< PREVIOUS ] [ 2009 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
In any conflict, it's good to know what the enemy is
thinking (the military calls this intelligence
), so
I found the Republican talking points on health-care
reform.
Here's one: We cannot allow politicians and special
interests to stand between patients and the care they need.
The American people deserve the freedom to choose the
health care that is best for their families.
But politicians already stand between patients and
the care they need,
as with the War on Drugs, which
removes medical decisions (such as the treatment of chronic
pain) out of doctors' and patients' hands.
As for those special interests affecting health care,
it's hard to watch TV without seeing an ad about some newly
discovered ailment that needs instant and vigorous
treatment (Restless Leg Syndrome, anyone?) and the advice
to ask your doctor about Xylobetazine
followed by
the caution that side effects may include nausea,
flatulence, incontinence, hypoxia, cardiac dysfunction and
cerebral necrosis.
Is the maker of Xylobetazine not a
special interest? Is it not trying to affect health
care?
But I don't hear many Republican complaints about these
affronts to their talking points. They also state that a
government takeover of health care that would have
devastating consequences for families and small
businesses.
To examine the extent of this devastation, consider the country the Republicans love to hate, France, with its horrible government health care. (The numbers that follow are from the most recent available year in the on-line edition of the Statistical Abstract of the United States).
The average life-expectancy at birth in France is 80.9 years. Here it's 78.1. The French infant mortality rate is 3.4 per 1,000 live births. Ours is 6.7.
The French spend 11.1 percent of their gross domestic product on health care. We spend 15.1 percent. In annual dollars per person, they spend $3,248 and we spend $6,071. We pay considerably more to get shorter lifespans and more dead babies. Talk about devastating consequences.
Do our patriotic Republicans really believe that we Americans are less capable of running a health-care system than those cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
But the GOP derailed President Harry Truman's national health insurance plan, proposed in 1945, as well as President Bill Clinton's effort in 1994.
So I wouldn't bet against the Republican opposition this time, no matter how persuasive President Barack Obama might be. But I have read that Wal-Mart, America's largest private employer, supports a national health-care plan.
And if we don't get one, perhaps Wal-Mart could step in with its own plan, offered to the public. The company has an immense infrastructure in place, with 4,269 retail units scattered throughout the country. In general, the stores are open for extended hours, thereby allowing people to come in without taking time off from their paying jobs.
So why not a Wal-Mart health care plan, based on a clinic in every store? The service would be rather spartan -- i.e., waiting in line rather than making appointments -- but if you're in a Wal-Mart, you're used to being in line anyway.
To lower costs, physicians could be imported from India and China. Therapies would range from herbs and acupuncture to traditional American pharmaceuticals. Unlike the federal government, though, Wal-Mart would use its buying power to drive drug prices down, down, down. Wal-Mart also has the clout to negotiate great deals with hospital chains -- or to open its own hospitals if they balked.
So, if we can't do it the French way, Wal-Mart could do
it the American way, with a coverage plan offered to the
public that featured no-frills service, ruthless
competition and relentless cost-cutting. You know, Save
money, live better.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2009 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >