Scare mail on health care and my response

We all get those emails: huge fonts, bright red type, and breathless, sometimes vile language. But this one came from someone I like and respect, and with whom I agree on probably 90% of important questions. Even worse, he had copied it to more than twenty people we work with that I like and care for. Silence was not an option. For the vile original and my response, see over - you may be getting one just like it soon, to judge by the various viral garbage we've seen in this campaign.

Here's what was crucial -

I sent this to: the person who had sent it to me, and to the 20+ he had carboned.  cc: to the five or six who had forwarded it. bcc: to all other recipients.

My response was prompt, courteous, factual and did not try to address the various vile characterizations of the Democratics. My hope (there's that word, again) is that some recipients will read either the summary or view the video. All of them will see that there is a response, one that embraces them and takes their opinion seriously, and that doesn't resort to fear to take action. Doing this takes a little time, but not much.

There are much deeper issues, touched on below.

Fw: Fwd: Brain Surgery- a must watch before we vote!!!

[in bold red] Waning, contains graphic images.  Do not watch while you are eating. Not  for young viewers. The good news, if one of candidates is elected; I won't have to go to the doctor anymore.   None of us can. Well, we can but, it'll be like the return desk at Walmart after Christmas take a number! Please send this to your friends  who are Democrats.  

[dozens of addresses]

 
This is what Hilary the Hun was proposing the last time around, in 1993.  If you all recall, and some may not, the way she had it proposed was that even if you went for a second opinion, the doctor, and the patient could go to jail, yes I said jail, or face up to a $10,000 fine.  That is the reason the AMA fought at that time.  Something to think about!!!!!

This is not a conservative, and or liberal issue, its a quality of life issue, anywhere they tried socialized medicine it failed.  Look at England, they have a two tier system, the people that can afford it run to the US for their care, WHY??????? True also in France, Italy, Sweden, and so on!

[bold red]
THIS IS WHAT KIND OF 'HEALTH CARE SYSTEM' THAT BARACK OBAMA
& HILLIARY CLINTON WANTS FOR THE USA!
IF THERE'S ANY REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR THESE TWO LIBERAL WACKO'S
THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE BEST ONE!!
THIS VIDEO IS ALMOST TOO HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT IT'S SCARY TO THINK
THAT'S REALITY IN CANADA.  NOT FOR THE USA, EVER, I HOPE.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS ONE TO ALL FAMILY, FRIENDS, ETC.....................!

http://www.freemarketcure.com/...

[this video tells the story of a man who went outside the Ontario system to get an MRI and brain surgery because he didn't want the four month wait inside the system. It is produced and disseminated by (watch for it) a firm that helps people bypass the public insurance system.]

Here's my response:

The original video showed a case of delayed health care in Ontario. PBS recently discussed five public health care systems around the world, most of which provide prompt health care with universal coverage (sometimes through private insurers, sometimes through single payer). If you want broader information to make this important choice, I highly recommend visiting the PBS website at:

http://www.iptv.org/...

which includes video and informational links. Most developed countries provide health care at less cost than the US to all their citizens; we don't need to re-invent the wheel to do it too, and we have a variety of choices about how to do it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

FRONTLINE presents
SICK AROUND THE WORLD
Tuesday, April 15, 2008, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS

FRONTLINE TRAVELS TO FIVE COUNTRIES IN SEARCH OF A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THAT COULD WORK IN THE U.S.

FRONTLINE teams up with T.R. Reid, a veteran foreign correspondent for The Washington Post, to find out how five other capitalist democracies--United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland--deliver health care and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures. In Sick Around the World, airing Tuesday, April 15, 2008, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings), Reid turns up remarkable differences in how these countries handle health care--from Japan, where a night in a hospital can cost as little as $10, to Switzerland, where the president of the country tells Reid it would be a "huge scandal" if someone were to go bankrupt from medical bills.

Reid's first stop is the U.K.--a system very different from ours, where the government-run National Health Service is funded through taxes. According to Whittington Hospital CEO David Sloman, "Every single person who's born in the U.K. will use the NHS ... and none of them will be presented a bill at any point during that time." Reid is surprised to find the system often dismissed as "socialized medicine." The U.K. is now trying free-market tactics like "pay-for-performance," where some doctors are paid more if they get good results controlling chronic diseases like diabetes, and patient choice, in which hospitals compete head to head. While such initiatives have helped reduce waiting times for elective surgeries, the London Times' medical correspondent Nigel Hawkes tells Reid the NHS hasn't made enough progress. "We're now in a world in which people are much more demanding, and I think that the NHS is not very effective at delivering in that modern, market-orientated world."

