New Mexico Central

Time To Take A Deep Breath

by John Weckerle

It is a rare thing here at New Mexico Central that we discuss issues currently on the national radar, but there is an issue that has come home to roost, at least for your editor, and probably for a lot of people.  This is the issue of health insurance reform.

We have all seen the coverage of the angry exchanges over this issue, with substantial volatility being displayed by those opposed to one or the other supposed provisions of the draft legislation.  A certain degree of emotion is, of course, to be expected in these situations, but we find it a little disappointing to see so many people proceeding directly to angry words, shouting, and other displays of less-than-civil behavior.  While it may be personally satisfying, it seems quite possible that this will produce the opposite of their desired results; rarely does angry shouting change minds or garner support for a position – except perhaps among those who already support it.  In the end, it’s really just preaching to the choir.
What is very disturbing, however, is that much of what is being shouted does not appear to be particularly accurate, and we are very concerned that the debate seems to be moving further and further away from key issues and becoming more and more focused on irrelevancies and fiction.  This is an important issue, one that needs sober and realistic consideration.  It should not be a simple platform to advance ideological positions on either side of the aisle; while these are admittedly important, especially to those who hold them, there is much more to consider; this is a complex subject, and it should not be reduced to simplistic emotionalism.

As a result of all the shouting, I have taken the time to read key portions of the proposed legislation, and conduct a little research on some of the debunking sites I hold near and dear.  I can say with confidence that the proposal contains no provision for “death panels;” euthanasia of anybody, including old and handicapped people; bureaucrats getting between me and my doctor; or denial of coverage or benefits on the basis of age, perceived value, or cost.  The proposal bears very little resemblance to the single-payer systems of Canada and the UK.  The legislation does not mandate use of the proposed government option.  The argument that Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the UK is just plain hilarious; he currently lives in the UK and has done so his whole life.  A few interesting articles from Snopes.com:

• http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/seniordeath.asp
• http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/canada.asp
• http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp
• http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/veteranshealth.asp

Is the bill perfect?  Certainly not; I have yet to see a piece of legislation that was – even when it was finished, which this one isn’t.  There is much to discuss – but I submit that the discussion would be far better served by reasoned discourse and fact-based debate than by hyperbole.  The fact that something sounds good or “resonates” with us does not mean that it is accurate.

We think that the health care system as it stands now is fundamentally broken, and we have good reason to think so.  As many of our readers know, your editor owns a company that provides, among a variety of things, management consulting services.  We have become aware of a small company (which has indicated a desire not to be named) not far from the heart of the Estancia Valley that has had its group insurance with Presbyterian for the better part of a decade, during most of which time no one in their group had any serious claims.  Last year, one member of the group had to visit the emergency room twice for an acute, non-chronic problem that was successfully treated.  When it came time for the annual renewal, Presbyterian raised the firm’s group insurance rates by more than 24%, and actually told the company that it was a result of their “claims history.”  The company now finds itself facing the very real possibility of having to stop providing group insurance to the firm’s employees – even the best-case scenario involves moving to another provider, with everyone in the group having to change doctors. So, in a very real way, we have profit-motivated insurance industry bureaucrats coming between people and their doctors, and punishing them for seeking necessary medical treatment.  We see a negative effect on a real local small business and its employees.  This sounds very much like some of the concerns being shouted at town hall meetings across the nation – but the kicker is that this is not some threat contained within a proposed bill, but a very real situation that already exists.

This is not an isolated incident; it is a widespread practice described by insurance industry whistleblower Wendell Potter, former Cigna public affairs vice president, as “purging” and, in our opinion, it is one of the problems that needs to be fixed.  The proposed legislation does contain at least some language that might provide some relief for companies such as this.  While we may not all agree on the solution, it is becoming impossible to ignore the fact that our health care system is in grave need of a corrective procedure. However we agree or disagree, I hope that we will all do so respectfully and with a real dedication to finding a solution – this subject is too important to allow the discourse to degenerate into a shouting match.

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009, by John Weckerle and is filed under "East Mountains, Estancia Valley ". You can leave a response here. Pinging is currently not allowed.