Great Sevens! Can They Repeat?

Happy start of football season, everyone! Join us this evening as we liveblog the Steelers game, kibbitz about last night's Glee episode, and perhaps continue the health care discussion, at least in terms of whether Bo Scaife and LenDale White deserve health care if they desecrate the Terrible Towel again. BTW, this picture appears to be of neither Scaife nor White -- how many Titans stomped on the damned towel last year?

You Lie! People WILL Die!

Okay, so Joe Wilson seems to have stolen the show last night for calling the President a liar on something rather plainly not a lie, because the media needs something to focus on rather than the actual message of whether and how to get universal health care (on the other hand, this site amused me for a good 3 minutes of refreshing). Wilson seems to have saved the non-policy chatter from focusing on Hillary's dress, which I think you could see from space.







Actually, what are we trying to get here? Universal health care? Government-run health care? Health care reform (whatever that means)? Cheaper health care? Fairer health care? More readily available health care? With Obama's flip-flop on a health insurance mandate, it seems to be more along the lines of "universal health care." And with the public option slated to cover only 5% of Americans who can't get insurance anywhere else, this goal should prove popular to the insurance companies. But it still seems like health care will be tied to one's workplace (businesses will either have to provide insurance or pay a penalty). Things will be fairer in the sense that you cannot be denied based on pre-existing condition, and no annual or lifetime caps on coverage. So, essentially, everyone who wants health insurance can get it, and you have to get it, and you don't have to worry about leaving your job. I think this is all very important. I'm still unclear, though, how we're going to reduce costs and reduce premiums. That's the other killer out there. I guess that's more along the lines of the details that are to come.

Anyway, Obama's seemed to counter the whole idea from the below post -- that end-of-life care and ultra-high-cost procedures like transplants would have to be reduced in order to pass health care legislation. When praising Ted Kennedy, Obama said that he "was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent - there is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it." Well, if a kidney transplant would make you better, and you can't afford it, then we're picking up the tab? I just don't see that working effectively.

Facebook Challenge -- No One Dies, Really?

Well, we need something to talk about here after a months-long hiatus, especially since it will be kinda lame if all we do is live-blog Steelers games.

The innundation of status updates on Facebook yesterday about health care, including by fellow Nerdy Wonk DanNation, opened my eyes a little more on the health care debate, namely that I might be disagreeing with one of the left’s basic premises. Here’s the line: “No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.”

First, I guess I should say that I agree with the second part, that no one should go broke because they got sick. I think even staunch Republicans agree with that, at least the way it’s phrased. There’s some other things we can argue about its premise, though – does this mean that all health care should be free? That there should be an income-based cap on how much you can be charged? We’ll leave this for another post.

But I think I absolutely disagree with the first part of the argument – that no one should die because they cannot afford health care. In fact, I think that adherence to this argument will actually prevent any kind of government-sponsored health system from being implemented. End-of-life care, like basically every other medical cost, is spiraling out of control. If I was not at a new job, I might actually take some time and provide some statistics. But I think it’s fairly uncontentious statement. And then you get to crazy heart transplants and the like.
I think everyone is entitled to basic health care. And basic can include a lot of things. You get check-ups and preventive care (that only makes economic sense, after all). You get a broken bone fixed. You get catastrophic care after a car accident. You get treatment for your diseases and illnesses to either help you get better or to maintain a reasonable standard of health and life: dialysis, heart pills, chemotherapy, etc. But I think we bankrupt the system before it even starts if we say that you are entitled to every last procedure that someone with a billion dollars could pay for. Do we pay for multiple kidney transplants when dialysis isn’t working? Do we pay for hip replacement surgery for the 95-year old in poor health (or even, at all)? Do we pay for a liver transplant for an alcoholic? Do we pay for a heart transplant for someone over, say 60? I think the answer is no. If you have the money (or the private insurance), then fine. But I do not think that these advanced procedures are an entitlement. If you don’t have the money (or the private insurance) in these situations, well, then, you’re going to die. I think we have to be very up front about this. Long-shot surgeries, or procedures that merely delay death for a few weeks should not be a part of mandatory health care. We’ve got to face it that, even with a public option, some (or even a lot of) people are going to die because they cannot afford (better) health care.