APAP has the full transcription of Obama’s health care speech yesterday for those who want to check it out. I believe in universal health care, and I would like to see some improvement in this area, but I haven’t looked at the numbers of Obama’s plan to really think through if it would really work. In my industry, we’ve seen Obama’s Home Affordable Refinance Program, and because so much of that plan is based on the voluntary participation of the already skittish banks who are lending the money, HARP has been a complete failure. Obama should have thought it through before signing.
That being said, we have to start somewhere, and the President is right to bring health care to the table. With the number of people literally dying or going broke because of pre-existing conditions, something has to be done. I know people with pre-existing conditions, and I can say from personal experience that the current system is a travesty.
One good result so far is the dialogue around health care. The NYTimes had an interesting article today about how our eating habits contribute in part to our big healthcare costs. Read:
the fact that the United States spends twice as much per person as most European countries on health care can be substantially explained, as a study released last month says, by our being fatter. Even the most efficient health care system that the administration could hope to devise would still confront a rising tide of chronic disease linked to diet.
The author raises a good point. Some people suffer from genetic conditions, such as heart abnormalities, that they can’t help. Many of our health care costs, however, come from conditions that are entirely preventable. With more education, and perhaps a greater emphasis on shifting our culture’s view on health, fitness, and proper eating, maybe we could bring some of these costs down.
Related posts:
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
Byron, please note:
It’s true that people are turned away from insurance companies for previous medical conditions. Whether that’s moral or not doesn’t matter. Rather, why are people going through insurance companies so often? Why don’t people just have lifetime health insurance?
The reason is the payroll tax break that employers receive when offering benefits. This is an ancient tax break left over from WWII when employers were fighting to get labor out of the public sector and into the private sector, since 40% of them had left to work for the war machine. One thing that enticed people to take jobs was when employers offered benefits. The IRS was later kind enough (it was thought) to give employers a payroll tax break on the benefits they provided. Still today, any money spent on health benefits leads to a payroll tax break. That results in two things.
1. Employer-provided insurance is taxed lower by the government (almost “subsidized”, except in the “we won’t take money from you” sense), which means it’s cheaper than normal, thus there are more people collecting on it than there would be otherwise. That means private insurance plans take up the slack to reach an equilibrium. Thus private plans are more expensive. Fixing the price lower will cause insurance companies to go out of business unless they can find legal loopholes to pass the costs on to customers. If that’s the desired effect, then people will be happy with the price-fixing, at least temporarily, because never in history has price-fixing worked out for the people it’s supposed to protect.
2. Since employer-provided plans are cheaper due to the subsidy, they’re a more popular kind of insurance to have. Unfortunately they do not carry over after you switch jobs. Those with employer-provided health insurance face the risk of being denied coverage when they switch jobs because they’re only getting “riskier” as they get older in the eyes of insurance companies. The desired result would be to lower the cost of private insurance so there’s less use of employer-provided health insurance so that people stay insured with one brand longer, but this can’t be done unless either the payroll tax break is removed or they start treating all tax evenly.
I’m not saying public health care is good or bad, but this is one of the many things not mentioned in our wonderful media outlets.
By the way, any agency which tells us that consuming 300 grams of carbohydrates per day is okay, or that low- and non-fat milk products are preferable to their natural high-fat counterparts, or that aspertame is safe, Olestra is safe, butter is bad, etc. should not be deciding what we eat. This is also the agency which has promoted the growth of the corn industry both through its sugar tariffs and subsidies for corn growers. High fructose corn syrup is now the leading sweetener, which many studies have shown increases the risk of diabetes. HFCS is almost exclusively American because it’s incredibly inefficient to make, but because of government money going to corn growers through agro-lobbyists it’s everywhere, and cane sugar is not.
Blame the consumer all you want, but understand that the agency telling us to cut back on corn syrup is the same one that bolsters its growth. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Last comment I swear, and it’s a short one:
With socialized medicine or any public health plan comes restrictions on how and what we eat. And that agency will be making the rules because it will be the same one in charge of the health care system.
One simple thing that can be done is requiring restaurants to list the calorie content of their food on the menu. I never knew how many calories are in fries alone (hundreds). A large fries order at McDonalds clocks in at 542.
