Skip to main content

Haves and have-nots

In A Tale of Two Moralities (13 Jan 2011, NY Times) Paul Krugman describes a fundamental divide among Americans about "what constitutes justice." In a couple of sound bytes, Krugman categorizes Americans into two groups: those who believe it's right

for the affluent to help the less fortunate

and those who believe

people have a right to keep what they earn.

Needless to say, not everyone will agree with Krugman's ontology. Some of the 763 comments to his op-ed point out that people can help others without the government playing the role of broker or enforcer; or that the federal government can step back and let state governments do the brokering. And, yes, both of those are possible in some bravely imagined universe. But stretch that brave imagination a little further.

Those who believe it's right for those who have more to support those who have less consider such support a moral imperative -- something we're all obligated to do, not something people can do if and when they feel like it.

Those who believe they have a moral right to direct how much of their wealth gets shared with those who have less, and which of those who have less, and under what idiosyncratic conditions, do not believe that moral imperative applies. In diametric opposition, they insist on a moral right to disburse their wealth as they see fit, if they see fit.

Individual rights. Social obligations. The tension is not a new one. (Which leads one to wonder whether the advocates for each of these have changed political 'brands' since Isaiah Berlin's time. I'm not sure John Boehner would take kindly to be lumped in with the liberals, but he and his buddies do love to call the Prez a Marxist. Puzzling.)

Krugman wrote:

In future columns I will no doubt spend a lot of time pointing out the hypocrisy and logical fallacies of the "I earned it and I have the right to keep it" crowd. And I’ll also have a lot to say about how far we really are from being a society of equal opportunity, in which success depends solely on one’s own efforts.

I'll look forward to that (and will circle back to the next of Krugman's NYT op-eds in a few paragraphs).

For a moment, though, let's set aside moral rights and imperatives. Let's consider dollars and cents.

Investment in health care reduces health care costs

Atul Gawande is a surgeon, a professor of health policy management at Harvard, a 2006 recipient of the MacArthur Award (a.k.a. the "genius grant"), and a staff writer for The New Yorker. His latest article in today's issue of that magazine is The Hot Spotters (24 Jan 2011). The article describes provision of extra care dispensed to a fraction of the very small percentage of people (1%) whose medical care costs a lion's share (30%) of what Camden, New Jersey spends delivering medical services .

These super-consumers of health care resources turn out to be some of the poorest, least organized, most drug-addled people in Camden's population. They're often not the sort that your average taxpayer, worried about how much of an uncertain paycheck the government is going to appropriate, would naturally bump to the front of the Let's Help This Person line. Often they look like they can't be helped. Some aren't willing to be helped. In some healthier people's view, individual agency -- real or imagined -- in the degree to which a complex illness has devolved actually disqualifies a human being from 'eligibility' for social assistance. Go figure.

And yet, through the efforts of a doctor named Jeffrey Brenner, engaging activist providers -- and social workers or "health coaches" to aggressively manage care and give follow-up support such as encouraging patients to take prescribed medicines, keep doctor appointments, cook nutritious meals, and so forth -- dramatically reduced the cost to the government of the net services used by those receiving the "resources and brainpower," as Gawande puts it, directed their way.

The raw reduction in costs? In Camden, 56% in bills for hospitalization. True, the net savings will be lower after taking account of a complex basket of medical costs and what-if outcomes in addition to reduction in hospital bills. But Gawande characterizes the health savings in Camden as "revolutionary" (uh-oh, does that make him a Marxist too?). Other examples described in his article (some summarized below) suggest these savings are not a fluke.

And if the government saves money, that means taxpayers do too. We are, after all, funding the operation.

In fact, identifying patients whose medical expenses are bloated not because of their conditions per se, but because their conditions aren't well-managed is big business for a company outside Boston. The company is called Verisk, and it analyzes data about delivered care to help employers reduce their health benefit spending. According to Gawande's article, a medical doctor named Nathan Gunn, Verisk's head of research:

uses his company's medical intelligence software program to zero in on [...] patient[s] who are sick and getting in adequate care. "That's really the sweet spot for preventative care, Gunn said."

