Why I’ve Soured on Obama’s Health Care Bill

When Congress finally passed Obama’s health care bill back in 2010, I was fairly happy with it. Among many other items, the bill addressed three huge problems with our previous ways of managing healthcare:

  1. Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions (prohibited for childen now, prohibited for adults starting in 2014),
  2. The huge number of uninsured Americans (about 30 million more Americans will get coverage through expanded Medicaid)
  3. Lack of options for the self-employed, uninsured, and small business employees (each state will have an insurance exchange in which these people can pool their resources for more competitive coverage)

I was, and continue to be, frustrated by the ignorance among the general public regarding the bill. Its detractors generally call it Obamacare. Many of them mistakenly believe it calls for socialized medicine, prevents people from choosing their own doctors, creates government “death panels” who decide whether individual patients get to live or die, and other fallacies. Wikipedia offers a nice summary of the bill and the effective dates for each of its provisions. For many people, including our family, this bill has very little impact. But millions of Americans will benefit if all provisions are implemented. One potential obstacle, other than a retraction of the bill by Congress, is the Supreme Court case that will decide whether the bill is constitutional. Some argue that the government doesn’t have the power to force people to buy health insurance or penalize them if they don’t. That case will be decided next summer.

So why have I soured on the bill? I don’t think it goes far enough. It still leaves millions of Americans without coverage. It still keeps our healthcare hostage to for-profit companies who have financial incentive to deny claims. It doesn’t address the tremendous inefficiency in the system.

I want to see a universal healthcare system, also known as a single-payer system. I want every person in this country to have the ability to get the medical care they need without having to worry about how much it costs.

There are many ways to accomplish universal healthcare, and many pros and cons associated with it. This site offers several good points on both sides. It also clarifies an important point regarding universal healthcare versus socialized medicine:

It is important to note the distinction between universal health care and socialized medicine before we proceed. Many people confuse the terms. Under universal health care, hospitals, doctors, drug companies, nurses, dentists, etc can all remain independent. They can be for-profit or non-profit. In socialized medicine the whole industry is the government. So if you wanted to be a doctor, you would work for the government.

The main difference between today’s healthcare system and a universal healthcare system is how the providers get paid.

In today’s system, providers get paid in a variety of ways and need one or several employees just to handle all the financial paperwork. One patient might pay cash. One might pay with Medicare. Another might pay with private insurance, which limits the pool of potential patients to those who are “in-network” and forces the provider’s insurance guru to figure out the right way to code everything about the visit to ensure that the insurance company pays correctly. The guru sends the insurance company a bill for some outlandish amount, well beyond the actual cost to provide the service, and the insurance company agrees to pay some fraction of that amount. It’s all a game. Naturally, if a potential patient lacks insurance and can’t afford to pay cash, the provider doesn’t make any money, and the patient stays sick or injured. No one wins there.

In a single-payer system, the provider treats a patient just like today. To get paid, the provider notifies the plan administrator about the treatment, and the administrator reimburses the provider. The difference? The provider no longer needs an army of office workers to deal with dozens of insurance companies and hundreds of different plans. The patient doesn’t have to worry about whether he/she has insurance or what the insurance company will or won’t cover. The patient probably has a set fee for the visit unless he/she is unable to pay. The government pays for the rest. The provider gets paid. The patient gets treated. Both parties win.

Thanks to Medicare and Medicaid, a large part of our nation’s healthcare system is already single-payer. Yes, Medicaid has a variety of issues. Medicare isn’t perfect, but it seems to work pretty well for older Americans, and its administrative costs are much lower than those of private insurance companies. Although its payments to providers might be lower than those of private insurance companies or patients who pay cash, working with Medicare is much less of a headache for the providers. That’s one of the main reasons why one poll indicated that a majority of providers favor a single-payer system.

