TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 11:23 AM
November 20, 2008 | 10:57 AM
November 20, 2008 | 10:48 AM

November 20, 2008 | 12:03 PM
November 20, 2008 | 10:45 AM
November 19, 2008 | 11:20 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
November 19, 2008 | 3:17 PM
November 19, 2008 | 2:17 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
31.01.2008
Paging Dr. Gupta -- America Needs You!

Right after the debate, CNN decided to run an hour-long special on health care by their medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta M.D..  I wasn't going to watch it, mostly because of low expectations. On those all-too-rare occasions when television spotlights public policy, they usually do a lousy job.  It's either woefully uninformed or so beholden to the conventions of even-handedness -- which generally means letting people spew untruths without correction -- that they make reality impossible to discern.

But I ended up watching this anyway (probably because it was on while I was finishing my last web item).  And, much to my (pleasant) surprise, this special was terrific.  Gupta and his producers were scrupulous about giving both sides a hearing.  But they also provided viewers with enough information to see through the spin and determine who is right.

At one point, for example, Gupta quoted Republican Senator Tom Coburn talking about one of his favorite causes: The need to create an interstate insurance market, so that anybody looking to buy an individual policy (as opposed to coverage through an employer) could buy from anywhere in the U.S.

As I've written before, this is a terrible idea.  It would create all sorts of new opportunities for fraud, which is already a huge problem in the individual market.  It'd also create a race to the bottom, as insurers quickly relocated to whatever state had the laxest regulations and began offering coverage from there.  And while gutting reulgations might sound like a nice idea, a lot of those regulations guarantee coverage of important screenings and treaments -- or prevent insurers from discriminating against high-risk patients.  The CNN script nailed this point, showing that Coburn's plan wouldn't help people with pre-existing conditions, the one who struggle the most to get insurance right now.

Gupta also noted that conservatives frequently tout "high-risk pools" as the answer for people with pre-existing conditions -- but that such pools have never worked very well.  (The reason?  States are generally reluctant to fund these pools and insurers are generally reluctant to participate in them unless they can continue to charge somewhat higher rates to the sick -- or exclude pre-exisitng conditions for a time.)

What about solutions?  The special has showcased the French health care system -- always among my personal favorites -- as an example of a country that provides high quality care to everybody, for less money than we pay.  It's even captured some of the nuances of the French system, like the fact that the system there eliminates cost-sharing for the chronically ill.  Nor has it flinched from showcasing the strenghts of "government-run insurance."  American politics may be afraid fo single-payer insurance, but CNN is happy to give it a fair hearing.

My two quibbles: First, the program was called "Broken Government: Health Care - Critical Condition." In fact, when I first heard it was airing, I prepared for another screed about the supposed evils of the public sector.  (Like, um, this guy often argues.)

The content was nothing like that.  While not excusing government's failures, it's mostly about the private sector's failures.  I suspect most viewers will come away agreeing with Congressman John Dingell -- who gets a lot of air time -- that we'd be better off with more government.  But, then, why the loaded title? 

Second, Gupta just noted that the U.S. has significantly higher cancer survival rates for men than other countries.  As I and others have written, that's a very misleading statistic.  A huge part of the gap is due to prostate cancer, in which the evidence suggests we largely overdiagnose -- and overtreat -- the disease, curing a lot of slow-moving tumors that wouldn't kill people before something else did. 

(Note, for example, CNN didn't show a similar statistic for women. That's because the numbers are much better there -- and when you really break it down, it looks like the U.S. is among the best, but countries like France and Switerzland are awfully close.)

Still, overall it's been a very solid program.  CNN often rebroadcasts these shows, so check the listings if you missed it and want to watch.  And if you can't find it, check out this CNN web page, which seems to have a lot of the material from the show.

-- Jonathan Cohn 

Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:29 PM with 11 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Illuminismo said:

I have to say that I am really grateful for TNR's -- i.e., your -- thoughtful, temperate, comprehensive, and sustained health-care coverage.  A real asset. It will last in my mind well beyond all the (fun) campaign stuff.  Thanks!

February 1, 2008 1:04 AM

tkozal said:

Federalize Insurance Regulation...the first step to fixing the system.. It needs to be done.

I have spent my life dealing with clueless, sad state insurance regulators. Federalize now.

February 1, 2008 9:29 AM

twodox said:

Thank you Jonathan, for an excellent piece.  Having lived in France (30 years ago), where my elder daughter was born, I am also a fan. (Although I am a bit unsure of how it has evolved since.)

