| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Perceptions: visions of politics | Main | Notebook »

November 19, 2007

Below the Fold

Build It and They Will Come: Massachusetts Universal Health Insurance

Michael Blim

Last time, I wrote about a world without the rich. Among other things, I pointed out, not too originally I thought, that the rich do as much as they can to make society work for them, the effect of which is to make things worse for everyone else. They also are pretty successful at getting everyone else to think as they do. This includes getting us to believe that they are superior beings and deserving of their money and power.

For them to be superior, the rest of us by default must be inferior. Since we do not want to believe that we are inferior, we dedicate great energies to prove we are not by aping the rich and passing along the stigma of inferiority to any other persons or groups we can. Emulating the rich, the middle classes, for instance, press their brief that they are among the more superior after the rich, and thus they deserve their cut of the money, power, and privilege that they have been able to garner. Those below them, just as the rich figure themselves, are the less or not deserving. Working class and poor people have what little they have because they don’t deserve better.

This is the common sense of American society, and other societies such as our own with enormous economic inequality. It is also good, if banal sociology.

Most people forget the premise of the argument: that the rich make society work for them in part by getting us to believe that they are more deserving of everyone else. There is the indispensable and buried – and false -- premise. Every comedian knows that a joke is only as good as the absurdity of its premise. The trick is the audience accepts the premise because they expect a good joke. If the audience buys the premise, they’ll buy the bit, and the joke is funny. “So, there were these two geese standing by the drinking fountain, and one says to the other…” Think New Yorker cartoon.

The problem with the belief in the deserving rich and the undeserving poor is that it is factually false, and when it is used to deny persons the fundamental necessities of life, it is pernicious.

Working class and poor people live in an American society that begrudges them basic necessities. To cover the malice entailed by this stance, the society following the cue of the rich and the institutions they control argue that working class and poor people are fundamentally undeserving. The rich and others who consider themselves superior conclude that these same working class and poor people are so deluded or incapable that they don’t look after their own interests. They don’t seize upon opportunities for betterment. They trap themselves in a cycle of poor education, low salaries, no savings, no benefits, and poor housing.

So, what is one to make of the fact that when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts offers anyone who cannot afford health insurance subsidized premiums and access to basic health care, the program becomes over-subscribed with persons who want to improve their health status and avoid financial ruin? Why have they grabbed the Commonwealth’s helping hand in such numbers and with such enthusiasm?

The Commonwealth originally hoped to enroll 136 thousand people in the new program that comes into force at the end of this year. It now estimates that at least 180 thousand persons will enroll by next June – a 32% more than the Commonwealth had expected. As one state senator remarked: “It’s a good problem to have – people are getting insured and hopefully getting care.” (Boston Globe, 11/18/07, 1)

Massachusetts, as the Globe reports, has committed itself to subsidizing insurance for persons who do not receive coverage on the job and who earn less than 300% of the federal poverty level. This means that a person earning less than $31,000 is eligible for subsidy. The state pays for the total health insurance build for very low income residents.

Over-subscription has the state agency responsible for the program worried about funding and cost increases, which is to be expected.

But there are several points that should be underscored.

First, if we build it, they will come. Massachusetts is providing universal access to health insurance, and by doing so, to health care itself. Everyone is eligible for help if they need it. People responded immediately and participated far above expectations because they were convinced that the program would meet one of their most fundamental needs.

Second, the Commonwealth wanted the program to succeed. So, it did what any other vendor with a product would do: it hired an ad agency that got the word out to people in need. You can apply on line. You can link to insurance providers for enrollment. You can do it all by phone too.

Third, the new law contains “incentives.” Every Massachusetts citizen must have health insurance. The key is that the Commonwealth enables citizens to meet the insurance requirement by connecting them with insurance plans that could meet their needs. People are offered assistance in sorting out insurance plans, benefits, and their ability to pay.

Fourth, because the Commonwealth recognizes universal access to health care is a paramount responsibility of government, no stigma is attached to participation. Quite the opposite: it is your civic duty in Massachusetts to participate, and you are rewarded – not denigrated – for doing so.

There will be no head shaking and muttering in the emergency room as when people on Medicaid seek treatment. No eye rolling as when a grocery store customer pays with a Food Stamps credit card. No implicit condemnation passed on persons for living in public housing or being on income support.