Obviously, the elephant in the discussion is how to pay for all this. No doubt it would be expensive since more people would receive care. But the funding model is much different. Rather than paying for health insurance for their employees, companies could pay a healthcare tax instead. Individuals could stop paying insurance premiums and pay more in taxes. Since private insurance companies and their $48 million CEOs would no longer be necessary, their disappearance would reduce the cost of healthcare per patient. Plus the providers’ cost would drop due to greatly simplified billing. The system would become much more streamlined. Also, in theory, a single-payer system would make it easier to improve preventative medicine, both through better accessibility and through financial incentives for the providers. It’s much cheaper to keep people healthy than to heal the sick and injured.

I could go on and on, but A) I’ve only scratched the surface in my own research and have much to learn, and B) this post is already quite long.

For me, the bottom line is simple. I have very good health insurance for my whole family through my employer. It has covered two c-sections, biannual mole removals, a gall bladder removal, ER visits for my son, and much more at a reasonable cost. I want every person in this country to have access to the same level of care that we do, if not better. It is inexcusable that in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, a nation that many claim is founded on Christian principles, thousands of people die and millions suffer needlessly because they cannot afford healthcare. We can debate how to change that, and there are many different ideas, but that change is long overdue.

Repeal Obamacare. Enact universal healthcare.

Smokers Need Not Apply at Baylor

Dallas-area Baylor Health Care System is preparing to implement a new hiring policy: a pre-employment nicotine test. Those who fail are ineligible for hire, just like an illegal drug user would be ineligible at many other businesses.

To my limited knowledge, Baylor is the first employer to openly exclude smokers from consideration. Naturally, many smokers are crying discrimination, and they’re absolutely right. But I agree with the policy 100 percent. As stated in the article,

The FDA estimates smoking costs American employers some $200 billion a year in lost productivity and increased medical costs.

Why should a business knowingly hire someone who consistently makes poor health choices that will significantly drive up its healthcare costs?

Discrimination in hiring for certain characteristics such as race, gender, age, and national origin is rightfully illegal. A person doesn’t generally choose his or her status on those characteristics. However, smokers chose to start smoking and choose to continue smoking. Yes, once you’re addicted, it’s a very, very hard habit to break. But people quit every day. Every anti-smoking move that governments and businesses make, such as banning smoking in restaurants and other public buildings or refusing to hire smokers, gives nicotine addicts additional reasons to quit.

I have no visibility to the impact of smoking on healthcare costs at my own company, but I do see some of the operational results within my department. In my office, we work an eight-hour shift with no scheduled breaks. We may leave the desk temporarily to attend to “personal physiological needs”. Some of my colleagues smoke, which means that a few times during each shift, they disappear for a while for a smoke break. When they are gone, the people around them must cover their phones and crew messages. Covering for other people can put us in an awkward legal position, plus it’s just annoying when a smoker expects us to do their job plus our own due to their own poor choices.

To me, refusing to hire smokers is a no-brainer. The more interesting question, as mentioned briefly in the article, is whether an employer can legally refuse to hire people who are overweight. Such a ban would affect a much larger percentage of the population, at least in America, and could be considered illegal discrimination in some cases. After all, obesity can result from multiple factors, including genetics, other health disorders, and lifestyle choices. Some people are overweight despite eating well and exercising.

On a related note, the City of Chicago is starting a wellness program for city employees that includes health screenings, accountability, counseling, and support toward goals such as weight loss. Those who choose not to participate will pay $50/month more for their health insurance.

Banning applicants who smoke and charging overweight people more for health insurance does present a slippery-slope problem. How far do we want to go in rewarding and punishing certain types of behavior? What other risky behaviors can a business or government single out for correction? Use of alcohol? Motorcycle riding? Skydiving? Use of tanning booths? Football? Cycling? Eating at McDonald’s? Unprotected sex? Not getting enough sleep at night? What might seem like a simple issue (to skinny nonsmokers, at least) could get really complicated if you try to take it further.

What are your thoughts? Should employers exclude certain candidates because of their lifestyle choices? If so, which choices form an acceptable basis for discrimination in hiring? If not, what can employers do to mitigate the increased healthcare costs that these employees cause and encourage them to make better choices?