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/foods-from-mcdonalds/6235/2
This simple thing does not restrict what restaurant can sell but gives people knowledge they did not have before and possible make them think. Course this is just one of many steps that need to be taken but it is a very simple and easy and non restrictive one.
I was between jobs when I first moved to Oregon. My very first job here was retail, but then I interviewed with a small mortgage company that had just started. There was no insurance plan, so the guy advised me to just pay Kaiser, which was what I was already doing. I was in my mid-twenties, and I think I was paying $140 a month. I complained to this guy who was about to hire me, and he said, “Just be glad you’re not me. I pay $400 a month.”
I asked, “Why so much?”
He said, “I’m 40.”
I said, “Wow. You’re old.” (He hired me anyway.)
Now this was six years ago. Imagine what it costs now. Imagine being a 40 year old guy who is unemployed. Ouch. If you’re 40 and have a pre-existing condition, you’re screwed. And if you’re over 40, the cost is even higher.
Eric,
I must admit that I have no idea what the solution is. I think most of us small business types dread getting old. I know people who are still working ONLY because of insurance–these guys are in their 70′s, and their single individual insurance plans would be through the roof. So they have to work. Meanwhile, government workers, many of whom get paid to sit around on their asses doing nothing all day, get a great plan for life. Something isn’t right.
“Blame the consumer all you want, but understand that the agency telling us to cut back on corn syrup is the same one that bolsters its growth.”
Are you sure this is the case? I think the FDA is telling us to cut back, while the USDA is the one subsidizing corn.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1031/p17s01-lihc.html
This is an issue with the same democratic/bureaucratic problems. The two organizations within the government have conflicting goals. Hopefully the FDA will win.
“Are you sure this is the case? I think the FDA is telling us to cut back, while the USDA is the one subsidizing corn.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1031/p17s01-lihc.html
This is an issue with the same democratic/bureaucratic problems. The two organizations within the government have conflicting goals. Hopefully the FDA will win.”
Both are operated through the same tax dollars, susceptible to the wants of lobbyists, and subject to the wims of elected officials. They may try to push their own agendas, but they’re run by the same agency in the end. It’s like Saturn and Pontiac making their own cars and business models, but GM owns them both.
“They may try to push their own agendas, but they’re run by the same agency in the end. It’s like Saturn and Pontiac making their own cars and business models, but GM owns them both.”
Well yes, but the fact that they have their own agendas mean that they make decisions based on entirely different reasons and goals. It’s like in my town, there’s a big rich dude who owns the Toyota and Honda dealerships. I went to look for a Honda, realized that used Toyotas are much cheaper, and bought a Toyota. The Honda salesman called me a few weeks later and was dismayed to learn that I had bought a used Toyota.
So yes, the rich dude makes money off of me no matter what. But the two companies/organizations still compete hard against one another. My purchase didn’t benefit the Honda salesman, and the Honda salesman isn’t trying to sell Toyotas. I think it’s the same thing with the USDA and FDA.
Hopefully the FDA will win. It will definitely help us lower health care costs!
The companies do not compete to price the one another out of business. It’s in the interest of the owner to keep both companies open because they offer different services. It’s ridiculous to insinuate that the man is operating two competing dealerships. They both work in his interest, and as far as competition goes, his interest is only furthered if both exist and make money.
The FDA and USDA are both owned by the USG. The FDA winning the war will not lower health care costs, in fact it’s already won by limiting cheap pharmaceuticals and being the sole means by which medical technology comes to pass. Allowing cheap drugs into the US that are reviewed through independent channels would lead to cheaper health care, not the other way around.
Eric,
You’re thinking of “all out” competition. All out competition exists, but it’s usually among smaller, independent organizations, i.e. you sell hot dogs out of a small hot dog stand, I sell hot dogs out of a stand, and I want you out of business so that I can take ALL your market share. Then I can sell you a hot dog so you don’t starve.
Business at the larger level usually doesn’t work like this. For example, see the competition between Intel and AMD. Does Intel want market share from AMD? Yes. Do they want to remain the market leader? Yes. Do they want to drive AMD out of business? No. They need AMD to exist so that anti-monopoly regulators stay off their backs. For that reason, they want AMD to exist, even though they are in competition with them. Another example would be the banks. You probably saw the cooperation between the large banks in the wake of the ongoing mortgage crisis. Even though they compete, they’re not trying to eliminate the competition because they would lose out in the long run.