Honoring people’s rights, treating people with dignity, AND providing them access to the human necessity of health care liberates one crucial part of people’s lives from the blame game of a class-biased society whose motto is that if you are not rich, you are lacking something. In the case of working class and poor people, they are adjudged to lack the good sense to secure their necessities, to take advantage of opportunities, and to seek better lives. Working class and poor people by virtue of their infirmities and collective inferiority are told over and over again that they get what they deserve -- fewer resources and poorer life chances.

In Massachusetts as regards health care, everyone regardless of privilege has the hope of getting what s/he deserves – health care and a better chance of a decent and fulfilling life.

Changes of this sort, as fundamental to human happiness as they are, will not bring forth in a burst “a world without the rich,” the subject of my last column. I will have more to say about how to make that world in the future.

But there can be small blessings along the way – as I hope Massachusetts can provide in the coming years for all of its citizens.

Finally, thanks to all of you who wrote in about the “world without the rich” column several weeks ago. You added immensely to the discussion for which I am just glad to have so briefly started.

Posted by Michael Blim at 12:26 AM | Permalink

Comments

To me, socialism is the religion of some people who think they are beyond logical traps and scams. You can show them the inconsistencies, inner-contradictions, the endless cans of worms they are opening, the slippery slopes and massive net-disutility of it - but, in the end its supporters will trust emotion over reason and return to the faith that government strong-arming is the long term solution to our problems.

Socialism is the beautiful but deadly banshee urging us to bring our ships to shore.

Posted by: Dillon | Nov 19, 2007 1:53:40 AM

In my eyes this article presents a kind of thinking that truly no different that the kind of thinking that destroyed the Russian and Chinese economies, and therefore the lives of millions. The same old "class" falacies are in place. The same ignorance of supply/demand. The same trust in goverment power. The same myopic economic gaze of the seeable benefits over the vast unseeable costs.

Emotion trumps reason, even for smart.

We are still monkeys after all.

Posted by: Jingle | Nov 19, 2007 2:15:41 AM

Another great essay. My thanks.

Here in Australia we have a what some critics might call a socialist health system - it offers inexpensive/free health treatment to all, often for a bit of a wait etc but certainly quality health care - and I believe it saved my life, but that's another story. Wait till my book comes out! :))

Alas, however, with eleven years of a right wing government here chafing at the bit to follow in America's corporate footsteps, funds have been redirected to doctors' pockets , private 'alternatives' and health 'insurance' corporations, instead of public hospital and patient funding for the community.

The economic sleight of hand in the government budgets etc is so confusing for most people that the govt gets away with it time and again.

Your essay is a thoughtful assessment of what seems to be a politically intractable problem. It shouldn't be. Let's hope it won't always be.

~ olivia b

Posted by: oliviab | Nov 19, 2007 5:34:54 AM

When tax money is used to help pay the premiums for private (read "for profit") insurance companies it is a far cry from what I would call socialized health care. Such ignorant abuse of the language should be illegal.

Meantime, I personally know two well-served beneficiaries of the Veterans health care, and I once served in the Army Medical Service Corp as a draftee some forty years ago. As far as I can tell, no one is complaining about those clearly government-run systems, unless it is to cast stones at the VA because they aren't doing enough. Seems to me there is a lot of mixed-up thinking going on in the debate.

Your essay is on target. And so is the Massachustees plan...although unless and until health care is no longer bought and sold as a market commodity the selling price will forever be as high above the real costs as the margin of profit (plus the administrative overlay).

Posted by: Hootsbuddy | Nov 19, 2007 6:21:06 AM

Incidentally, I blogged your first essay when it was posted, and re-ran it a couple months ago. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Hootsbuddy | Nov 19, 2007 6:27:09 AM

Michael,

As usual, thank you for another enlightening post.

I think it shows that the commonwealth of Massachusetts, at least in regard to health care, is living up to Article VII of it's own constitution:

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it."

I think it is high time we restored the true meaning of commonwealth as expressed here - that of "the common good", and not a political and economic system that favors the well to do.

Posted by: dkmy | Nov 19, 2007 7:33:34 AM

Jingle would do well to consider the vast seeable costs of the private healthcare systems which causes our health system to become ever more expensive while our country's health deteriorates relative to countries whose economies are far weaker. And if you're really concerned with unseeable costs, you should take into consideration the loss of productivity and human capital caused by the millions of Americans living without healthcare.