Quads of Steel and Puny Abductor Hallucii

Yesterday I went back to see my podiatrist, Dr. Crane at FAANT, for a follow-up after my near stress fracture from four weeks ago. Since my last appointment, I’ve been running exclusively in my trusty Adrenalines and worked back up to 4-mile runs with zero foot pain. Awesome. So I had two questions for her:

  1. Is it even possible for me to run in the Vibrams, and if so, how should I transition?
  2. What can I do about my nagging left knee pain?

I love Dr. Crane. She’s very nice and knows her stuff and has a cool confidence about her, but she talks and works quickly so you have to listen fast. She knows I’m paying good money for her medical opinion, and she expects me to listen and obey. I wish more doctors were like that.

After running several simple strength tests on my feet and lower legs, she gave me the following conclusions:

  1. My foot muscles, particularly the abductor hallucis muscles (the main muscle in the arch of the foot), are “puny”. (Just what every guy wants to hear from a lady!) On the plus side, it helps explain why my feet are so flat. She prescribed six simple exercises to strengthen my weak feet.
  2. The backs of my legs are strong, but the fronts are too weak. I need to stretch my hamstrings and calves like heck and strengthen my quads and the muscles on the front of my lower leg. I’ve already been working out my quads, and it’s definitely helped my knee pain. Today I’m going to pick up my dad’s bike for crosstraining. My friend Logan helped his knee pain by cycling, so I figure a good ride once a week would be a nice addition to my plan. Once I have quads of steel, I’ll be ready for a marathon, right? =)
  3. I am “young, strong, and faster than average”, (thanks!) so I should be able to run in the Vibrams. Awesome. However, the transition period will be “like watching paint dry”. She recommends adding a few hundred yards a week in them and finishing the run in more normal shoes. So it might be 3 months before I’m actually running a 5k in them. I could also get an in-between shoe such as a training flat to replace my Adrenalines.

So overall a good report! I did 4 miles Wednesday evening with no foot pain and only a very mild ache under my left kneecap, which is significant progress compared to this spring. Right now my biggest challenge is the heat. I do most of my running in the evening these days so I’m out of the sun. I might go race Saturday morning if I can find one I like.

Can Sunscreen Be Dangerous?

Last year I wrote brilliant song lyrics about my galaxy of moles, along with my elevated risk for skin cancer and my family history of melanoma and basal cell carcinoma. A couple of weeks ago, my dermatologist removed two more moles from my back. Both came back benign from the lab. However, despite my good news, the rate of melanoma continues to rise, both in the general population and in my family. With summer almost upon us, I’m thinking more about sun exposure and sunscreen, both for myself and for my boys.

Possible Toxins

Growing up, I used a great deal of sunscreen but didn’t really think much about what it contained. Provided the SPF rating was high enough, it should be fine. This year I discovered that some people are concerned about certain ingredients in common sunscreens. Great, I thought, more toxins to worry about. Google “sunscreen toxins” if you want to join the debate. The most-hated chemicals list seems to include oxybenzone, which has been linked to various cancers and hormone disorders, and vitamin A (retinyl palmitate), which is suspected of accelerating skin lesions and tumors. Other complaints include misleading advertising, ineffective regulation by the FDA, and general ignorance and/or apathy among Americans regarding sun exposure.

A nonprofit organization called Environmental Working Group is helping to raise awareness of these issues. It posts an annual evaluation of over 1700 different sunscreens and their content, claiming that only about 20 percent of the sunscreens on the market are relatively safe. It also posts some helpful tips for sun safety and sunscreen selection.

Are these guys quacks? I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s a mixture of fact and scaremongering. The American Academy of Dermatology disagrees with some of EWG’s positions. But I think the argument is worth considering. Given the choice, I might start buying sunscreens that don’t have some of the “worst” chemicals just in case.

Misplaced Trust

Something else to consider: sunscreen can give us a false sense of security, especially when the SPF is really high. SPF refers to its theoretical ability to block UVB rays, which can cause sunburns and skin cancer. SPF does NOT address its ability to block UVA rays, which can cause signs of aging and skin cancer. Sunscreens are generally better at blocking UVB rays than UVA rays, even in so-called “broad spectrum” sunscreens that block both types of rays to some degree. I imagine that many people spend more time in the sun than they should because they think their sunscreen is keeping them safe. They are only partially correct.