Systemically speaking:

The critical flaw in our health care system [...] is that it was never designed for the patients who incur the highest costs.

Is there hope that our behemoth system can be redesigned? Maybe.

A program you might have heard of -- Medicare, in which the federal government acts as a single-payer insurer for 80% of medical expenses for people over 65 years old -- is running programs to incent the kind of care management practiced by Dr. Brenner in Camden and encouraged by Dr. Gunn of Verisk. It's working at Massachussets General, to the tune of a 15% reduction in emergency room visits, and the program is just coming into its stride.

A radically-redesigned practice in Atlantic City, New Jersey that adds social work and "health coaches" to the medical care mix reduced emergency room visits and hospitalizations by 40%. In a small preliminary study comparing this practice's patients with a group managed more traditionally, a 25% reduction in overall costs was realized.

The common denominator here? Investment in additional care, targeting prevention and health maintenance to reduce need for emergency intervention. Note the first word of that last sentence: investment.

(To read The New Yorker's article in full requires a subscription, or a trip to your local bookstore or public library; but Gawande's interview of 19 Jan on the radio program Fresh Air can be heard on-line. Visit Lowering Medical Costs By Providing Better Care for the article and podcast. The good doctor is as articulate and engaging when he speaks as he is in print.)

Lies about federal health care reform

Back to Krugman, who did not win a genius grant ... but was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008.

In his NY Times piece of 16 Jan 2011, The War on Logic, Krugman enumerates a slew of lies and misdirection that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his party are employing to build an illusion that their interest in rolling back health care reform enacted in March of last year has to do with deficit reduction. I won't repeat the facts he cites; read Krugman in his own words, The War on Logic is short and clearly focused.

As Krugman summarizes his argument:

The key to understanding the G.O.P. analysis of health reform is that the party’s leaders are not, in fact, opposed to reform because they believe it will increase the deficit. [...] They’re against reform because it would cover the uninsured -- and that’s something they just don’t want to do.

Maybe so. While that seems pretty illogical to me, the 'reasons' Boehner and company advocate for scuttling health care reform are pretty illogical too. So maybe we've got a syllogism here? That's the power of ideological opposition to health care reform.

Go back a few paragraphs. To the part of this post explaining how recent studies demonstrate that by providing health care, health management, and social support to the least fortunate among us, society as a whole can reduce health care costs.

Is that an idea worth pursuing? I sure think so.

Is that where President Obama's health care reform is headed? Well, actually, yes.

What does the Party of No propose as an alternative to reducing costs? Are we to barricade public hospitals to people who don't have health insurance, like Camden's 1%?

That would be cheaper even than the rational sorts of health care described by Gawande in The New Yorker and on NPR. If such people -- it's human beings we're talking about -- were left to die in the gutters, society could save a fortune in medical care costs.

Maybe that's what Rep. Boehner has in mind when he spews tricksy lies about health care reform and deficit reduction? A sort of right-wing homecoming to Social Darwinism, where if you can't disprove evolution you employ it to wipe out poor people?

Me, I'll take post-ideological health care any day of the week. Starting last week.

This diary is cross-posted from the author's blog, One Finger Typing

Originally posted to Steve Masover on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 09:06 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There Isn't Any Doubt Which Approach is Best (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej, tardis10, oldcrow

    for a nation state or for its people, individual choice or government enforcing increasing obligation on increasing wealth.

    The right as you say, and essentially the entire global economy which includes under our system the mainstream public square, are dead set against that approach.

    There isn't any logic to it. It's a fundamentalist religion to them and they make no exceptions for damage to the nation, the people or the planet.

    Even Krugman's undershooting the situation in his assessment.

