Medical Mysteries: Why No Universal Health Coverage?

Although I have high hopes for the Obama administration and the action they're taking on improving the health care system, I must admit I do miss Hillary Clinton's unwaivering commitment to achieving universal health care in America.

I recently came across www.bluecrosssucks.com, a website dedicated to the outing of Blue Cross of California and the numerous patient horror stories they keep so well hidden under their belts. It's difficult to believe that stories such as the ones posted on the website are actually true, but they occur daily all across the country due to the lack of adequate health coverage for every American.

One story featured a sixteen-year-old who had to be airlifted to a trauma center after a motorcycle crash. Though insured, he was not covered because he went to "an out of network hospital."

Another man went to a hospital room after feeling horrible abdominal pain, nausea, constipation, and after noticing dark blood present in his stools after a visit to the bathroom. Doctors decided to perform an endoscopy, but after checking the patient's HMO, decided instead to send him home. Turns out the patient's HMO would not cover an endoscopy because his blood pressure and hemoglobin were fine. Phew! Close one there, HMO! This patient was in need of medical attention, but was just too much of a financial liability.

The government directly covers 27.8% of the population, still leaving 46 million Americans uninsured. Many private insurance corporations deny coverage for those who may need expensive care such as those with chronic diseases like diabetes, lupus, or arthritis. On the other hand, health care premiums are driving employers into the ground since the cost of health care is so heavy, causing hesitation on their part to provide workers with health insurance.

So where is one to turn if they want to be covered in case of an emergency? Sure, private insurance companies may turn down diabetics and lupus patients, and the occasional arthritic elderly person, but what becomes of everyone else? Surely they must be covered?

A young couple, Jennifer and Greg of Pasadena, are perfectly healthy and both have private health insurance. Their infant daughter, however, was denied coverage by Blue Shield of California because she had a "minor hip joint misalignment," which the doctor said was "nothing serious and probably temporary."

Another man using a private health insurance provider would not be treated for a fractured bone after he, a single male seemingly incapable of immaculate conception, neglected to pay the co-payment for the birth of his miracle child and the increased coverage rates for his new edition. The company that covered him invented a child, and because he did not pay for his imaginary bundle of joy, he would not be treated.

A woman in California would not be covered by a private insurance company because she had undergone infertility treatments, which the company considered a 'preexisting condition.'

These stories are ridiculous, but serve as proof of the need for insurer's to turn a profit over the need of sick individuals to receive treatment. So what can we do?

Chief executive of Blue Shield of California Bruce Bodaken said that universal coverage was the answer.

The United States is the only industrialized country without a universal health care plan. Scotland, France, England, China, India, Israel, and Australia among others, all provide their citizens with universal coverage so that everyone is treated, regardless of socioeconomic class or of any preexisting conditions that they may have.

And yet many continue to claim that universal coverage is a utopian ideal that would not work in America.

It remains a hot button issue since conservatives do not want the burden of paying for the health care of others and want the freedom to choose to opt out of the national health care system. OK, but let's look at another country for a second...

France, which rates number 1 in health care spends about 9.8% of their GDP on health care. America, which rates 37th in health care, now spends about 13.7% of their GDP on health care.

Does it still make sense to not want to spend money on the health care of others? Costs are manageable when everyone is covered because the young and healthy balance those that are older and sicker. Private individualized health care creates greater hidden costs that most tax payers are unaware of since they end up paying for the millions of uninsured Americans that still require health care.

President Bush stated that all Americans have access to health care, all they have to do is show up at an emergency room. While it is true that emergency rooms cannot deny any patient care, most would-be patients hesitate to show up because of the bill that they will receive after being treated. And the point of health care is not to show up when you're already sick and dying, but to prevent that from ever actually happening.

So what's wrong with universal coverage? Nothing. It is neither utopian nor impossible to achieve. The transition from our current health care system to that of a universal one may be difficult, but the sooner it happens, the more lives will eventually be saved.

