Why Do We Need Health Care Reform? Don't Ask George Will

Share/Save Share this

One of the things I hope to do with my post is to call out misleading statements and statistics, outright lies and illogical assertions by opponents of meaningful health care reform—and to rat out the front groups that insurers and other special interests are funding to kill reform or, failing that, shape it to their benefit.

I'm starting with a biggie, conservative author and columnist George Will, who suggests in his June 28 column in The Washington Post that, because of the complexity and expense of reforming the American health care system, maybe we would be better off just leaving well enough alone.

Well enough? For him, maybe. He's got a great gig at the Post and as a TV network pundit, and he has sold lots of books, so he probably doesn't have to worry, as most other Americans do, about being just one layoff away from joining the 50 million other men, women and children in the ranks of the uninsured. And even if the Post gave him a pink slip this afternoon, chances are he has stashed enough away that he can afford to shell out the nearly $13,000 that the average annual premium for decent family coverage costs these days (and that was in 2007).

The median household income in this country is just about $50,000. I'm betting it has been a few years since Will faced paying more than a fourth of his family's annual income—before taxes—just to cover the health insurance premiums. More and more of us also face paying thousands more of our hard-earned dollars in out-of-pocket expenses before the coverage we pay so dearly for actually kicks in. If Will and other critics of real reform just did a little simple math, they would understand why the number of people without insurance is so high and growing so rapidly, and why at least 25 million more of us are now under-insured.

After telling us we might live to regret trying to reform our dysfunctional non-system, Will makes this assertion:

"Most Americans do want different health care: They want 2009 medicine at 1960 prices."

Yeah, that would be nice, and it sure makes for a great quip, but no one I know expects that. Maybe he knows "most Americans" better than I do, but I doubt it. Instead, I suspect he sees the world in much the same way insurance company executives see it from their spacious offices, the windows of their chauffeur-driven limos and the corporate jets that fly them comfortably over "most Americans." When you're at that altitude, it's hard to get a real fix on what most Americans want, much less what so many of them so desperately need.

To be fair and perfectly honest, I saw the world that way too for most of the 20 years I worked inside the insurance industry. The more money I made and the more perks I was given, the less I thought about the hardships many people face who are not as privileged. It took seeing thousands of people standing in the rain in long lines to get care in a barn just a few miles from where I grew up to finally get it.

It is true, as Will notes, that many Americans enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance plans have been able to rely on their employers to pay the lion's share of the premiums. What is also true, but not mentioned in his column, is that fewer and fewer Americans can get coverage through their employers these days, and that of those who can, most are now having to pay a larger share of the premiums and much higher out-of-pocket expenses.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal story, the number of small employers offering coverage has dropped from 61 percent to 38 percent since 1993. And the way insurers and employers are dealing with medical inflation is to shift more of the financial burden onto the shoulders of working men and women.

Insurers and their ideological allies, like Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Institute and Betsy McCauaghey of the Hudson Institute, both of whom Will cites as experts in his column and both of whose organizations are corporate funded, say this is a good thing because, they contend, Americans have been insulated for far too long from the real costs of health care.

That's easy for someone to say who has never had to file for bankruptcy, as millions of Americans have, because the insurance coverage they were counting on didn't come close to covering their medical bills when they got sick or had an accident. And it's easy for a rich, famous and out-of-touch columnist to callously content that all Americans really want is 2009 medicine at 1960 prices, so let's just call the whole thing off.


Wendell Potter is the Senior Fellow on Health Care for the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Health Care Reform

You discuss at length the problems of health care reform, but fail to mention that the ultimate reform must come from Americans taking charge of their own health. . . Changing to more healthful lifestyles that reduce their need for doctors and drugs.

Healthful Lifestyles

I must comment. We hear this so much! The fact is, STUFF happens. My wife suffered terrible symptoms for ten years. The doc would not go up against the insurance company and demand they pay for the tests. He told her it was stress and menopause (at age 40). After ten years of misery, my wife insisted on a battery of tests. Luckily, a radiologist reviewed another radiologist's diagnosis of a "normal" scan and found the tumors. By then, it had metastasized. Now, it costs $11,000 a month to care for her. If anyone knew then or knows now the cause of carcinoid, or neuro-endocrine, tumors, they must make that info available. Fact is, no one knows. My wife never smoked, worked out regularly, and had at most a glass of wine a week. Bad things happen to good people. This blame game is just another ploy of the insurance industry. I hope and pray to God that you do not have to deal with the misery that my wife faces every day. The reality is that you, nor anyone else, can prevent some diseases by lifestyle, prayer, or voodoo. That is why everyone must be in a national health insurance plan with a public option.

Take charge of health?

