Download the Politics Daily Toolbar
Our new toolbar integrates the latest news and analysis into your Web browser and installs in seconds. Download it now!

Politics DailyPolitics Daily

  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • COLUMNISTS
  • TOPICS
  • THE CAPITOLIST
  • WOMAN UP
  • DAILY FLOTUS
  • JUST IN
  • THE CRAM
  • CONTACT
  • Inside Politics Daily

    Why We Need a Public Health Care Option

    Posted:
    07/28/09
    Filed Under:Health Care, Woman Up
    As I write, the future of the so-called public option for health care coverage hangs in the balance. The bipartisan health plan reportedly favored by the Senate Finance Committee lacks a government insurance option. Meanwhile, House Democratic leaders drew upon a new congressional report yesterday to rebut Republican claims that a public health insurance plan would drive private insurers out of business.

    Where we're headed is anyone's guess. All we know for sure is that -- according to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- we're on track to vote on the bill "now . . . or whenever."
    Get the new
    PD toolbar!
    So as long as we're waiting around for "whenever," I thought I'd drop in -- once again -- from the land of socialized medicine (aka the U.K.) -- to shed light on what, exactly, a public health plan could do for many Americans. (And yes, Blue Dog Democrats, that means you too.)

    But to do that, I must tell you a little bit about my husband's eyesight. Bear with me.

    My husband has poor vision. Very poor. He's a minus-9 in both eyes. If you've ever worn glasses, you'll know just how bad that is. He basically can't see something right in front of his face unless he's wearing glasses or contacts.

    But over the past year, things have gotten much worse. He's endured a series of painful complications to his eyes that have landed him in the emergency room on more than one occasion. The culprit appears to be a combination of something called blephoritis -- an ocular disease characterized by inflammation of the eyelid -- together with unusually dry eyes due to poorly functioning tear ducts.

    We've tried everything to cure this situation: ointments, drops, gels, hot compresses, lid wipes, even flaxseed oil. He's currently taking an antibiotic that's so powerful he doubles over in pain when he puts the drops in. He's also switched to daily-wear contact lenses. But at the end of the day, his eyes are so dry he can't stand to wear contacts for more than one or two hours at a clip.

    And even though this is Britain -- where prescriptions are relatively cheap, compared to the United States -- we've racked up an awful lot of medical expenditures over the last 12 months. The contact lenses alone were costing us 115 pounds for a three-month supply (approximately $190) plus regular visits to the (private) optician at about $50 a pop. You do the math.

    Enter the National Health Service (NHS). As of last Friday, my husband was placed on the "NHS Contact Lens List." His poor eyesight, coupled with these chronic eye-dryness problems, means that from now on -- and for the price of 94 pounds per year (less than $150) -- he will receive unlimited contact lenses plus all follow-up appointments.

    Let me repeat that: Unlimited.

    It's not just in eye care where you receive this kind of benefit. My son has asthma. Five months out of the year, we bombard him with inhalers, nasal sprays and antihistamines on a daily basis to avoid taking him to the hospital for a breathing treatment. In the U.K., and because he's a child, these medications cost us exactly nothing.

    Why should you care about my husband's eyesight or my son's asthma?

    Because one of the major arguments for having a public option is precisely to manage the needs of people with chronic (read: pre-existing) conditions, who are oftentimes excluded from care by private insurance companies. As recently as 2005, almost half of all Americans lived with chronic conditions and chronic diseases, accounting for some 70 percent of deaths in the United States. Given the myriad opportunities for discrimination on the basis of health status, a public plan provides -- as one scholar put it recently -- a valuable backstop for millions of Americans living with disabilities or chronic conditions.

    I'm not saying a public option would solve all of our problems. But for those of us who either lack private insurance or would be excluded from it on the basis of a chronic condition, it's worth giving the public option a second thought.

    So take your time, folks, and by all means, think this over carefully. But I know that as I sit here in London over the next few weeks watching Congress sort out this issue, I'll be thinking: Thank you, NHS.


    Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
    and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!

    Delia Lloyd

    Delia Lloyd is a writer based in London. Her work has appeared in The International Herald Tribune, The Guardian Weekly and on the BBC World Service... more

    Contact Delia Lloyd

    subscribe to: RSS email: Delia Lloyd

    Add your comments

    Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

    When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

    To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.

    Avoid hate speech, foul language or a disrespectful tone in your comments. Unwanted comments will be deleted at the discretion of the moderator.

    • Happening Right Now

       
    Woman Up on Facebook

    Other News