Obama, Health Care and Smoke & Mirrors

The intricate web that President Obama and the Democrats are weaving to finally get their socialist/fascist utopia into being is a bit like watching a plane crash -- you can see how hideous it will be but can't quite avert your eyes because it's mesmerizing. They've been misleading you for months about who has "health care coverage" and who doesn't, and they trip you up by swapping terms as if they were truly interchangeable. Words mean things! I've read a number of posts by the shallow, mind-numbed Obamanistas who still think of him as some sort of messiah and can do no wrong. Their talking points are pretty consistent. They say "you mean conservatives don't want to reform health care" or "a higher percentage of America's GDP is drained by health care than Europe". The list goes on. Of course, they have no idea what they are talking about, and the President's advertisement for socialized health care was full of nice-sounding words, zero detail, and whining about how mean the Republicans are being to him. I swear, every time he brought up how this Republican wants to break him on health care or that Republican said this or that, I thought I was watching some little child tattling on his brothers! Grow up, man-child!

Okay, having said all that, let me say straight out that I acknowledge that, generally speaking, health care does cost more than it really needs to. I have only to look at our local hospital, the Val Verde Regional Medical Center (a joke of a name, in my opinion). The common phrase around here is that you go to VVRMC to die...not to get better.

But, you see, I am trained in Lean Process Improvement, or what some call Six Sigma (which are different aspects of the general field), and what I realize that most don't is that all of the double-talk and misdirection coming out of Pelosi, Reid and Obama is focusing on symptoms in an effort to get your sympathies so they can take more control of another industry. But let's make some distinctions here. Health care and insurance are two separate animals. Access to health care and health care coverage are two separate animals. If you go to an emergency room I dare you to show me where they will turn you away because of inability to pay. We've got 10 million illegal aliens getting free medical care right now. You HAVE the access. And an overwhelming majority of our legal citizens do have some form of health care insurance. Even a percentage of those who don't have insurance still have -- and use -- health care services in a pay-as-you-go setup, often via Healthcare Savings Accounts (something I highly recommend). Many, if not most, even get to exclude what they pay into their insurance plans or HSAs from the taxable income. Of course, Obama and the Democrats call this "a government subsidy", which is nonsense. It's not their money to begin with, and they're not giving me a dime. They're simply not taking money from me for it. At least until this universal health care coverage legislation. They plan to pay for their bloated medical rationing program by taxing you--and your employer--on the benefits you have.

The solution is not a government program--no government program has ever handled something like this efficiently or even effectively. No, my friends, the solution is to take a cue from Toyota and apply some real problem-solving here. This starts with an accurate problem statement, followed by identifying the performance gaps, the target improvement and get to root cause analysis. Ladies and gents, I promise you that this hasn't happened. What you will hear are two difference symptoms constantly harped on by Obama. "Millions have no coverage" and "Health care costs are skyrocketing". To these symptoms the Democrats have been creating a vague system that provides "univeral health care" for everyone based on the false premise that "health care is a right".

The fact is, you do not have a right to health care. Shocked? You shouldn't be. Check the Constitution, show me where that's at. And let me explain why. Health care -- aka medical services -- are exactly that: a service. So, what does that mean to you? It's something produced/provided by one person that is consumed by another person. When Obama tries to say you have a right to health care, he's saying that you have a right to demand that a health care provider administer health care to you. Taken to its logical conclusion, folks, this is slavery. Telling a doctor, nurse, pharmacist, whomever, that they must provide you their services, regardless of cost, is not right. And when they do, they do so with the sword of Damocles hanging over them -- lawsuits -- if they make any mistakes. The Democrats have fought tort reform for years.

On the whole "GDP" front, it amazes me that people get all worked up over this. Our Gross Domestic Product is the sum and value of the goods and services we generate. Why should we worry if the health care industry (which is actually much broader and more diverse than you might even conceive, encompassing efforts that touch on much more than actual medical care) currently makes up 18% of our GDP? That's the demand an we have people and companies willing to supply it. What do you think happened when we hit the industrial age? What about textiles? Those industries quickly became the focus of our GDP (even if we were still on the gold standard). Having a heavier percentage of GDP generated by one or more inustries isn't in and of itself bad. It simply proves we produce and consume a lot in that area.

With a lot of medical costs so high, the thing to do is apply root cause analysis and find out why -- what are the drivers for costs? Part of it is all the ridiculous lawsuits. Part of it is the myriad of regulations that actually stifle competition (e.g., not being able to sign up for insurance in another state). Tort reform is another necessity. The need to unfetter major areas and apply oversight to others. Don't give me socialized medicine. Just examine the TRUE root cause for high costs.

The other major sympton is insurance. Not everyone WANTS insurance. If those who desire it have been declined due to a pre-existing condition, you don't need a complicated government program...just look at a reasonable bit of oversight. The fact is, it's when we run into a catastrophic condition that we can be financially devastated. So, why not focus on establishing rules for fair coverage in private catastrophic insurance. Isn't this what we do with the car insurance industry?

But I spoke of a web earlier. Let me draw your attention to some facts about socialized medicine as has been seen where it's been tried. Return on investment. If you have to limit overall program costs, historically decisions about who gets what treatments when have been made. We do it in our own household budgets. Does it make sense to replace the hip in a 40 year old or an 80 year old if you have limited funding? Also, if I'm setting regulations on how various health care products and services should be capped, at what point do you think that doctors, nurses, etc. will decide it's not worth being in the industry (hint: it's already starting to happen). Demand isn't changing, but as more providers leave and fewer new ones come into play, just what do you think availability of health care services will be? That's right, less. Which will absolutely lead to more rationing.

Here's where it starts to get scary. Did the mainstream media spend much air time sharing with you the new education legislation, designed to wipe out the college load debt of our young people in favor of 10 years of service in AmeriCorps or other non-religious public service entities? And how any student loan made by private industry that relies on a government guarantee will have similar requirements? How this new system will allow the government to direct who qualifies for the loans an who doesn't? Why is this important? Well, first, it begins to eliminate private financing for higher education. Second, it sets up servitude to the government. Third, the government could place stipulations that only provide loans if you are going into certain fields.

Hmmm. Let's see. If we create a bloated socialistic health care system that fewer and fewer medical professionals participate in, it would be nice to know that we can strongarm people into becoming medical professionals, wouldn't it? Our younger generation hasn't been taught that the USSR essentially dicatated what professions were needed and what products/services were produced. All for the good of the people, of course.

Couldn't happen, you say? We're seeing with the automotive industry. As major shareholder, the government is already starting to dictate what types of vehicles should be produced and what types shouldn't. Current czars that Obama has appointed---particularly his Regulatory Czar---is a big fan of "nudging". This is a concept where by you don't need to dramtically force people to do what you want them to...you simply nudge them to it by leaving them little choice. Reduce their choices and they make the decisions you want them to make. I was in a band that fell apart not because our tempermental lead guitarist decided what we would play, but rather would tell us what we would not play.

It's happening, folks. We're moving past socialism and nudging toward fascism. We have problems that need to be fixed, but Obama and the Democrats are 180 degrees wrong on what's broken and what's needed to correct the real problems.