March 09, 2007
Legislative Fools' Gold

One of the more annoying trends in politics is the fascination with passing feel-good bills; pieces of legislation whose stated purpose sound just grand, but whose actual details inevitably contain serious flaws. The current measure awaiting Governor Gregoire's signature, ostensibly to improve health care access for children fits such a description with style.

While backers of the bill rejoice that more kids will be covered by health insurance (by itself a good outcome), the P-I doesn't beat around the bush in declaring the measure a glorious step forward towards single-payer health care. Grrr.

The facade with which this bill has been embraced is more tellingly revealed by a post by Lynn Allen at Evergreen Politics. Compare that to past analysis of the bill here at Sound Politics.

Allen is excited the legislation will help cover children "who are currently not able to obtain basic health care." Is that why analysis of the bill said six out of every ten expected enrollees already have private sector coverage? It sure sounds like lots of them are "able to obtain basic health care."

Allen also crows about Senator Chris Marr's leadership on the bill, supposedly to aid the "working poor." Is that why families that will eventually be eligible for this subsidized coverage - up to 300% of the federal poverty level - have incomes above the median in 37 of Washington's 39 counties? That sounds like subsidizing the middle class with scarce tax dollars to me.

I firmly support the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) being used to provide this expanded coverage. The original intent of the program was to provide coverage for kids up to 200% of poverty, with states having the option to expand upward (generally toward 250% of poverty). That program has generally worked in covering kids actually falling under the umbrella of "working poor." This bill takes the policy far beyond that reasonable goal.

This is exactly the sort of fiscally irresponsible behavior observers warned Democrats against when they assumed their expanded majorities in Olympia. Plus, the P-I reveals the true intent of some of the bill's supporters. Charming.

Posted by Eric Earling at March 09, 2007 04:14 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Single-payer health care is of course a code word for government financed health care. This has great appeal to most people, as thinking about paying very reduced rates for any and all medical services is hard to resist. However, the economics just don't add up. If everyone has access to health care and they don't have to pay more than a token amount, then demand will skyrocket right along with the cost of providing all the resources needed. Of course, government can not afford this level of spending and their solution will be rationing. So, while everyone may in fact have low cost medical care, they just won't be able to have much of it.

So if anyone thinks health care access and treatment will be anything close to what is available now, they are very sadly mistaken. It just can happen given the realities of the economics.

Posted by: RJK on March 9, 2007 05:41 PM
2. Regarding the comment by RJK, the idea that "free" health care would result in more demand is incorrect. This is an exception to market theory. We all need health maintenance - trying to do it on the cheap, or only when problems emerge, just makes for more expensive and chaotic treatment at emergency rooms.
Health care has gotta be universal, predictable, and not tied to employment status and ridiculous insurance company/HMO convolutions.

Posted by: CarbonBased LifeForm on March 9, 2007 05:59 PM
3. The bill doesn't actually expand coverage until January 2009, and only if the Governor feels there is enough money in the state budget to provide the expanded coverage.

Mrs. Gregoire can campaign for re-selection in November 2008, harping about the expansion of children's medical insurance. Then, after her re-selection has been certified in December 2008, she can declare that the state budget doesn't have nearly enough money to do this, and keep children's health coverage exactly where it is right now.

Posted by: Richard Pope on March 9, 2007 06:20 PM
4. Let the rationing begin! Too Fat? Too Bad. Too Old, Too Bad. Smoker? You MUST be joking. Yep there is more than one way to thin the herd.

Posted by: Smokie on March 9, 2007 06:21 PM
5. So what would happen to my premiums if my auto insurance paid for oil changes, spark plugs, tires etc? Should they pay for a new stereo? German health care would pay for a sex change so why not?

Okay, that is a stretch, but how about this. The cook at Pizza Hut wants a day off to see Blues Traveler and calls in sick. The boss calls his bluff and tells him to get a doctor's note knowing that the state will pay for it. The guy tries to make an appointment but after a 45 minute automated phone tree finds out that if he wants to be seen in the next two months he has to go to the emergency room. Now the taxpayers are paying who knows how many thousands of dollars so this jerk can skip out.

Of course the way to address this fake illness is with a fake cure so enter the federally funded witch doctor that could prescribe some green tea, aromatherapy and magic crystals to realign his aura. Since this type of medical treatment requires no skill or results whatsoever, it would be a race to the bottom to see which unemployed "herb" fanatic would be able to offer their skills for the lowest cost.

Once this race to the bottom happens, illegal immigrants (or undocumented health professionals?) would be the logical providers of such low cost care. So there. We have provided a fake cure for a fake illness and hard working immigrants are doing jobs that American doctors won't do. (Not for $7 an hour anyway) Everybody wins!

Posted by: Adam on March 9, 2007 06:21 PM
6. I lived with nationalized medicine for 20 years. The results are as follows:
- doctors are forced to see as many as 50 to 80 patients a day, thereby reducing the time spent with each patient to about 5 minutes.
- doctors are forced to practice medicine in the maner the state decrees, not necessarily according to medical standards.
-doctors spend as much time if not more dealing with the bureacracy as they do patients.
-good doctors are burned out within five years and just plain don't give a damn.
-hospitals scrimp on staff. Sometimes an anesthesiologist cannot be found on weekends.
-pharmaceutical shortages are the norm.
-medical and pharmaceutical R & D is just about non-existent.
-doctors and nursing staff will provide better service to those who pass them a little blue envelope (cash enclosed).
-the economy eventually goes bankrupt. This is exactly what happened in Croatia.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: katomar on March 9, 2007 06:48 PM
7. ..sounds like the nightmare we all figure it is, Katomar. here's another nasty fact: In Great Britain, all the dentistry is government-run. They do not have dental medicine innovation over there. Why? No incentive. It's tragic. Be glad you live in the country that has THE BEST dental care around, because the incentive to improve and be the best is there. In GB, it is decidedly not. No thank you. I prefer the best.