My current coverage ends in about two more years and I'm quite accident-prone, so let's get universal coverage started already. I'd hate to be denied health care because I refuse to pay for my imaginary child's coverage. Who happened to be born with a unicorn-like horn. And a misaligned hip socket.





An Eroding Model For Health Insurance
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure21-2008oct21,0,6869686.story?page=1

Moore's 'Sicko' Lands Blows on US Health Care
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11285514

Blue Cross Sucks
http://bluecrosssucks.com/consumer.htm

Health Care Horror Stories
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html

Technology: A Robotic Angel Sent From the Heavenly Skies, or Robotic Demon Spawn Sent From the Fiery Pits of Hell?

There is nothing more demeaning than having a conversation with someone who replaces entire words with single letters.

"o i c." "brb." "lol. ttyl."

What? What just happened?!?!

This is internet lingo, and it has replaced proper grammar all across the country and across generational lines, another victim of the technological boom of recent years. But whats it matter anyways? Technology is the greatest thing that has happened and has truly made our civilization prosper. Clearly, it is difficult to say that we'd be where we are without technology's help. While I know technology is not demon spawn sent from the pits of hell, I wonder, how much technology is too much? Is there such a thing? Will we ever reach a point in life where we are able to say of technology, 'Enough is enough'?

There have been revolutionary advances in technology in nearly every field imaginable, from science and health, to entertainment and music. Diseases have been cured and men have been sent to the moon. The show "Friends" has shown me the evil that can stem from making a pros and cons list, (ha! technological pop culture cameo! yes!) but let's give it a try:

Health - Stem cell research is offering new hope for people with diabetes, cancer, leukemia, and a number of other debilitating diseases. I most certainly have benefited from the advances in the medical field, but so have the majority of other people since the invention of vaccinations, anesthesia, drugs, and transplants. Hospitals are equipped with top-notch machines capable of looking through our bodies and finding whats wrong with us. Even wheelchairs and artificial limbs have made the lives of suffering people much better. In terms of the greatest benefits technology has afforded us, medical science has definitely proved a major pro.

Entertainment - Facebook, and Ipods, and Wii's, oh my! This is a touchy topic, since many pros in the entertainment industry can be doubly viewed as cons, but I'll stick with what I know. Ipods have had a major impact on the music industry as well as on the average person's life. It seems impossible to walk anywhere lately without bumping into someone not wearing earphones connected to an Ipod. Flatscreen HD tv's with humongous screens are now up in most people's homes (and who can deny a night watching Lost on the big screen?) and even video Ipods make it possible to carry television screens everywhere you go. Cell phones now have the capacity to make calls, take video and pictures, and surf the net, with the exclusion of the IPhone, which can actually do every single thing imaginable. This is a pro since it has greatly enhanced our connectivity and things like videophones, have caught crimes being committed on video, among other positives.

News - As a journalist, I have to pay proper respects to the ability technology has provided us in communicating the news. In the past, this was done orally, through speech and song, and after the invention of the printing press, in small dailies and pamphlets. Now, the news is communicated globally in a matter of seconds. Television, both network and cable news stations, has breaking news segments where news is broadcasted live, or summed up early in the morning and late at night. Internet sites seem to have a constant feed of news, updating stories after a few hours, or within seconds of new developments. The speed and accuracy with which news is shared now is amazing, and no doubt a pro.

To be clear, there are extremists on both sides of the issue. There are the Henry David Thoreau's that say "Technology is evil! Let's all live at Walden Pond!" and the humans/robots that say "Technology has never been the root cause of any ill or harm. This message will now self-destruct." I am on neither side of the argument, but caught somewhere in the middle, where I hope most people are caught. Though technology has enabled some incredible feats, it has not always been rainbows and daisies.

War, Death, and Destruction - The deaths caused by the "Little Boy" in Hiroshima and the "Fat Man" in Nagasaki totaled nearly 180,000. The prevalence of fire arms in our society has driven homicide and crime rates, as well as gang activity, through the roof. Nuclear proliferation remains a threat. Tanks, grenades, rifles, and other war machines kill daily. People are often caught up in other things and don't realize that through technology, we are are mastering the art of murder and destruction.