With the USDA and FDA, they compete for attention and money (sometimes the two become the same.). The FDA takes a stand against unhealthy foods. The USDA represents business. Both need each other–business would be hurt if people were to die from food poisoning, and there wouldn’t be a need for daily recommended allowances if people couldn’t buy food. So while they compete between themselves, it’s not all out.
You’ll see this kind of cooperative competition in the media too. One conglomerate might own trashy tabloids, serious newspapers, and TV stations all at the same time. They compete among each other and may even sometimes criticize one another, but the conglomerate still makes money. It’s competitive, although not all out competitive.
We are still in charge of what we eat. We are also responsible for what we put in our own bodies.
We are also resposible for educating ourselves. Just because the USPTO issued a patent, doesn’t mean the product is any good for any purpose. Likewise, just because the USDA approves something or the FDA sanctioned a new drug, doesn’t mean it is still fresh or doesn’t have side effects.
Corn is heavily subsidized. We have an over abundance of cheese. As a nation, we eat too much sugar and corn products. Overal, the nation does not eat enough whole grains and vegetables.
Information is out there if you look for it.
Another thought came to mind. Years ago, I was dating this guy who thought it was unhealthy that I did not eat three meals a day. I eat when I am hungry, that is usually lunch and dinner.
He was adamant that I eat seven times a day. He ate seven times a day. Three meals and four healthy snacks. I followed his advice and I ended up gaining about 15 lbs.
Mind you, he is caucasian. All of his studies were based on the crap you hear on the news and health magazines in the US.
I went back to my two meals a day and snack if I am hungry.
I lost the 15 lbs.
We argued about it and it came down to me saying, “for two thousand years my ancestors ate two meals a day that consisted mostly of rice and vegetable and some meat. I think I can survive quite well on that diet.”
For what it is worth, Michael Pollan coined the phrase “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
Works for me, save the corn syrup in my tomato sauce, among other things.
Oh and check out the documentary “Food Inc.” It is eye opening if you never looked behind the curtains in the American food industry.
Do Chinese people only eat two meals a day? Well, I guess dim sum is kind of like brunch…
FWIW, my grandparents lived in a small village in China in the 1930-1940′s. They told me there was no such thing as breakfast, not even a word for it, at least in the area they are from. A mid-morning meal around 11:00 and supper was what was served. Dim Sum or yum cha was for special occasion.
While away at boarding school, grandpa had two meals a day and at night he would steam rice and lup cheong in his dorm room as a before bed snack.
Prior to moving to the village, Grandma lived in Canton in the 1920′s, went to school near by and the cook made two meals a day. Sometimes she would take a roll to school, but she was home for dinner.
The told me they never had breakfast, but living in the US, they fed us breakfast. The work/school day demands it. When I lived on my own, I found what works for me and it seems to be what worked for my ancestors.
American Girl, I concur with you: my grandparents ate 2 meals a day. Mostly veggies and rice, very little meat. Things changed when they moved to Hong Kong and to the US.
The grazing method (eating 6-7 small meals a day) is very unnatural, but that is what bodbyuilders do to gain weight, which explains your weight gain. I think many cultures eat fewer meals (Ramadan comes to mind) as you should only eat when you’re hungry.
There a diet called the Warrior Diet that is based on the principle of eating a single large meal at the end of the day. Although I would two meals and a snack or two is better than one large meal.
That totally makes sense. The laziness in me also says that it’s convenient not to have to cook three times.
I think it’s really important to have food not too long after waking up, so breakfast or brunch is a must for me. But because the way the work day is structured, that means that I’m also kind of forced into at least three meals, unless I skip dinner (which I sometimes do).
Another thing to think about is this–if you only eat twice a day, you only have to think about what to eat twice a day. Therefore, you’re thinking about food a lot less.
Well, you know what they say:
“Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper.”
I think that’s good advice.
That’s great advice.
You know something though–most people have a greater repetoire of recipes for dinner than breakfast. I’m wondering if this should flip. Personally, I’d love to spend more time cooking in the morning and less at night.