Posted by: Michele on March 9, 2007 08:51 PM
8. Speaking of fascination with feel-good bills and other crud with grandiose nicknames, and almost all the other vacuous Bush stuff, it has now been 2000+ days since Mr. bin Laden attacked the USA.

And his birthday was last week. I wonder what Our Fearless Leadership did to commemorate this?

Posted by: Zeke on March 9, 2007 08:52 PM
9. Katomar @ 6

You speak volumes in your post. I will add another.

If you want your elderly parents to get life saving surgeries, that only prolong maybe a year or two, then forget it, with national healthcare. They perceive old age as a "life lived full", with no need for "investment".

I don't think many here (US) would stand for that.

Posted by: Chris on March 9, 2007 09:02 PM
10. Can the state manage a health care coverage system well? We already know the answer:

Industrial Insurance.

And of course, Doctors, employers and injured workers all unanimously laude the system.

In a bumper sticker:

"Like L&I? You'll LOVE statewide state run health care"

Posted by: anon on March 9, 2007 10:04 PM
11. Most of the secular progressive elite will opt out of a system of mass health care just as they opt out of public schools. In Great Britain a significant percentage of the doctors in the National Health Service have private insurance, they don't use the national health service. Just like the old Soviet system where the elite had special clinics and special stores, this is what will happen with health care here.

Posted by: WVH on March 9, 2007 10:19 PM
12. One of my family members is not working right now, has had an open L&I claim for years, but just recently had to stop work because of the pain. 3 doctors have recommended a needed surgery. State's L&I Witchdoctor says 'no'. Result, can't work and can't get fixed....just what we all need from our state run medicine.

Posted by: Doug on March 9, 2007 10:53 PM
13. It's all about feel-good to the dumb as a brick masses. Screw the economics, that's not relevant when it's vote scrounging time.

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on March 9, 2007 11:44 PM
14. ...anything is possible and attainable...

...as long as you are willing to hand over 80-90% of your paycheck to the govt. #6 is dead on.

and--do you think ANY government program will EVER be contained? it's like expandable insulation foam--looks simple, but once squirted...

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 10, 2007 02:09 AM
15. Let me give you another nighmare about Gov-health care. I work in this field as a fire fighter and I've been to Europe.

Most people has seen our fire dept Paramedics. Yes they have them too, but the equipment & drugs they carry on their rigs is small and always at the point of running out. Having a major heart attack there can be your death sentence.

If (carbon based #2) Still thinks that gov health care is a good idea, buddy just look at what is happening at the VA and there is YOUR health care in your face. Enjoy it.... if you dare.

For me NO thanks!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 10, 2007 08:49 AM
16. Zeke:

"And his birthday was last week. I wonder what Our Fearless Leadership did to commemorate this?"

Uh, how about capturing the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq? Would that qualify? Check the wires. It's up this morning.

Posted by: katomar on March 10, 2007 09:15 AM
17. You know Zeke (Jim Hughes) every time you open your yap you negatively effect the ozone layer.
Please breathing, you are an oxygen thief. Lori won't miss you either.

Posted by: Zeke's A geek on March 10, 2007 09:40 AM
18. You guys will tar and feather me as a Lib, but I think that health care as a business has matured to the point where it should be a single payer universal system.

Posted by: John Bailo on March 10, 2007 11:10 AM
19. John Bailo: You should actually personally try it somewhere it's in place and matured for a few years before making a judgment. See how it REALLY works. Then give us an honest opinion on how your health care has been.

Posted by: katomar on March 10, 2007 12:03 PM
20. I'm on the WA state insurance because of a disability.

Trust me, the "medical professionals" that will accept that plan, you do not want near you.

The two decent people I ran into in that system finally quit over being overworked and shoveling massive amounts of BS (and found much better paying jobs).

What I have is so slightly better than nothing. Might be useful for catastrophic...

Got tired of chasing the people that would accept the state plan who never listen, treat symptoms or just ignore the obvious (I'm no medical professional, but I have lot of time to research and I am not stupid) and get highly insulted when you try to participate in your own care.

I'd like to say there have to be some good ones in that system, but anyone who is any good at all is out of it quickly into decent pay and working condions.

Spit...

Posted by: fox3 on March 11, 2007 01:24 AM
21. The P-I article has a poll at the bottom. The "no"s are ahead, but they are broken into 3 categories, so "yes" has more votes.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/306507_kidhealthed.asp#

Posted by: Ron Hebron on March 11, 2007 07:32 AM
22. 18--
do we actually have to try it ourselves to make sure we know? (or, is that stove really hot to touch?!)
can't we observe Britian, Canada, Cuba, Old Soviet or other universal health places for some clues?

to me, it's a disaster. i'll take the capitalistic/private method with its warts any day. once created, that universal helath juggernaut will consume all our taxes & efforts for its own continued life, not for excellence in care.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 13, 2007 05:48 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?