Can Anyone Give Me An Answer?

OK, it’s time for me to come right out and ask a useful question here:

As you know, I’ve spent some ink in this space in support of the States Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) presently apparently headed for Presidential veto. And a host of Washington politicians have suggested that expanding that program would be the absolute end of everything we hold dear, or words to that effect.

Senator John Cornyn (R – TX) last week stood up in front of Congress and made such outrageous statements that a couple of his fellow Republicans saw fit to chastise and correct him, right there in front of everyone.

Congressman Joe Barton (R – Arlington TX) has made it clear over and over again that he’s opposed to SCHIP. I won’t go into his interesting claims, having done so in the past. (I hear ‘n tell he wasn’t too happy with that, but I also note he didn’t write to correct me.)

They both insist that expanding SCHIP would send us down the slippery slope to “government-run” health care or, worse, “socialized medicine.”

Well, given that at least they both seem to agree that there are lots of totally innocent children who are without health insurance (this is true, even though President Bush famously suggested a few weeks back that everyone has access to medical care because they can go to the emergency room), let’s just dissect that frog and see if we can understand what, exactly, is wrong with universal health care.

I defy any opponent of universal health care to answer honestly WITHOUT resting their argument on certain phrases, such as “government-run” or “socialized medicine”; if they feel they just can’t live without them, I demand that we agree on definitions. Global warming is only made worse by the red-button rhetoric of the Washington folks.

Remember, my goal here is to get an answer to the question.

Let’s just take a look at a couple of examples of government-run medical services.
Start with Medicare. Anyone out there want to give it up?

Here’s who I think might be willing to do that: A retired corporate executive whose benefits include lifetime medical coverage, for whom Medicare is only a nuisance that he doesn’t really need; with both Medicare and private coverage, he’s in the catbird seat.

You could say that about airline pilots and union members, except that you can’t because their former employers are forever going bankrupt or cutting their benefit packages in order to cut costs. So it’s not likely these folks will give up Medicare benefits because they might need them!

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Senator Cornyn and Congressman Barton would likely be quite willing to give up Medicare, because they will retire with the excellent health insurance available to federal employees, said to be even better than Medicare. Like Medicare, it’s a government run program.

Both FEHBP and Medicare provide universal health care to their populations: Medicare to seniors, the federal employees’ insurance plan to former and present federal employees, in each case with the government picking up about 75% of the premium and the insured picking up the rest.

Now, how about the Veterans Health Administration? Here’s what Phillip Longman, author of Best Care Anywhere, wrote:

And who do you suppose is the highest ranking health care system? Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the veterans health care system outperforms the highest-rated non-VHA hospitals.

And here’s what Ezra Klein, writing for American Prospect, said:

What makes this such an explosive story is that the VHA is a truly socialized medical system. The unquestioned leader in American health care is a government agency that employs 198,000 federal workers from five different unions, and nonetheless maintains short wait times and high consumer satisfaction.

Anyone got a problem with the Veteran’s Health Administration?

So, you can see that the term “socialized medicine,” which simply means “the providers are government employees,” is SUCH a bugaboo!

So, if we do away with the terms “socialized medicine” and “government-run health care,” as I’ve shown they don’t describe something to be afraid of, what are we left with?

Oh, SCHIP opponents are also worried about the cost, they say. This is a red herring. Leaving children uninsured drives them to emergency rooms, as acknowledged by our President, where their care drives up the costs for the rest of us or, worse, leaves them without care, so their strep infection can go untreated and infect the whole class and from there their families, and from there their parents’ co-workers, all with lots of folks missing work because they are sick. NOW you can start counting the costs.

But you know what? You don’t make decisions about children’s health based on the cost. Do you?

And what about the assertion that some States would allow coverage to children of families with incomes up to three or four times the poverty level, causing some “rich” families to sign up instead of keeping their existing insurance. The poverty level is $20,650 for a family of four; you can do the math and see if the answer you get is “rich.”

Our own Senator Cornyn told a fib when he said incomes as high as $82,000 a year could qualify (he was talking about New York’s application to the Bush administration for a waiver to allow that increase, and it was denied) thus allowing some people who don’t need it to drop their private insurance and join up.

But consider the cost of living in New York, and then the cost of private health insurance, and do the numbers again.

You know what? I think a few “rich” kids (define “rich” — have you looked at the cost of living in New York?) getting coverage, so that over 4 million uninsured children can, it’s not a bad tradeoff!

So, it’s not the cost, “socialized medicine” is not always bad, and “government-run health care” can work pretty well. So, what?

Would someone please offer a convincing, fact-filled argument against SCHIP – or, for that matter, universal health care for all Americans?