Gobama!

A couple days ago, President Obama gave a speech about Health Care reform.

Yeah I do realize I am writing about it kind of late. But I needed to gather my thoughts about it.

Quick summary for those of you who didn't watch it. He spent the first part of the speech going over what was wrong with our health care system. High costs, spotty coverage, less security and stability and no better health, etc.

Then he suggested forming a government-run insurance company available to those who are under the poverty level.

This is what he said about it:

"Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. (Applause.) And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up."

I think it's interesting how President Obama is trying to play off the whole government run insurance thing as an extension on capitalism. Because, you know, we love our free markets. This new government program is merely additional competition in the insurance marketplace. It will keep the private insurance companies in check.
And it's not even very big competition. Only 5% of Americans are going to sign up.

I know the Republicans aren't buying it. "Hold[ing] them accountable" means that private insurance companies are going to have to lower their prices to compete with the governmental program.

I personally think it's a great idea. It's so obvious I'm surprised I didn't think of it myself. THe concept anyway. I mean, if we want to make health coverage available to all, we must appeal to the capitalist fervor in our country. What better way to do this but to claim that it's part of the free market system, and not at all socialist. Whether the vast majority of the American public will buy this, I don't know.

The only thing I'm really concerned about (and it's a big thing) is how it's going to be supported financially. Okay, the concept might work, but I don't really see how it's going to be executed financially if we don't have the funds.

This is what he said about that issue:

"Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier. That's not my judgment -- it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid...Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. (Applause.) Now, much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money -- an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run. "

Okay so, save money with existing systems that are wrought with waste and inefficiencies. Use money for new program.

Yeah...goooodd luck with that.

No one like change. The people who use Medicaid might not have much power to say much about it, but people using Medicare? Old, mostly white, ornery seniors? I'm pretty sure they are going to protest any changes to the "waste and abuse" their health is depending on. Not to mention, there are going to be a lot more of them now that the baby boomers are reaching that critical 65+ age that would make Medicare applicable.

So, I support the plan. I support the concept. I support where it's going. But, the bill is not going to pass without some major road blocks. And if it does pass, I am skepitcal about how it's going to be supported financially.
But, I can't think of a better way of doing addressing the health care problem.

So good luck, Obama administration. Good. Luck.

Health Care

I believe Health is a right not a commodity and everyone should have access to health.

Now that that is out of the way, I love my Health Policy and Management class, which is interesting because it was the class I was the least excited about.

But what better time to take the class than now. It is extremely relevant to what's going on in the news. Health care is being debated and discussed in townhall meetings across the nation until people are blue in the face. It's the Republicans against the Democrats, House against the Senate, People against the State! In all the commotion, it's nice to be taking a class that will inform me about what the eff is going on.

Here's my brief sociological analysis on why we are the richest and most powerful nation in the country, yet compared to other industrialized nations, we have higher infant mortality rates, lower life expectancies, and overall, unhealthier people. Okay, I didn't come up with this, but it makes a lot of sense.

Historically, we've been anti-government and pro-capitalism. It's literally in our roots. After slaughtering all the Indians, immigrants from England came here to escape from their imposing governments. The founding fathers of our country put a crapload of "checks-and-balanced" in the Constitution so the government won't go out of control. While other countries were calling their rulers Kings and Queens, we addressed our "ruler" as "Mr. President." We championed free trade. We pushed for free markets. We believed that letting everyone share their wares will equalize costs, destroy monopolies, and weed out the weak. Down with Communism! Screw Socialism!
The line between Church and State blurs sometimes, but between the State and the Economy, the line as thick as Montana.

I'm not going to get into economics because that's really not the point of this entry and, to tell you the truth, I don't know much about it. But I know this much. Health is NOT economics.

Health services should not be sold or traded like dental floss or strippers. These are people's lives we are dealing with, their livelihood. When people are looking to just make a profit off of your sickness or well-being, people who need the help don't get it.
Because here's how it works. Private insurance companies do not want to cover people who are terminally sick. It's costly. There are pills to buy, tests to run, physicians to pay...sick people are expensive. And insurance companies want to profit, just like every other business in the economy.
So they refuse insurance to the sick and insure people who are healthy. In fact, sometimes people are at risk of losing their insurance if they become terminally sick.

Our professor was telling us how some insurance companies would hold dance parties on the third floor walkup at a senior home. The senior citizens who are able to make that 3 floor trek up the stairs are greeted with food, music, dance, and access to care. The ones unable to get out of bed, the sickest people in the ward, don't get coverage. This is called "cherry-picking." The insurances "cherry-picks" the healthiest, and therefore, the least expensive people to cover.

I laughed when I heard this. A tragic wow-that-is-the-most-fucked-up-thing-I've-heard-in-a-while laugh.

I don't expect us to switch to universal health care anytime soon. I don't expect that a bill is going to be drafted that is going to make everything hunky-dory for everyone. In fact, I'm pretty sure that health care is going to be a vein-popping, voice-rising, eye bulging, and fist-shaking topic when I qualify for Medicare, some 45 years from now.