Posted by: Nathaniel Frentz | Nov 19, 2007 7:33:42 PM

Michael,

I applaud mass. for their great effort to fill the gaps in a society that has lost its way re. to social progress. This turn to the right that the Reagan era birthed has been very costly indeed. America has always been ruled by the elite. Lets just hope this group moves in the direction that Mass. has taken.

Posted by: michael | Nov 19, 2007 10:58:18 PM

Once more, I want to thank all of you for your comments.

DKMY: special thanks for the data and information you have been bringing to the discussion both this week, last week and other weeks as well. You should consider doing a blog column!!

Also thanks to comments from Hootsbuddy and Olivia B. We all have immense experience with our health care, and probably for many too much experience with our insurers! It is important to speak up.

BTW, the VA (except with battlefield injuries and rehabilitation for the current war) has really pulled up its socks in general care. Don't have the data at hand, but do recall that treatment there was just as effective as the average hospital. Also the federal employees insurance system gets very good marks for quality of care and low overhead.

I am sorry that two readers confuse the MA plan with socialism. Can I say, if only! This is a moderate, bipartisan plan agreed on by everyone concerned, from professionals, hospitals, insurers, and politicians including Mitt Romney who played a part in getting it done. As one reader has noted, this leaves the management of insurance and care in the hands of private firms and foundations. The Commonwealth is simply insisting that everyone have insurance (note parallel to care insurance). It is facilitating citizens in getting insurance, and paying the difference when they can't afford it.

As I said, it is a small blessing -- emphasis small.

Oh, and by the way, both China and the ex-Soviet Union have basically dismantled guaranteed health schemes. Right now the 800 million peasants in rural China have no guaranteed coverage. It is all out of pocket. The point is that putting national health insurance doesn't make you a socialist society, and socialist societies apparently don't consider it part of their mandate.

So why not consider the question on the merits?

With Medicare and Medicaid, we are way ahead. Do you want to end these too? Another time, I will try to talk about why they are so in need of reform. But a couple of openers. I would argue that in the case of Medicaid, the woppy-jawed state/federal finance and heavy-handed bureaucratic administration is a big problem. For Medicare, it was unfortunately attached to Social Security by Lyndson Johnson who saw no other way of getting it through except by parlaying the solid reputation of the pension system. It doesn't belong there surely in funding (wage tax hits lower wage earners harder), and it is the reason why funding issues threaten social security. Administratively it doesn't make sense in a scheme where the federal government is running four different medical plans, from Medicar, Medicaid the VA, and the federal employers plan.

So save your worries for real socialism. This is just getting a centrist society on an even keel regarding health status and health care.

Posted by: Michael Blim | Nov 20, 2007 12:14:49 PM

Yes, I completely agree that there is a major systemeic malfunction in the modern US healthcare system. It's gummed up with litigations, state-decree licencing, monopolies, the FDA and regulation. It's like an engine being bogged down, chained and gummed up, which is clearly the cause of increasing costs and decreasing efficiency.

It's bad for us all, but especially the poor.

A solution would be for us to roll back 30 years of legislation.

I'm an American living in China. Health care isn't a state issue here (contrary to what you might assume) and nearly everyone here in Shanghai can afford health care, and people are FAR poorer here than in the US. For the average maladay, seeing a good doctor and getting medications costs meabout 20-40 dollars depending on the problem medication and the tests. It's not a big legal/state/insurance/HMO/SocialSecurity/FDA/Medicare/Medicade nightmare.

Here it's simply a service, and should be allowed to exist as such. It it were to be left alone, the overwhelming demand would cause the costs to plummet overnight and service to improve.

America's present health care dilemma is due to the above interferences. Allow it to run as as you would any other good or service.

I'm not an economic whiz, but I do have a BS degree in Econ and the causes of the problems with the US health care system it's as obvious as the cause of lung cancer in a 2 pack at day smoker to a doctor.

Posted by: J.M.M. | Nov 20, 2007 10:15:34 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Richard H. Randall on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

seth edenbaum on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

waqnis on Mortify Our Wolves

nogodrod on KFC smugglers bring buckets of chicken through Gaza tunnels

waqnis on Here’s how to change the world

Fernando on Mortify Our Wolves

seth edenbaum on The case against empathy

Dredd on Mortify Our Wolves

Max on Here’s how to change the world

Rohana on Mortify Our Wolves

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

Elatia Harris on Here’s how to change the world

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Thursday Poem

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Jim Sanders on the hudson review

Ian Kaplan on Stephen Wolfram: Dropping In on Gottfried Leibniz

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed