That Nevada is having its first ever political caucus four days following Martin Luther Kings, Jr.’s birthday has significance. It is also significant that elections around the world have been horrifically blemished with violence, death, assassination, and fear. For what it looks like here, this caucus is the first hands-on opportunity for individuals to feel Democracy in the moment. We get to go somewhere, stand somewhere, raise our hands and be counted. And, no one here is afraid to show up. At the same time, the focus of this election continues to be a toss up between health care and the war in Iraq.

Nevadans for Healthcare has been relentless in putting out comparisons between all candidates of both parties regarding how to solve the health care crisis. It seems that the focus remains pointed to economic solution for what may appear to some to be an economic problem. Leland Kaiser, healthcare futurist, in 1989, said looking to managed-care to solve the health care crisis (as it was then) was like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That is true to the issue of using the insurance based model we have now. It is also true if the problem is assumed to be money when it is one of values.

Making small changes, however, could optimize the massive investment now made in the US in health care. Single, standardized forms, a single clearing house for insurance payments, and a limit on the profits allowed to Insurance companies would help but are highly unlikely to occur. All of these would still not solve the basic flawed values that have made health care a profit-making, market driven industry rather than one based on service, skill, and the human right to be cared for when ill.

I am interested in how you would solve this problem. It seems to me that denying anyone health care, needed hospitalization, basic health services, and needed medications for lack of insurance is far worse that giving care to everyone, having equal access, and having the public invest in the health of its members rather than shareholders. Further, I am confused about the perceived difference between public health and public health access.

Market-based systems are biased towards those who have the means to enter and meet the market price. Whether this is better than standing in a need-based cue for care, or having the option of public vs private care…one would have to tell me why denial of access is better.

To the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr, I would suggest that the fact the the poor face more difficult and health-challenged lives would have been his next cause as the next civil right: the universal and equal rights to healthcare.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 21st, 2008 at 5:02 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.