Site search
sponsored by
News
Opinion
The 1960s, revisionist historians would have you believe, was little more than a libidinous feast of sex, drugs and rock and roll. If only it were so.
True, if you lived in the San Francisco Bay area, the Haight-Ashbury area was in its heyday. If, like me, you lived in Palo Alto, Ken Kesey and his fellow tricksters mischievously roved the countryside. Young adults, particularly on university campuses, spent quality time protesting government policy in Vietnam.
Indeed, those were heady days, but not just because of the supposed ready availability of marijuana and women. Young people actually thought they could change government policy, and to some extent they actually did.
Fortunately for me, or maybe not, I was a medical student during those years grinding my way toward a physician’s understanding of genetics and biochemistry and then later how illness or ill health influence the mechanics and rhythm of everyday life.
As a physician in training my major focus was on learning to diagnose and treat disease. I assumed, consistent with the “Great Society” ethos of the day, that health care was a fundamental right. After all, the Declaration of Independence gave voice to “unalienable rights” to include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These birthrights obviously require reasonable health. Universal access to health care was just around the corner, I naively concluded.
Well, it didn’t turn out that way. We all know the numbers; some 46 million Americans have no health coverage and many millions more are underinsured. Some people die for lack of medical care. Others are debilitated or disabled. The social costs of our political malaise, both financial and spiritual, are enormous.
Say what you will about the deficiencies of “socialized medicine” in the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Great Britain, Germany and France — each of these countries takes pride in providing medical care for its citizens. National pride, when driven by caring for others, is part of the glue of a civilized society.
I reflect on this issue now because a new administration is about to take the reins of government in Washington just as a frightening economic crisis envelopes the nation.
Next year there will be fewer employers providing health insurance, what insurance they do provide will require higher deductibles, the ranks of the unemployed will expand, more Americans will lose their health insurance and many will defer needed medical care.
The receding tide of middle class stability will include the casualty of decent health care. More Americans will find the extraordinary health care resources of America beyond their reach.
Personal crises can sink one’s emotional boat. They can also provide incentives for positive change and personal growth. The same is true of policy at a federal level. Watch for a congressional proposal that includes both Democratic and Republican ideals.
Republican Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker, correctly notes that we need to provide rewards for wellness, early detection, disease prevention and the management of chronic illness. He also correctly identifies the efficiencies of creating an electronic health record, though he overestimates the likely cost savings.
More comprehensive and promising is a bipartisan bill, the Healthy Americans Act, that includes the best of both parties’ philosophies. Democrats emphasize universal coverage, Republicans a private market approach.
The proposal allows employer coverage for those who choose to provide it. It allows employees to keep their present coverage, but it guarantees, job or not, that every American will have quality, private health coverage.
This plan requires major changes in the private insurance industry. Insurers will, by law, cover everyone regardless of age or health status. Companies will compete on cost, quality and coverage, not on cherry picking the healthiest individuals or canceling a policy after you become ill. The plan also provides financial incentives to encourage healthy behaviors, access to preventive care, and better management of chronic disease.
There’s even something for fiscal conservatives here, a budgetary analysis showing this program will save taxpayers money.
Let’s hope the “special interests,” i.e. the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, don’t kill meaningful health care reform. In these difficult times, national pride in our health care system is the right medicine.
To contact Andrew Whyman, e-mail him at adwhyman@aol.com.
True, if you lived in the San Francisco Bay area, the Haight-Ashbury area was in its heyday. If, like me, you lived in Palo Alto, Ken Kesey and his fellow tricksters mischievously roved the countryside. Young adults, particularly on university campuses, spent quality time protesting government policy in Vietnam.
Indeed, those were heady days, but not just because of the supposed ready availability of marijuana and women. Young people actually thought they could change government policy, and to some extent they actually did.
Fortunately for me, or maybe not, I was a medical student during those years grinding my way toward a physician’s understanding of genetics and biochemistry and then later how illness or ill health influence the mechanics and rhythm of everyday life.
As a physician in training my major focus was on learning to diagnose and treat disease. I assumed, consistent with the “Great Society” ethos of the day, that health care was a fundamental right. After all, the Declaration of Independence gave voice to “unalienable rights” to include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These birthrights obviously require reasonable health. Universal access to health care was just around the corner, I naively concluded.
Well, it didn’t turn out that way. We all know the numbers; some 46 million Americans have no health coverage and many millions more are underinsured. Some people die for lack of medical care. Others are debilitated or disabled. The social costs of our political malaise, both financial and spiritual, are enormous.
Say what you will about the deficiencies of “socialized medicine” in the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Great Britain, Germany and France — each of these countries takes pride in providing medical care for its citizens. National pride, when driven by caring for others, is part of the glue of a civilized society.
I reflect on this issue now because a new administration is about to take the reins of government in Washington just as a frightening economic crisis envelopes the nation.
Next year there will be fewer employers providing health insurance, what insurance they do provide will require higher deductibles, the ranks of the unemployed will expand, more Americans will lose their health insurance and many will defer needed medical care.
The receding tide of middle class stability will include the casualty of decent health care. More Americans will find the extraordinary health care resources of America beyond their reach.
Personal crises can sink one’s emotional boat. They can also provide incentives for positive change and personal growth. The same is true of policy at a federal level. Watch for a congressional proposal that includes both Democratic and Republican ideals.
Republican Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker, correctly notes that we need to provide rewards for wellness, early detection, disease prevention and the management of chronic illness. He also correctly identifies the efficiencies of creating an electronic health record, though he overestimates the likely cost savings.
More comprehensive and promising is a bipartisan bill, the Healthy Americans Act, that includes the best of both parties’ philosophies. Democrats emphasize universal coverage, Republicans a private market approach.
The proposal allows employer coverage for those who choose to provide it. It allows employees to keep their present coverage, but it guarantees, job or not, that every American will have quality, private health coverage.
This plan requires major changes in the private insurance industry. Insurers will, by law, cover everyone regardless of age or health status. Companies will compete on cost, quality and coverage, not on cherry picking the healthiest individuals or canceling a policy after you become ill. The plan also provides financial incentives to encourage healthy behaviors, access to preventive care, and better management of chronic disease.
There’s even something for fiscal conservatives here, a budgetary analysis showing this program will save taxpayers money.
Let’s hope the “special interests,” i.e. the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, don’t kill meaningful health care reform. In these difficult times, national pride in our health care system is the right medicine.
To contact Andrew Whyman, e-mail him at adwhyman@aol.com.