    The Republicans are against government involvement in health not even because it would cover uninsured people. They're against it because it would exist.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 09:15:48 AM PST

  •  interesting reasoning (0+ / 0-)

    Those who believe it's right for those who have more to support those who have less consider such support a moral imperative -- something we're all obligated to do, not something people can do if and when they feel like it.

    So the plan is to force your morality on others.

    This is of course the same reasoning applied in the abortion debate. A pro-choice person can say he is personally opposed, but won't force his beliefs on others.

    A pro-life person would say that once  life is created that there is a moral imperitive to bring the fetus to term.

    •  it also occurs to me (0+ / 0-)

      that the same moral imperative applies to support for people beyond our borders. Many people in third world nations have far less than we do.

    •  same reasoning applied in the murder "debate" (0+ / 0-)

      All law -- all social order, for that matter -- is constraint on absolute freedom. If I refuse to help a person who is sick or dying because I believe they should help themselves, that's imposition of "morality" too. If I leave a burning theater without shouting 'fire' because I think that if others can't figure it out themselves the penalty is theirs to pay ... well, that's imposition of "morality" too.

      What was it Janice Joplin sang???

      •  gosh no (0+ / 0-)

        imposing your morality means taking away someone else's options. Telling them 'You Must Do X'

        The sick person can seek help elsewhere. Requiring me to help limits my options. I may choose to help or not depending on circumstances.

        The people in the theater can still choose to leave and shout fire.

        •  e.g., you may not murder (0+ / 0-)

          Limits your options, right? But perhaps in a way almost all of us can agree is a good idea.

          •  Sure does (0+ / 0-)

            which is why i find it amusing when people are against imposing morality via law.

            But you point to a distinction. It is more reasonable for 99% to impose morality on 1% than for  55% to impose it on 45%. Both for the number of people affected and by the consensus achieved by society.

            Thus i have no problem with communities banning prostitution and drugs and cruelty to animals.

            Likewise it is generally less of in imposition to say your cannot do Y (leaving many other options available) than to say you must do X (closing off all other options).

  •  Even if opportunity were equal, (0+ / 0-)

    the opportunity we have now comes from progress in society.

    Gates wouldn't have had a chance if the computer hadn't existed.

    So saying that one's earnings are something one idd for oneself is ahistorical.

    Corporations are people; money is speech.
    1984 - George Orwell

    by Frank Palmer on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 09:50:01 AM PST

  •  I would view this article more favorably, (0+ / 0-)

    if Dr. Gawande had mentioned which chronic illnesses were treated more effectively. What was the average age group, and were there any mental health issues involved? And of those 1000 patients, which ones benefitted the most?

    Another question, are the medical cost for the 1 percent 30% a year or an overall 30% for the city of Camden?

    I'm a woman of color, who grew up in the north (Detroit, Michigan)

    by Boris Badenov on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 11:09:08 AM PST

    •  off the top of my head... (0+ / 0-)

      ... and doing a bit of skimming ... Gawande mentions asthma, alcoholism, diabetes, congestive heart failure, hyperthyroidism, obesity, blood pressure, migraines, gout ... and I'm sure my list is not complete.

      Neither is the financial analysis. Gawande is reporting some early -- and he thinks promising -- initial evidence in small populations.

      Quoting the article: "[...] calculations revealed that just one persent of the hundred thousand people who make use of Camden's medical facilities accounted for thirty percent of its costs."

  •  Good. (0+ / 0-)

    The more I look at things like health care and social security the more I think that our "problems" are self created and self perpetuating.
    We know that the problem with health care is heavily (I would say exclusively, if you include indirect causation) caused by insurance companies. Yet the best we can say about Obamacare is that it tries to limit the damage while increasing the infuance of the problem.
    The problem with social security (and it does exist) is that unemployment and low wages lower tax revenues. (peronally, I think that the regressivity of social security taxation is counterproductive, but before we address that swamp we have to do something about all the damn alligators)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site