The most important question in health care
Monday, November 3rd, 2008 By Mike Maurer
One question stands apart from all others in health care. It’s exemplified by this touching but unremarkable–utterly routine–scene:
One wall of Udall’s hospital room was cluttered with photos of his family back in Arizona; another bore a single photograph of Udall during his season with the Denver Nuggets, dribbling a basketball. Aside from a congressional seal glued to a door jamb, there was no indication what the man in the bed had done for his living. Beneath a torn gray blanket on a narrow hospital cot, Udall lay twisted and disfigured. No matter how many times McCain tapped him on the shoulder and called his name, his eyes remained shut.
A nurse entered and seemed surprised to find anyone there, and it wasn’t long before I found out why: Almost no one visits anymore. In his time, which was not very long ago, Mo Udall was one of the most-sought-after men in the Democratic Party. Yet as he dies in a veterans hospital a few miles from the Capitol, he is visited regularly only by a single old political friend, John McCain. “He’s not going to wake up this time,” McCain said.
Everyone who is not killed suddenly will experience something directly like this. The ways to be killed suddenly are unpleasant-violence, on the street or in a war; accidents, which are violence with different intent, or catastrophic health failure, such as a stroke or heart attack. I have no idea what the distribution of experiences is; I’ll guess 2 percent violence, 10 percent accident and 30 percent catastrophic health failure.
That leaves 58 percent of us, let’s say 60 percent, dying as Mo Udall died.
If the brain cells left to us by Oprah can hold only one question, then when we think about health care that question needs to be, how will we die? If we don’t have that in mind, then what the socialists are selling us isn’t health care, but the false idea that we aren’t going to die like Mo died. That’s not government policy nor is it business policy. It’s the scam of the con artist.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Perhaps we already have “socialism” for those like Mo Udall. I found a web site from the US Gov’t that states that in 2005, we as a country spent $206 billion for nursing home care. About 70% of that was paid for by Medicaid and Medicare. Since Medicaid kicks in when you run out of money, it’s a safe bet that for those closer to death, the percentage is even higher.
Would I like to see health care coverage for people before they get to this condition? Yes. But, either way, you can’t ignore the facts as they already are–which is that government is already deeply involved with paying for health care.
We have a gap in health coverage between the very poor, who have Medicaid, and those who have decent private insurance. There is a legitimate and serious disagreement over how (or if) this gap should be closed. Still, I do not think my side of this argument is offering eternal life, just a better one.
Here’s the link: http://www.longtermcare.gov/LTC/Main_Site/Paying_LTC/Costs_Of_Care/Costs_Of_Care.aspx
November 5th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Token Liberal, good to hear from you. Nice arguments, nice facts.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that we have socialism in medical care. It gives me a chuckle, when it doesn’t make me cry, when the ordinary discussion of the news, bureaucrats and politicians assumes that we don’t.
As to the root question, better care before they get to this condition, I think you’re mixing things up there. That’s aging and death. While singularity proponents and the Bill Joy’s of the world are building up the rather obvious argument that death isn’t what it used to be, for now, at least, it isn’t a question of some magic care beforehand to prevent the condition, it’s the inevitable end game.
You do, in the end, make a basic mistake. Your side is only offering a better life, you say. Well, so is mine. The question is which of us is right. You say it is done through socialism, I say it is done through choice, which is capitalism. (Then you say but there’s not enough money for the poor, then I say, fine, you go ahead and give them some, etc.)
Isn’t it simply that you believe the state should distribute resources, and I believe the poor and everyone else should act to increase their resources? It bothers you to see poverty more than it bothers you to see force used to take away wealth and to see actions that undermine wealth, while I’m the converse.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Mike:
Maybe there is a happy median here (happy for me, anyway
). At the end of the day, I do believe that health care should be provided for all, even those that cannot afford it. As you will always be quick to correctly point out, that money has to come from someone who has it.
On the other hand, I hope that this can be done in such as way as to incentivize through choice and market mechanisms. Anyone who has come face-to-face with single-payer type entities knows that this is a system of last resort.
Maybe I am just being hopeful, but please forgive me if I feel a bit optimistic today.
November 6th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Very interesting, TL. Your post makes *me* hopeful, but I still fear both that your cohorts aren’t on the same page as you and that your concept doesn’t really get you anywhere. To say health care should be provided for all is still denying the problem, because it isn’t facing up to old Mo’s condition, and to say single-payer is a “last resort” is akin to saying invading Iraq is a last resort: The time to pull the trigger is never the time when you have the comfort of public support to do it. (Plus, if you’ll forgive a tweak, invading Iraq worked, but single payer will never work.)