Dumb and Dumber - The rise in the use of technology is taking away young people's ability to write a coherent sentence. When instant messaging my friends, I'm shocked at their horrible grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Technology is making everything faster, but somethings are worth a few extra seconds of time, such as writing out the word "you" as opposed to "u." This is translating over to academic papers, as well. Emails to professors should not include acronyms in replace of every other word, but I have seen it done. I've corrected papers full of grammatical mistakes, but not understandable typos as much as blatant misuse of internet lingo in place of a more scholarly approach. As a writer, I must say, what an unfortunate con.

Interpersonal Communication - No longer exists. Sure, once in a while a face-to-face interview is done, but people now rely on the internet to do their communicating for them. It has been a while since I have mailed a hand-written letter through the standard mail, but I know people who have never done that much. What a shock! Instead, there are short phone conversations, text messages, instant messages, emails, voicemails, and evites. People screen their calls, delete emails after reading them, and spend less than a minute sending a text message in order to talk to one another. The feeling of knowing someone took time out of their day to write a personal letter, thank you note, or invitation on paper with a pen or pencil in their own writing is nearly extinct. The feelings conveyed through this form of communication do not exist online, and smileys are a joke. Con.

Aside from these cons, there is a newly developed impatience in younger generations that certainly didn't exist decades ago. We want everything a.s.a.p., and sacrifice more than we know to get them done. On the other hand, there are also more positives, like the benefit of technology in increasing our lifespans and unearthing parts of our past (such as fossils and artifacts from past civilizations). Others argue that the use of technology is, in a way, cheating human evolution, since we are not allowing the human race to naturally evolve. Again, there is the argument that the development of technology is our form of evolution, and that we are evolving more than ever before, in part through the discoveries and enhanced skills acquired in using technology. Then there's the argument presented by many about invasion of privacy through the advancement of technology, the regression of the human state if technological advancements were to end, and the hypocrisy of being for the advancement of one type of technology and not another.

There are many arguments out there, and not enough time to post them all, but I hope this has ignited a sense of the issue confronting us. I think technology has definitely gotten out of hand; however, I'm scared of the repercussions our society would face if technological advancements were to vanish. So robot angel or robot demon spawn? Not quite one and not quite the other. But when the nation's Blackberries grow human emotions, all while maintaining their technological capacities, I sure hope I haven't jinxed us all.



The Top 50 Inventions of the Past 50 Years

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2078467.html?page=1

What technological advances can you expect to see in 2025?

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/14/tech.2025.idg/

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Los Angeles's Mayoral Sleezeball

I have it on good word that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is a sleezeball.

It's quite a shocking thing to hear, I realize, and it's difficult to prove, but let's face it: He's a sleezeball.

I first heard this when a family friend met Villaraigosa at an event at Cathedral High School, where my friend teaches and which Villaraigosa attended before being expelled for starting a fight (sleezeball clue #1). My friend said Villaraigosa worked the room, approaching each person with his winning smile and offering them a drink. Well, not each person exactly, but each woman with long hair and a tight dress (sleezeball clue #2). This came before his scandalous affair with Spanish news anchor Mirthala Salinas (sleezeball clue #3) and the subsequent separation from his wife in 2007 (sleezeball clue #4).

While these events certainly changed my opinion of the proud Latino Mayor who fought for immigrant rights, they are personal events upon which he should not be solely judged, after all, he is not the first politician to be involved in scandal. ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman!") Then I read an article criticizing just how much he's actually done for the city of Los Angeles, which turns out, hasn't been very much.

I was shocked, having read transcripts of his amazing speeches, his calls for action, and his commitment to the betterment of this city. He was raised in East L.A., and vowed to fight for the little person, the person who was here illegally, the union worker being stripped of his rights.