But something needs to change. People need to see that Health care is not a commodity, that it doesn't make sense as a commodity, and people on a whole are not benefiting this way. Deem it socialist if you want, condemn me for my communist views if you wish, but everyone should have access to health care. And the government is the only entity that can insure that. Period.

DECLARED

I am finally declared! Public Health and Sociology.

I planned out a whole blog entry dedicated to how important Public Health is and how Sociology is amazing and how I am in love with my college direction, but I figured you probably don't want to read about it.

So I'm going to talk about HIV/AIDs instead...which is technically related to both. But everything relates to Sociology and HIV/AIDs is a pretty public issue...that's why Public Health is important and Sociology is amazing.
Anyways, I went to a Medical Sociology panel yesterday and it was pretty mind-blowing. So thank you Ann Swidler, aka the reason why I'm a sociology major. If you are a student at Berkeley and you find this brief synopsis of the topic interesting, look into taking L&S 150A about HIV/AIDs in Africa in the spring next year. Professor Swidler is a brilliant professor and I highly recommend taking a class with her.

Basic HIV/AIDs stuff that they don't tell you in high school.
- HIV is really hard to transmit through vaginal sex. It's only transmitted one out of a thousand times. This statistic decreases substantially if the male is circumcised. (The virus replicates in the foreskin. Removing it through circumcision thereby removes the viruses' ability to do so.)
- Poverty does not affect rates of HIV. In fact, it is the more affluent parts of Africa that is most stricken with the disease. Urban cities (as opposed to rural ones) are more populated so there are more opportunities for sexual partners. Plus, there is much more privacy in a city. In rural areas, where everyone knows each other, scandalous sexual acts are less likely to occur.
- In Africa, there is a culture of multiple "concurrent" partners. In other words, a man could be married to someone, but has a girlfriend or a secret family as well. Long running marriages/relationships are more effective at spreading HIV/AIDs than a thousand one night stands. It's a statistics thing. If 1/1000 sexual intercourses result in successful HIV/AIDs transmission, it is less likely that a person could get the disease even if s/he has multiple sexual partners. If, however, the person is in a relationship with someone who is HIV positive, and has sex with that person on a regular basis (without a condom), chances of transmission increase substantially.
- There is a mismatch in the HIV/AIDs problem and governmental policy. Some governments (e.g. China) use HIV/AIDs as an excuse to tell teenagers to abstain from sex. As mentioned before, this is not the main cause of HIV transmission. The disease is mainly transmitted by IV drug use, male-male sexual relations, and commercial sex workers. Often times, governments do not want to admit that these occur in their society. It is easy to chalk up the problem to hormonal teenagers. Admitting there are drug users, homosexuals, and prostitutes in the country is much harder. Truth is, teen sex is NOT what speads the disease. Promoting condom use and emphasizing the importance of clean needles would be much more effective as a public health policy against HIV/AIDs. In fact, the gay liberation movement in the US could be seen as a highly effective public health move, as it promoted the use of condoms and greatly decrease the rates of HIV/AIDs in the US.

So that was just a highlight of the highlights Ann Swidler gave in her talk about her subject. I hope you found it as mind-blowing as I did.

The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down

I am reading this book for Sociology of Illness and Medicine titled The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. It's a true story about a Hmong family's interaction with the American Health Care system though their epileptic daughter.
This book is one of the most intense books I've ever read and I am only on chapter nine. Not intense in a edge-of-my-seat kind of way, but an eye-opening experience kind of way. The severely simplified basis of the story is how the Hmong and American cultures clash in terms of health care. Even though both sides have good intentions for the child in question, sincerely wanting only the best for her, the cultural conflict induced frustrations, misunderstandings, and complications on both sides.
I remember getting agitated while reading one of the chapters. The parents of the epileptic child do not understand American medicine. In fact, they believe that the medicine is making her worse and suspect that the doctors are trying to kill her. They don't give her the medicine to make her better. Plus, they aren't proficient in English so they don't understand why or how to give her the prescribed dosages.
At the same time, one of the doctors sent in a recommendation to the government to remove the child from the parents' care so the medication could be properly administered. The parent's aren't abusing the child. They love her and care for her more than anything. They just don't believe in American health care. Yet the government opted to remove the child from their custody.
The thing is, you come to understand the actions of both sides. You see both perspectives. You find that you can't cast blame to anyone. They are all doing what they think is best for the little girl with severe epilepsy. That's what makes the situation so aggravating.

Reading this challenged the whole notion that American medicine is indisputable, that doctors are always right. The idea that even good intentions could have adverse effects is a difficult one to process. All this mixed in with the unbelievable difference between the Hmong community and the one I am used to. In a world so full of different cultures, different practices, and different people, there really is no right or wrong answer to anything. That concept is difficult to process.
I daresay, if this perception of "the other" is ever achieved, we'd be much closer to the whole "world peace" notion of things.