Quick Note Re: Obama Speech...

As most of y'all know by now, last night President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform. Personally, I thought it was an excellent speech. I didn't agree with everything in it -- mainly the requirement to carry health insurance. I understand the sentiment, but requirements such as this usually bring fines and the fines I've heard discussed seem pretty hefty and outside the budget of the average American. Also, my friend Eric brings up an excellent point regarding Obama comparing health care insurance to auto insurance. And while I'm more for single-payer or universal health care, making sure there is at least a government-run public option for those who cannot afford private insurance or whose jobs do not (or cannot) provide it is a step in the right direction. I just hope that it's only a first step and not a plateau. I also hope the passed bill takes into account those who are under-insured due to hefty deductibles. Any bill without at least a public option is laughable (co-ops would be a total joke, as would placing a trigger).

However, I do have a major concern: that Obama will not be able to get Congress to do the work it needs to do in order for the bill to be passed. I've never thought it would ever be a truly bi-partisan bill - the Republican Party in its current form is too busy flying off the crazy cliff. But even with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, there are conservative Democrats who seem determined to tag along with the GOP in their mid-air flight. That could very well sink the bill.

Plus I'm still leery after Obama's refusal to at least place a moratorium on Don't Ask Don't Tell until a full repeal can be implemented. I understand that health care is near and dear to the president's heart whereas ensuring equal rights for all American soldiers doesn't seem to be. I also understand that equal access to quality health care affects far many more people than ensuring that qualified members of the military continue to serve their country. I just feel that there has been a precedent in the Obama's presidency that makes me leery. Because of this, I still have reservations.

I hope that my reservations are unfounded.

P.S. Re: the Joe Wilson kerfluffle - those who say the Democrats did it first may be referring to the moans which Democratic lawmakers uttered during Bush's 2005 State of the Union address in which he spoke about Social Security. Moaning and muttering "No" is not the same as calling Obama a liar when he is, in fact, telling the truth.

(Crossposted from just an ordinary goddess...)

The Treatment Is Worse Than the Disease

Earlier this year Governor Schwarzenegger put forth a bold new health care proposal for California, requiring that all Californians purchase health insurance. While laudable, there is concern that the subsidized coverage which is promised to those who cannot afford insurance could put a serious strain on an already over-burdened budget, even with companies pitching in 4% of their payroll to a state account, should they decide not to provide insurance to their employees.

In response, Democratic legislators have put together their own proposals, which would require companies to foot a larger piece of the pie:

Escalating the already tense fight about what financial burden businesses should bear, the Democrats who control the Legislature proposed Tuesday that most California employers be required to spend the equivalent of at least 7.5% of their payrolls on health care — nearly twice the amount Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed.

The mandate on employers would raise more than $5 billion and — along with federal taxpayer money and worker contributions — allow California to extend insurance to about 69% of the 4.9 million people who lack it at any given moment. Among states, only Hawaii has a significant employer mandate. But the Democratic proposals in California would go further by including dependent coverage and more part-time workers.

Those of us to the left-of-center tend to celebrate proposed legislation that helps those who, for whatever reason, cannot do for themselves. Especially if large corporations are the ones who contribute a healthy percentage of the costs.

The problem with this, however, is that large corporations, as a rule, already offer health care benefits to their employees and would not be required to give to the state fund unless the employee benefits equaled less than 7.5% of payroll. So guess who the burden to fund the desperately needed health care state fund would fall upon?

The small business owner.

Another thing that we liberals tend to like to encourage is independent business. We usually like our local mom-and-pop record stores and book stores over the soulless mondo-stores. We think Geek Patrol is kinda neat, but prefer to give our computers to the repair guy in the neighborhood who is a wiz at retrieving our info from fried drives. And isn't it better for the little guy to make money at coming up with new toys than for Mattel to rake in even more from ever-expanding toy opportunities?