One feature then was the ability to bypass the Securite Sociale if you wished.  When my wife first saw the obstetrician, he asked whether we wanted to see him as a private or public patient.  When we asked the difference he explained that he saw private patents in another office (not in the hospital), the waits might be a bit short, but he would have to charge us a fee (which we could not then afford), rather than have the coverage 100% covered by SS.  Needless to say, we chose the latter, enjoyed wonderful care with some waiting (never more than 1/2 hour), and had a healthy daughter, without additional expense (beyond our SS taxes.)

As a sidelight, the hospital was on strike for several months before the birth.  The staff performed all of their functions, save one.  They would not sign or submit the SS forms, so the hospital got no income.  (Some of our supplemental payments - yes maternty coverage included premiums for prenatal care, above and beyond the cost - were delayed.)

Vive la France!  Let's hope we can do as well.

February 1, 2008 10:19 AM

blackton said:

Jonathan, does Hillary care cover illegals and permanent residents, that is will they be eligible for low income subsidies? If not, how the hell can anyone claim her plan is universal? If it does, how the hell does she think she can get it passed in Congress?

I have no problem with debating both plans, but lets drop the whole Universal lie, shall we?

February 1, 2008 10:32 AM

dhauck said:

blackton - "Universal" is a relative term.  Do you think a universal health care must cover all people in all countries of the world?  In our world plus all others in the Universe?  I think the general assumption is that to qualify for the title, a universal U.S. health care plan must cover all U.S. citizens, which illegals certainly and even permanent residents really are not.

I understand why the issue is so important to you, and an argument could certainly be made for covering illegals and PR's, but not covering them does not make the description "universal" a lie.

February 1, 2008 12:50 PM

purcellneil said:

blackton,

Why drop the term, unless you want to argue we should extend coverage to illegals?  You have already admitted such a plan probably could not pass, so what is the point? Practically speaking, Hillary's plan is universal, once you agree that the universe cannot (for now) include illegal aliens.

Personally, I think there are sufficient public health benefits to be gained in covering every person in our country to justify doing so.  But it isn't going to happen.  

Of course, i don't see all these people going "home" anytime soon.  As far as I can tell, they are here to stay - so someday, we will have to include them in the health plan.  But given how mired in ignorance the whole immigration issue has been, I doubt that we will see that come up in this campaign.

Neil  

February 1, 2008 1:06 PM

blackton said:

dhauck, but how many of the 50 million that are uninsured fall into these two categories? And, need I remind you, when an illegal walks into an emergency room in the United States the costs get passed onto the insured eventually, or do you propose they get turned away to die on the streets?

And your bit about defining universal is silly. Of course you know Universal is at it applies to people living in America. Or will you mock the concept of Universal suffrage in America because 5 year olds don't get to vote?

I am just tired of these numbers being thrown about. Obama will leave 15 million uninsured, without a discussion of just who these 15 million people are and why they won't be insured. If 13 million of these are not entitled due to legality, leaving 2 million young, relatively affluent people uninsured because they feel they can't be bothered by buying insurance than what is the fuss? Hospitals are certainly in the position to go after payment from this group. Years ago, when I was between jobs I broke my foot and went to the hospital, I arranged a payment schedule with them and took care of it.

And the whole point about universal is to spread out the risk pool as large as possible. The vast majority of illegals are working and paying taxes and are in the smaller at risk pool due to their relative youth and better health. If they are taxed but left out of the preventative aspects of health care insurance, the long term costs would exceed the cost of leaving them out.

Of course, if you want to make the argument we should kick them all out, by all means do so, but don't say they can stay but as a servile class. That is just evil.

February 1, 2008 1:20 PM

jwl2672 said:

Why is higher health care insurance cost for "high-risk individuals" wrong? Insurers do that all the time with auto-drivers and life insurance on those who do high risk activities.  It's insane to expect a business to take on the risk without money.  And it's also unfair to young people who want insurance just as a backup in case things go wrong.  This whole universal health insurance thing goes to the very heart of capitalism vs. socialism.  Who is responsible for taking on risks, the individual or the society.  Only, in this debate, it's about health and not jobs.

February 1, 2008 1:24 PM

blackton said:

Neil, you posted while I was, Mandates expect people to buy insurance on their own, middle income young people will simply buy extremely restrictive, high deductible policies but very cheap policies to avoid a fine, but essentially only make the insurance companies rich without providing any kind of long term preventative care. Long term this will just breed resentment for the Republicans to exploit.

