made.