Ok, so here's my take on Nationalized Healthcare...

First off, let me apologize for not blogging in a while. I've been busy, and I'll leave it at that.

This is an issue I believe I should chime in on, though. President Obama is trying to push through a bill (HR3200) which will, in essence, nationalize health care. As most of this blog entry will be opposed to his plan, I highly encourage each of you to report me/this to the White House as an opponent as HRH has asked Americans to do. I welcome the challenge.

Having said that, I have to say that I agree with "the Prez" that health care DOES need reform. During my job as a HR Manager, I would say that I spend at least 30% of my time each week fixing/negotiating/bullying our insurance company into paying for what it should pay for anyway based on our plan. This, in my opinion, is not what a HR Manager for any company should be doing with a third of his/her time.

However, as any good business person should do when considering change, let's take a look at what the "other" nationalized health care in this country is like. I'm talking Medicare, for those of you not following that analogy.

Medicare covers approximately 46 million people in this country in 2008, or roughly 13% of the total population (according to Medicare's website, as are the figures that follow). The total bill for Medicare for the fiscal year 2010 is slated to be $1.2 trillion. This works out to be about $26,086.96 per person per year enrolled in Medicare. Now I will postulate that the majority of people on Medicare are likely to have major chronic illnesses that will drive the cost of insurance claims higher than the average American. This would only make sense, as the majority of Americans on Medicare are either the elderly or younger, disabled individuals. However, I have to also add that the payoff amount (and thus the total cost) to a provider from Medicare is much lower than from private insurance companies.

Our health insurance company that my wife & I have coverage from is Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. According to our insurance negotiator, it is one of the best policies in the state of Maine. Like most other insurance pools, our employee pool has a good overview of what the typical American population looks like, demographically speaking. Our company and I (as the employee) combine to pay $11,176.07 per year for both of us. This works out to be about $5,588.04 per person per year, or about 21% of what Medicare costs. Obviously, this offers a significant savings over the current "nationalized" health care program. One could draw the conclusion that, like most other government programs, it will be ill-run and mostly filled with bureaucratic incompetency (Do I really need to cite examples of $100 hammers and $300 toilet seats?), and thus not likely to offer savings over what we presently receive for private insurance.

Maine is one of the states that does not allow a consumer to shop outside of the state for health care coverage either, so one could make the logical jump that our health care costs could be even lower, if we were allowed to shop competitively, but that's another blog for another day (something about the CEO of Anthem being on the insurance advisory board for the state legislature ring a bell to anyone?).

I've also heard and read a great deal about how America spends much more on health care than other nations. This is absolutely true, for two reasons. One, America is the third most populated country in the world, behind China and India. Obviously, the greater the population, the greater the health care costs. Sounds obvious, but some proponents for nationalized health care are waving that snippet around like the right wing was waving around the stains on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress.

The second (and more important) reason is that Americans, as a whole, are not healthy. Our diet is poor, we get minimal exercise, and we have a slew of genetic predispositions and polluted areas in our country. This, above all else, is what fans my embers of discontent. Why are we focusing all of this negative, highly charged emotions at who (and how) pays for health care, when the real question is, why are we still using a health care system that is reactive, instead of proactive. Why are we still using a health care system that will pay 100% (after a deductible) of the costs for treating a chronic disease such as emphysema, when we should be focusing on preventing other cases from cropping up?

It just amazes me that most insurance plans will only cover a physical every year. That's usually the total amount of payout for preventive care. Shouldn't we be rewarding people for going to see the doctor? For eating healthy foods? For not smoking, for not drinking alcohol? For not engaging in unhealthy behaviors? After all, isn't the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? According to HealthPartners, a study by the University of Cincinnati, a $1.00 investment in wellness has a return on investment of anywhere from $1.87-$10. Isn't that what the government should be striving to do? After all, a healthy population is a productive population.

Make that change to health care, and I'll be on board. If the government wants to get involved, offer tax breaks to healthy individuals, or for making healthy choices. Otherwise, stay out of the health care business. You'll just F#$& it up like you guys have everything else.