Problem is, the average small business owner simply cannot afford to contribute 7.5% of payroll. That's assuming employees can even be afforded. Says Larry Spinak, founder of CompuNerds, "I have two employees, but they're really subcontractors and I use them part time. A big reason I don't have regular employees is because I can't afford all the benefits, etc. Another 7.5% would make it even more difficult."

And for those who do have employees? The proposed requirement could potentially put them out of business. According to a local business owner working in the toy industry (who prefers to remain anonymous), "Any additional tax on small business is potentially crippling. 7.5 percent of payroll is a huge number once you know that payroll is the largest expense in any business, 40 to 70% of all company income in many cases. Add that to the myriad of existing taxes - state, federal and local - insurances required by law, unemployment contributions and the ever famous 7.5% matching funds for Social Security. [...] This expense can make the difference between hiring and not hiring and not having a business to employ anyone including oneself."

Many large companies, should they decide the requirements of a certain state are too onerous to their bottom line, can opt to move to a friendlier state. It's not cheap, but they have the resources.

Not so the small business. Even if the business isn't tied to the community - as many of them seem to be - uprooting to another street would be prohibitive, let alone another state. We'd lose more of what we lefties love and there are precious few of those independent minded business folks as it is.

This is another reason why single-payer health care is so important to Californians. The system needs to be completely revamped and the playing field needs to be leveled, but not on the backs of the poor.

And not on the backs of small business owners.

Walter Reed Commander Let Go

General in charge of Walter Reed hospital has been relieved of command:

The Army said Thursday that the two-star general in charge of Walter Reed Army Medical Center has been relieved of command following disclosures about inadequate treatment of wounded soldiers.

The firing of Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who was commanding general of the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command as well as Walter Reed hospital, was announced by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

In a brief announcement, the Army said service leaders had "lost trust and confidence" in Weightman's leadership abilities "to address needed solutions for soldier outpatient care." He had headed Walter Reed since Aug. 25, 2006.

Considering that hospital officials have known about the abhorrent conditions and beauracracy faced by wounded veterans for over three years and that, according to the Army Times, soldiers were told, after the Washington Post expose, to keep quiet, this is the very least that could be done. Because the horrendous treatment of our wounded soldiers is unforgivable.

A Young Boy Dies From An Abcessed Tooth

For Want of a Dentist:

Pr. George's Boy Dies After Bacteria From Tooth Spread to Brain
Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

[...]

Some poor children have no dental coverage at all. Others travel three hours to find a dentist willing to take Medicaid patients and accept the incumbent paperwork. And some, including Deamonte's brother, get in for a tooth cleaning but have trouble securing an oral surgeon to fix deeper problems.

In spite of efforts to change the system, fewer than one in three children in Maryland's Medicaid program received any dental service at all in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

. . .The Driver children have never received routine dental attention, said their mother, Alyce Driver. The bakery, construction and home health-care jobs she has held have not provided insurance. The children's Medicaid coverage had temporarily lapsed at the time Deamonte was hospitalized. And even with Medicaid's promise of dental care, the problem, she said, was finding it.

This is the tragedy of our country's broken health care system. Young Deamonte is, unfortunately, not unique. The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that the "percentage and the number of children (people under 18 years old)without health insurance increased between 2004 and 2005, from 10.8 percent to 11.2 percent and from 7.9 million to 8.3 million, respectively." The higher percentage of children without access to health insurance and health care will ensure a higher percentage of child mortality.

Even from something that starts as humbly as a toothache.

(Tip O' the Hat to John Scalzi)

Schwarzenegger Bewilders

On the same day that Governor Schwarzenegger unveiled a health care plan that shows promise of covering all Californians (though a careful reading of the proposal may show otherwise - admittedly your humble blogger has not yet been able to read through the entire proposal), he also revealed an overhaul of the welfare system that promises to throw children and families on the street.

Once again, Schwarzenegger can't seem to decide if he's with the residents of California or against them.