Reid reports next from Japan, the world's second largest economy and the country boasting the best health statistics. The Japanese go to the doctor three times as often as Americans, have more than twice as many MRIs, use more drugs, and spend more days in the hospital, yet Japan spends about half as much per capita as the United States. Reid finds out the secrets of the nation's success: By law, everyone must buy health insurance--either through an employer or a community plan--and unlike in the U.S., insurers cannot turn down a patient for a pre-existing illness, nor are they allowed to make a profit.

Reid's journey then takes him to Germany, the country that invented the concept of a national health care system. For it's 80 million people, Germany offers universal health care, including medical, dental, mental health, homeopathy and spa treatment. Professor Karl Lauterbach, M.D., a member of the German parliament, describes it as "a system where the rich pay for the poor and where the ill are covered by the healthy. It is ... highly accepted by the population." As they do in Japan, medical providers must charge standard prices which are negotiated with the government every year. As a consequence, physicians in Germany earn between half and two-thirds as much as their U.S. counterparts.

Taiwan researched many health care systems before settling on one where the government runs the financing, but Reid finds the delivery of health care is left to the market. Taiwanese health care offers medical, dental, mental and Chinese medicine, with no waiting time and for less that half of what we pay in the United States. Every person in Taiwan has a "smart card" containing all of his or her relevant health information, and bills are paid automatically. But what Reid finds is that the Taiwanese spend too little to sustain their health care system. According to Princeton's Tsung-Mei Cheng, who advised the Taiwanese government, "As we speak, the government is borrowing from banks to pay what there isn't enough to pay the providers."

Reid's final destination is Switzerland, a country whose health care system suffered from some America's problems until, in 1994, the country attempted a major reform. Despite a huge private insurance business, a law called LAMal was passed, which set up a universal health care system that, among other things, restricted insurance companies from making a profit on basic medical care. Today, Swiss politicians from the political right and left enthusiastically support universal health care. Pascal Couchepin, the president of the Swiss Federation, argues: "Everybody has a right to health care. ... It is a profound need for people to be sure that if they are struck by destiny ... they can have a good health system."

Sick Around the World is a FRONTLINE co-production with Palfreman Film Group. The film's correspondent is T.R. Reid. The writers are Jon Palfreman and T.R. Reid. The producer and director is Jon Palfreman. FRONTLINE is produced by WGBH Boston and is broadcast nationwide on PBS. Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers. Major funding for FRONTLINE is provided by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Additional series funding is provided by the Park Foundation. Additional funding for Sick Around the World is provided by The Colorado Health Foundation, The Commonwealth Fund and The Colorado Trust. FRONTLINE is closed-captioned for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers and described for people who are blind or visually impaired by the Media Access Group at WGBH. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. The senior producer is Raney Aronson. The executive producer of FRONTLINE is David Fanning.

Now comes the crucial step!

I sent this to: the person who had sent it to me, and to the twenty or so that he had carboned.

I sent this cc: to the five or six who had forwarded it in the chain getting to him.

I sent it bcc: to all the addresses that had ever gotten the original scare mail.

My response was prompt, courteous, factual and did not even attempt to address the various vile characterizations of the Democratic candidates. My hope (there's that word, again) is that some of the recipients will read either the summary I sent or view the video. In any case all of them will see that there is a response, it is one that embraces them and takes their opinion seriously, and that doesn't resort to fear to take action. Doing this takes a little time, but not much.

There are much deeper issuses, ones not appropriate for a rapid response to strangers. Why is it such an outrage that a man might not be reimbursed for spending his own money, but no such outrage that a child might die for the same cause because its parents have no money and no house to mortgage? Is this really about the power of money? Is money an extension of ourselves, so that not being allowed to spend it is a limit on our very selves?

Money is not real. It is a social contract. It gets all its value from what we as a community say it means. Why can't we as a community say that no one is without value, no one's life is worthless, every single citizen deserves to live?