Beyond that, mandates are bad politically, because they will be distorted by the Republicans to mean that poor will have to buy overpriced insurance which has high deductibles and miserable care (crowded waiting rooms, etc.) when available. And I am afraid that in order for Hillary to get her "universality" she will throw the poor under the bus by simply buying out the insurance companies, with the poor essentially buying worthless coverage, in which case they will be worse off then when they started. At least the Seniors get the drugs under Bush.

Listen, I want everyone to be covered, the larger the pool the more the risk is spread out. But I want the coverage to be meaningful. I have an American friend, a definite gaijin who lives in Japan, since he is there he is covered. whenever rightwing assholes bring up Britain I bring up Japan completely befuddling them. unfortunately few of our "experts" bother to study how the Japanese do it.

February 1, 2008 1:36 PM

blackton said:

jwl: This whole universal health insurance thing goes to the very heart of capitalism vs. socialism. Wrong Wrong Wrong. Year 2000 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) figures show that Japan spends 7.6% of its GDP on health, compared to 9.2% for Canada  and 13.1% for the US. In 1998, Japan spent ¥29.8 trillion (US$280 billion) on healthcare, of which 53% was covered by insurance, 32.3% by the government, and 14.8% by patients' co-payments. Officially, the patients' co-payment rate is 20 to 30%, but with co-payments capped, the effective co-payment rate is 14.8%. The cap is at ¥63,600 (US$600) per month, with the average monthly disposable income being ¥561,000 (US$5,300); additionally, there is a low-income cap.

The Japanese healthcare system is highly regulated by the government and, as described by the OECD, "combines a mainly private provision of services with mandatory health insurance. (mandatory in this case being that insurance companies are mandated to provide coverage) Service providers are paid directly by insurers (the third payer system). Payments for outpatient care are predominantly on a fee for service basis, and inpatient care is paid through a mixture of per diem and fee for service. Fees for different medical services are set out in the Fee Schedule announced by the government and revised every two years. Between 20 and 30% of the fees are born by patients as co-payments. But with a ceiling (see below) the effective co-payment rate is about 14%."

The Japanese have the highest life expectancy in the world, and the Japanese economy is the second largest in the world with a dearth of natural resources.

The Japanese automakers benefit greatly from the UHC in Japan because their employee costs through benefit packages are much less. Forcing Companies in America to negotiate ad hoc with insurance companies eats at the heart of Capitalism by diverting employee resources into non productive activities. In Japan, people are assigned a health insurer according to their employment situation. Those who are employed at a company or office are insured by the Social Insurance System (SIS). This system is funded by the employers (who pay varyingly from 50 to 80% of the cost) and by premiums paid by the employees. Everyone else (the unemployed, elderly, and self-employed, including lawyers, doctors, etc.) is insured through the National Health Insurance (NHI) system. The NHI system is funded by the government and the employed members of the system.

About 63% of the population is covered by SIS plans, which is delivered by about 1,800 entities nationwide known as Health Insurance Societies. Premiums depend on the employee's annual income, but amount to approximately 8.5% of their salary. An insured person and their dependents must, in addition to contributing the cost of the premium, pay 20 to 30% of inpatient and outpatient costs and make an additional co-payment for prescription drugs.

But, of course Jwl, why bother resorting to facts and figures when you can pull nonsense out of your ass. It is so much more convincing.

February 1, 2008 1:56 PM

bcbaird said:

jwl2672  said:

"Why is higher health care insurance cost for "high-risk individuals" wrong? Insurers do that all the time with auto-drivers and life insurance on those who do high risk activities."

Blackton smacked you around plenty, but this sentence qualifies you for MORE smacking.

Higher health care costs for high-risk individuals is stupid because risk isn't always linked directly to behavior.  If you're born with a terrible disease, having your rates jacked isn't quite the same as having your car insurance skyrocket because of speeding tickets.  You can control speeding tickets by modifying your behavior.  But if you have type-I diabetes, cystic fibrosis or certain mental illnesses, there isn't a lot you can do to change that.  Of course, the things that WOULD make sense to charge people higher rates for (smoking, drinking, drug abuse) aren't raising anyone's rates.

Additionally, those most in need of health insurance often cannot afford it because of the higher rates.  This means their condition often gets worse because preventative care is skipped, and the cost ends up on the hospitals who assume the costs of their emergency care, as well as federal and state programs that pick up the tab when they become disabled.  So the end result is outrageous hospital charges and higher taxes.  And no one is any healthier.

Isn't that obvious?

February 1, 2008 3:33 PM