Everybody's for Healthcare Reform, Till You Ask Them About Specifics

by L.A.S.

Polls show that the vast majority of us, 80 percent, are in favor of health care reform. But when you ask about specifics, then you have a much harder time arriving at a consensus. Each group that is being surveyed has concerns about different portions of the reform bills on the table (whether the so-called Kennedy bill or the moderate Baucus version) -- and each group has a different portion that it does not like.

When the survey asks whether the respondent favors a particular bill, support drops to 20 percent. And when you ask the public in general if they support improved records efficiency, again, 80 percent approve. BUT if you ask them if they favor centralized electronic medical records, then again, support drops way below half.
At this point, it is apropos to insert a lovely statistic regarding the cost savings that come from adopting computerized medical records: $81 BILLION annually!! BILLION!! PLUS we could improve accuracy and reduce medical errors, which is worth far more than money.

In regards to that last question, I suspect that it is the word “centralized” that upsets people, and frankly I do not blame them. I am all for electronic medical records; those with experience in using electronic records (such as the Veterans Administration) have a very good reputation for speed, efficiency and accuracy as a result of using electronic records.

But my point is that there is such a wide range of thoughts on what specific measures would improve American health care that it is extremely difficult to forge a common list of goals for what that reform ought to accomplish.

One of the major bones of contention is whether government ought to duplicate coverage offered by the private sector. I am of the belief that yes, if you want a public option, then the government is going to have to also insure people who are perfectly healthy and do not have chronic ailments -- in other words, the very people that the PRIVATE insurance sector dearly wants as a customer. To do otherwise is to wind up with a public option that is really the equivalent of the high-risk pool for drivers who can no longer get private automotive insurance.

Having government get stuck with a high-risk, high-expense pool of policy-holders is to invite economic disaster. The premiums will be high, because their usage of healthcare is high and they have serious or multiple health problems. This is NOT a good use of taxpayer dollars, and this is NOT going to be able to deliver on its promise of affordable health insurance for all those in the plan. The government will have to force young, healthy people to participate in the same pool as these high-risk or high-cost policy-holders, if it is going to remain financially sound and if it going to be able to cover a sizable number of Americans who do not currently carry health insurance.

I am sorry to have to explain this to you. And I am sorry if it is not what you want to hear. I do not like the prospect of forcing anyone to participate in any government plan or program, but I recognize the actuarial necessity for it.