What do you think? Do you seek out certain types/brands of sunscreen for health reasons, or is all sunscreen good enough? How much time do you spend in the sun, and how do you protect yourself?

Posture

The young man on the left is 14 years old, but his back doesn’t look much better than the back of the 80-year-old woman of the right, who suffers from severe osteoporosis. Source: LivingPosture.com

Did your mom bug you about your posture? Mine did not, but I started paying attention to it when I got into singing in high school. Good posture helps you sing better by letting your lungs expand more easily. If you’re an actor, it helps you project better. So for practical reasons, I tried to get into the habit of standing up straight. When I got into running and studied proper form, posture became even more important. Running while slouching makes it harder to breathe and makes your core muscles waste energy to carry your torso in an inefficient position.

As I got older, I started realizing that how you sit and stand makes a difference in how you look as well. Ever notice how people who slouch look a bit lazy? Bored? Lacking in confidence? Apathetic? About 20 pounds heavier than they really are? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think so. See what you think the next time you’re around a group of people.

Many, if not most, people have poor posture. I know that I do sometimes. Try this experiment: Find a mirror in a private room, take off your shirt, and turn sideways without trying to stand up unusually straight. Look at your spine, chest, and belly. Then try standing as straight as possible and contract your abs. Make a difference? How do you look? How do you feel about yourself? Do you seem to project a different image?

According to the Washington Post, here’s how it’s supposed to work.

March 2011 Rants and Raves

Rave – Life Time Fitness Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a fantastic gym with good facilities, a wide variety of classes, and great child care. It’s so good that my wife, who always hated exercise, truly enjoys working out there and misses it when she doesn’t get to go. She’s even training for her first indoor triathlon in September.

Rant – AppleCare When I bought my beloved MacBook in fall 2008, I sprung for 3 years of AppleCare, Apple’s extended warranty program. The battery has been acting weird lately, and I fear it has reached the end of its life. I had assumed that AppleCare would cover a new battery, but apparently the battery isn’t covered except for manufacturing defects. Apple considers the battery a consumable part, like tires on a car. Its useful life for this model is about 400 charge cycles. I’m sure we’re close to that figure if not past it. A new battery is $129. ***UPDATE – Jenny took the MacBook to the Apple store for a new battery. The rep initially said we would have to buy a new one, which magically cost only $99 at the store. But then their computer decided that the new battery was covered under AppleCare, so we got it for free. I’ve read several reports of Apple covering work that isn’t technically under warranty. They want to keep their customers happy.

Rave – The People of Japan In the face of natural and manmade disasters that many Americans will never face, the people of Japan seem to be handling the situation with remarkable grace and maturity. Instead of descending into anarchy, violence, and looting, the Japanese are sharing with each other, trying to remain calm, and patiently waiting in line for hours to pick up supplies. A skeleton crew at the damaged nuclear power plant is staying behind, knowingly taking radiation, to continue working on the reactor and contain the effects. See this letter to the editor for more commentary.

Rant – Door-to-Door Salespeople Want an easy way to put me in a bad mood? Try to sell me something. Want to put me in a really bad mood? Knock on my door and try to sell me something. I don’t care whether you’re selling vacuums, lawn service, or your version of God, I assure you that I am not interested. Door-to-door sales went out of style decades ago. Let it die. And yes, I’m looking at YOU, Girl Scouts of America.

Rave – Melatonin Although I enjoy working the night shift, it does make sleeping more difficult. Sometimes it’s hard to stay asleep during the day. It can be especially difficult to transition between night schedule and “normal” schedule. On my first night off after a stretch of shifts, I’m generally trying to put my body to sleep at 3:00 or 4:00am when it’s gotten used to 8:00am instead. An over-the-counter supplement called melatonin can be very helpful in handling these issues. For me, it has no side effects, but it helps me get to sleep and stay asleep longer when I need to.