I agree with you, Mr. Durbin, to a point. Sure, we have way too much obesity in this country which leads to higher cholesterol, more heart attacks and Type II diabetes. Some of this is unavoidable due to the highly processed, preserved, saturated and salted foods many have no choice but to eat. (I think there's an argument here for taxes on super sugary foods and drinks). And smokers are just asking for lung cancer. (Fortunately, we've taxed that to kingdom come and put informative labels on all products and advertising bans to children.)

However, accidents, illness and disease many times come on unexpectedly irregardless of how much you're taking care of yourself. So the crux of the issue comes back to the private insurance industry. The axing of those with pre-existing conditions many of which don't have a culpable cause, is in my view immoral.

Would you rather have a corporate bureaucrat concerned about his or her profit margin make health care decisions for you or a government bureaucrat with no interest in making a profit for him/herself?

'Ultimate'? Uh-uh.

I agree people should do what they can to take care of their own health, but that word "ultimate" only works if healthful lifestyles sufficed to eliminate the need for doctors and drugs, not just reduce it. Failing that, healthful lifestyle would merely be a "very significant" reform, not the ultimate one.

And remember, the deck is stacked against healthful choices for much of the population. You want healthful lifestyles for everyone, you have to do something about the economic, political, social and cultural factors that stand in the way.

Health care rationing-myth or truth?

Mr. Potter, I too applaud your humanity for taking the plunge and decided to root for the little guy.

The loudest drum beat of the anti-reform crowd is that if you have a nationalized plan, you will have rationed care. See 7-7-09 WSJ Opinion page

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html

It is a well crafted argument that you see everywhere. Care to comment?

FF

Myth

A "well-crafted argument"? I'm afraid I must have missed that part because all I saw was a cheap effort at using selective statistical manipulation to achieve the same old tired fear-mongering that the US ruling class has been using quite successfully to motivate gullible authoritarian conservatives into dieing for their leaders causes, and doing it on their own dime. And being proud of it! (grooaan.. why do they do it??!)

What you will rarely see in stories like this WSJ piece, is the use of Canadian statistics and/or anecdotes to make their case. This despite the universal health-care we Canadians adopted long ago. And the reason for that is simple. The typical American doesn't know anybody in Great Britain whom they can ask whether these things are true or not, whereas this is not the case when it comes to knowing somebody who is living or has lived in Canada.

Because if they did ask, they would hear the very same thing I am going to tell you about this attempt to deceive you. It's Bull-S**t! Period.

Please don't delete; Not a "removable, personal attack"

We have a very similar problem in health care access as we do in media --television and radio-- access. Private fiefdoms have been set up on top of the public in order to enrich the feudal lords at the expense of the common people.

Why? Because this arrangement provides the aristocrats with enough financial and political clout to control who gets to run for important elected offices, like Congress, Senate, or President of the United States.

Like O'Brien said in 1984:

There's no ultimate reason for wanting power. It is the end in itself.

After a high, single-digit number of gin and tonics or martinis on a Saturday evening in June, just as the lawn party is wrapping up, I can hear George Will saying something to that same effect as his buddy or his wife helps him to his car--you know, in an unguarded moment.

He should know, after all. He's one of the deceptive mouthpieces placed by the ruling class in order to stifle meaningful public political discourse (without the public realizing they're being gagged).

O'Brien has nothing on Will.

So there really can't be reform. There can only be a strangling of meaningful dialogue, with the usual failed results, as long as we the people let ourselves be controlled by the corporate chiefs, deceived by their media ministers, and frustrated by their officeholding stooges.

For those in power, and their George Will-ish propagandists, reform would be like giving the manor to the serfs.

Stimulus funding mainly goes toward bank deposit for a rainy day

People are so worried about losing their job, coverage, denial of treatment, which seems to increase bank deposit latetly. That means stimulus funding mainly goes toward bank deposit for a rainy day increasing jobless rate. It proves again that a healthy society yields better productivity, prosperity.
It is time to 'Change' the notion of the public health as a fundamental human right and install 'a safety system for all' like all of the other industrialized nations, I think.

Here's a proposal: don't

Here's a proposal: don't allow insurance companies to base their premiums on your age/health status/habits/etc. Make it illegal as if it were a form of discrimination (ie. "The right to health insurance"). That way, their actuarial computations would have to take into account the pool of Americans wanting health insurance. That way, we can truly shop for the lowest premiums. The only differences in cost would be the efficiency of their back-offices. That would surely be cheaper on the whole as compared to the current system (which is cheap until you have to renew your insurance after you've gotten sick). Although the healthier would have to take up some of the slack of the unhealthy. Plus there should be a minimum deductible (say 3000 dollars) so that patient's and doctor's decisions are still coupled to cost.

Just add in some incentives for a healthy lifestyle and (haven't figured that out yet), and we're set.

health care

I wonder why, Wendell it took you 20 years to come forward, did your conscious all of a sudden kick in just before retirement?