The first Latino mayor of Los Angeles since 1872, Villaraigosa appealed to Latinos across the state, and had extensive experience as a union man, appealing to California laborers. Early on his career, he worked for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and continued to work as a union organizer for the next fifteen years. He was also a part of UTLA, the United Teachers of Los Angeles, and was an active board member on the A.C.L.U. Hope for his work with union organizers was high.

He won mayoral office in 2005 on a campaign centered on radical changes for Los Angeles. His ardent speeches seem to give the entire city hope, and these radical ideas seemed a viable reality. Since then, none of his hopes for the city have panned out. A proposed "subway to the sea" which would link Wilshire to Santa Monica? Nothing. The initiative to plant one million trees in Los Angeles? Not even a fraction have been planted. Reducing pollution? Los Angeles still has one of the worst air qualities of any major city in the U.S. Alleviating traffic? Improving schools? Fighting crime? Hiring 1,000 more police officers? Nothing has been accomplished.

On the other hand, Villaraigosa did spend an entire day getting ready and posing for a wax statue of himself for Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum. The cost of this statue? At least $200,000. His long 16-18 hour work days are filled mostly with speeches and media interviews. Only 11% of his time is spent on direct L.A. city business, signing legislation, shaping governmental policies, etc., and the majority of that time is spent catering to special interest groups and ensuring his reelection.

Days after a highly publicized case of police brutality during a March rally for immigrant rights, (during which Villaraigosa was out of town), he strolled a city park shouting "We are one L.A.!" patting children's heads, and signing soccer jerseys.

At a 2007 press conference, Villaraigosa bitterly stated "We had sixteen cameras at the last event!" after noticing only five cameras in the room.

Any good politician knows how to work the media to their advantage, and creates an on-air or public persona for themselves. Villaraigosa has been working on this too much, focusing on the PR aspect of his job, and not nearly enough on his duties as mayor to create any real change for Los Angeles.

A large part of his appeal has indeed come from his being Latino, especially when it comes to his stance on immigration. After a major drop in his approval ratings stemming from pro-immigrant statements he made at a rally for immigrant rights, however, he said he has become fearful of being "too Latino."

What does this all mean? Mayor Sleezeball is on quest for self-aggrandizement and that has left little time for correcting the problems affecting his city.

Now it's clear the problems of the city are huge, and it is nearly impossible for one man to solve them all, but Villaraigosa is vocal and even theatrical about the hopes for the city, and if he made promises to fix certain problems, he must be held accountable. And it's not the fact that he hasn't accomplished all of his goals to perfection, but seemingly nothing has been done. Villaraigosa has told reporters that he conducts most of his business privately, and so holds no policy meetings, and his private calendar (published online) shows few activities associated with mayoral duties.

On the eve of Villaraigosa's likely reelection, I am concerned by his inaction to follow through on the promises he made.

I remember city workers came to my house not so long ago and took measurements of the patch of grass in front of my house. We were told a tree would be planted there under Villaraigosa's One Million Tree Initiative. Gang violence is still prevelant. L.A. city streets remain filthy. There is little cooperation between the Mayor's office and teachers' unions. Traffic is horrible. There has been no improvement in schools since Villaraigosa took office. There is still no tree in front of my house.

Mayor Sleezeball, it's time to get something done.




Antonio Villaraigosa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Villaraigosa

Los Angeles Times Op-Ed piece

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten14-2009feb14,0,4127774.column

Mayor Villaraigosa's Schedule

http://blogs.laweekly.com/media/Mayors_Schedule.pdf

The All-About-Me Mayor: Antonio Villaraigosa's Frenetic Self-Promotion

http://www.laweekly.com/2008-09-11/news/the-all-about-me-mayor/7

Villaraigosa: The All About Me Mayor Is Still 11 Percent There

http://www.laweekly.com/2009-01-01/news/villaraigosa-the-all-about-me-mayor-is-still-11-percent-there

The New Yorker: Fault Lines (Profile)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/21/070521fa_fact_bruck?currentPage=1