by Robert Graef

What is the biggest controllable issue that could add jobs at Boeing, Intermec, John Fluke, Goodyear Aerospace and other Snohomish County employers? Answer: The way health care is funded and delivered.

Jobs are plentiful where employers can compete in the global marketplace but that’s not the situation here. The inflated cost of medical insurance makes it nearly impossible for them to break even against foreign manufacturers. Businesses close. Jobs are lost. Competing under today’s burden of employer-funded medical insurance is like sending runners to the Olympics with ten pounds of lead in their shorts.

Employers in Marysville that might otherwise withstand the recession are collapsing under the same burden that helped scuttle our automotive industry. General Motors’ accountants pointed out that health care costs had become greater than the cost of steel. But providing health care isn’t an issue for Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, Saab and Fiat. National health insurance programs pick up the tab allowing foreign auto-makers to live on while ours collapse. For the same reason, Airbus has surged ahead of Boeing.

The personal side of the public health coverage argument is more compelling. A Business Week survey pegged the number of bankruptcies linked to health crises at 62 percent. If you become too sick to work, you often lose both your job and home. Once insurance benefits are exhausted, no other insurer will take you on because of your medical history Then what? You’re on welfare and take your ailments and injuries to Providence Hospital’s emergency room for expensive publicly-funded treatment.

Voters who have trouble swallowing the tax-bite needed to fund a national health care system won’t believe that the personal cost of national medical coverage could acually be cheaper than today’s HMO coverage. Conservatives balk because they see government’s involvement in health care as a step toward Socialism. Government shouldn’t be running health care, they say. Show us a business government has run right! How about Medicare?

My HMO isn’t concerned about my family’s welfare. Its mission is to generate profits that can’t be maximized when paying out benefits willy-nilly. United Health Care’s CEO pulled down $1.8 billion last year at the same time his company was cutting benefits to teachers’ group insurance. That $1.8 billion came rejecting payment for treatment. I dumped one HMO because of its annoying policy of approving claims only after I challenged its routine denials.

The HMO debacle peaked in California where one-third of every health care dollar is eaten up by administrative costs. California’s HMOs say it’s only 20 percent but they don’t include the costs of lobbyists, sales forces and ad-campaigns dedicated to undermining a public health option.

After sending requests for meetings with them, I traveled to the capitol to try to argue for national health coverage. Senator Patty Murray and Congressman Rick Larsen granted me time. A request for a meeting with Senator Cantwell failed to generate a response.

Senator Murray and Representative Larsen courteously heard me out and gave assurance that they agreed with my argument for a single-payer plan. At the same time they said they supported the President’s public option plan which isn’t quite the same thing. We’ll see how it shakes out.

If you choose to take your opinions to D.C, beware because the city can be a rip-off. Needless to say, our capitol is geared to high-rollers. Big Money hangs out there. Big Money controls much of what happens there. Since a basic room in a Howard Johnson can run about $250, we booked a “modest” motel in Alexandria. We could have booked in closer to the Capitol for $15 per night more but the charge for parking would have been $41 per night. By the way, the same P.T. Cruiser that rents for $88.00 per day in D.C. rents for only $42.99 in Columbus, Ohio. Same car, same agency.

Input on health care reform from the medical community can be confusing. The American Medical Association (AMA) waffles, being somewhat in league with for-profit health-care corporations and fearing decreased fees for specialists. At the same time, the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) leans heavily in favor of universal medical coverage. A difference between AMA and AAFP is that AMA represents a minority of M.D.s while AAFP speaks for higher percentage of family practitioners.

In a survey reported by the third most prestigious medical journal, The Annals of Internal Medicine, 52 percent of M.D.s now support national health insurance, 32 percent registered as opposed and 9 percent were neutral. Another survey put the number of pro-national health care doctors at 61 percent. If a majority of our doctors want national health care, can it be as bad as critics claim?

A new group, Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) sprang up to give voice to supporters of national health care and debunk the blizzard of misinformation being generated by the for-profit medical lobby. Anyone seeking understanding will find a welcome abundance of fact on their website, PNHP.org, where the myths and mysteries surrounding health care systems are laid bare. Some of the questions PNHP addresses are:

Is national health care socialized medicine?

Won’t this result in rationing, like in Canada?

Who will run the health care system?

How will we keep costs down if everyone has access to comprehensive health care?

What will be covered?

If you’re at all unsure about the national health care issue, ask your doctor which way he or she would vote.

Comments may be addressed to: rgraef@verizon.net.