It was a pleasant surprise last week to see the number of discussions generated by our column on health care reform (or more to the point, health insurance company villainy). It’s a mark of just how much health care reform is on people’s minds that we received a higher than normal number of e-mails, I was accosted by readers while shopping — not something that happens to alt journalists very often — and a virtual war online erupted in our comments section. Remarks generally fell into two categories: 1. Health care is a right that should be protected and facilitated by the government; and 2. the government A. has no business being involved in health care, B. the government can’t do anything right, or C. both of the above.
When people discuss health care options, they usually tell anecdotes. If they’re pro-reform, they talk about how they, or someone they know, has suffered at the hands of insurance companies, and/or the advantages of other countries’ systems, which they’ve either experienced or heard of from friends. If the debaters are against having a public option as part of reform, or if they somehow support leaving U.S. health care the way it is, they usually relay anecdotes about people who have received lousy medical service in foreign countries or foreign nationals (usually Canadians) who had to wait months for a medical procedure.
That last claim — that countries with universal health care make patients wait a long time for procedures — has been disproved many times and in many studies. And are there any Americans left who don’t know someone, maybe themselves, who had to wait longer than they wanted for a medical procedure here in the United States?
As long as we’re exchanging health care anecdotes, here’s one of mine: A couple of years ago, I had to undergo a procedure for a condition that could have killed me if left untreated. My specialist wanted to “go in” ASAP, and when, for various reasons mostly related to insurance company weaselishness, he couldn’t do it for nearly three months, he told me, after suppressing his pained look in time to force a tight smile, “Don’t worry, that’ll probably work.” Things turned out OK, but I consider the results a matter of luck and a talented doctor rather than something to make me grateful for our current insurance-strangled health care delivery system.
As for foreign medical care, here’s another anecdote: In 1990, I was in Paris and was set to fly home the next day when I contracted a mild case of conjunctivitis. I walked into a druggist shop near the hotel, where a pharmacist looked at me and asked some questions; European pharmacists are often trained to be the equivalent of physicians’ assistants here. He gave me a couple of medications and, after confirming that I wasn’t a French citizen, apologetically asked me to pay the equivalent of about five dollars.
OK, another one: A brother-in-law and his family were visiting Germany when a pane of glass fell from a construction site and slashed his arm — nothing life-threatening, but bad enough that he had to keep his arm in a sling. The cost? Nothing. Zip. Oh, and he was treated immediately.
One last anecdote: when I was a kid we lived in Belgium for awhile, and since my mother was a native Belgian, every visit to the doctor any of us made was free of charge. I’ve had friends look at me with doubt when I tell them that the doctor’s office there had no one on staff to collect money, never mind take down “your insurance information.” You came, you were treated, and you left. Put all those anecdotes together and, well, don’t talk to me about how awful “socialized medicine” is.
To this bicultural American, it seems that way too many of my fellow citizens, 70 percent of whom don’t even have passports much less travel overseas, are willing to believe and perpetuate the “We’re No. 1 in nearly everything” b.s. that began as Cold War propaganda — an attitude that still taints our view of the rest of the world as well as our political dialogue. America is indeed tops in many things. Health care delivery just doesn’t happen to be one of them, no matter what self-described “patriots” tell you.
Maybe it’s because of my background — living overseas, having a European mom who often bemoaned America’s lack of strong “loix sociales,” or social laws — but I am still often startled by the vehemence of many Americans’ opposition to the idea of government actually doing anything to benefit American citizens. But then the history buff in me remembers that a profound distrust of government action on behalf of citizens’ needs is a swift undercurrent that runs through our national culture. Most Americans today, though, reject that view, as revealed by polls showing that nearly three-quarters of us want a public option as part of health care reform.
Some politicians still don’t get it, however — notably senators like Richard Shelby of Alabama and Joe Lieberman of LiebermanWorld, who’ve said their primary concern is not cutting into insurance company profits. Our own newbie, Sen. Kay Hagan, who received a lot of money from the insurance business, had to be inundated by calls from progressive North Carolinians before coming out in favor of a public option. My question, again, is: Who do these people think elected them? Who do they think they’re supposed to be working for?
This article appears in Jul 7-14, 2009.
