Health Reform?

Why is it ok to have mandatory auto insurance and mandatory flood insurance but those who are against health care reform think it's not ok to require mandatory health insurance to ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care? And why is it that those who are against universal health care are the one's who already have health insurance? KB

Should Junk Food Be Sin-Taxed?

Let me take this opportunity to discuss the proposed surtax on soft drinks to help pay the costs of universal health care. First off, I'm for it, and here's why:

If we go to a universal health care plan, that would mean that we are all in the same insurance pool: we all put money in, and the sick and infirm take money out as needed to provide for their health care. That means that those of us who do preventative care, live a healthy lifestyle and cultivate our health are subsidizing the health care expenses of those who do not take care of their health. Obesity is at epidemic proportions in this country, and has been for some years. The costs of obesity in terms of disease has proportionally been on the rise, namely diabetes is now epidemic also. Other obesity related conditions include hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. These diseases lead to increased incidents of strokes, heart attacks and in the case of diabetes, kidney failure (requiring dialysis and transplants), blindness, peripheral neuropathy due to poor circulation, leading to amputations and so on. Obviously the dollar costs of these procedures as well as on going pharmaceutical use to treat these conditions is high: 150-200 billion $/annually in the US. (Smoking, for comparison, costs 120-150 billion annually). In a universal system that gets averaged out to all who pay in, meaning the healthy subsidize these costs as the rates rise for everyone in the system in order to pay out for those requiring the care.

Obesity is caused by poor diet. The cheap junk foods are the cause of the obesity epidemic. The government subsidizes wheat, corn, soy and tobacco. All of these contribute to poor health, and the heavily subsidized foods are used to make junk food cheap. Corn is used to make corn syrup, the cheap sugar substitute heavily utilized in junk food. Junk food is mainly purchased because it is cheap, so price directly correlates to its use. When price increases, usage decreases. As junk food is a direct cause of obesity and it's related diseases (diabetes, hypertension, hypercholestemia), decreasing the use of junk food will have a direct effect of reducing these diseases and the costs to society (under a universal health care system) for treating them. And because folks choose to eat these offending foods largely because they are cheap, one of the most direct results one can have in affecting behavior that causes obesity is too raise the price of the foods that cause it: junk foods. (Which by the way isn't really food: contrary to popular belief soda, red wine, chocolate and potato chips are not the 4 food groups, and corn chips do not count as a serving of vegetables).

Therefore I feel not only that the cost of soft drinks ought to be taxed, but all junk foods: fast food, donuts, pizza, Twinkies, chips, candy and so on, with the proceeds going to pay for the universal health care/insurance, to offset the costs of additional health care that the consumption of those offending foods cause are incurred by society.

It seems to me that in a society that sin taxes smoking and drinking (cigarettes and alcohol) obesity should be similarly sin-taxed by taxing junk foods.

In addition, I advocate for tax breaks to companies and individuals rewarding preventative care, such as gym memberships, healthy foods at cafeterias and menus, weight loss, smoking cessation, acupuncture, chiropractic and nutritional counseling, stress management, meditation, yoga, tai qi and qi gong classes. Tax breaks should be given when healthy foods are displayed prominently at eye level in stores and cafeterias, with junk foods and sodas/alcohol placed at the bottom/floor level of display cases, or high on shelves where children are present. Rather than subsidizing foods that cause disease, thereby increasing costs to the health care system that we all must incur, namely tobacco, soy, corn and wheat (these subsidized foods become the cheap, raw material of junk foods), the government should instead be subsidizing produce and organically grown foods (which have higher nutritional content and incur less cost to the environment). Remembering that fresh produce is often unavailable or entirely unaffordable in impoverished neighborhoods. As the NY Times reports in the article pasted below, the cost of produce has risen 40% in the past 3 decades, while the price of soda (made with government subsidized corn syrup) has fallen 33% during that same time period. Combined with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle and increased use of restaurants and fast food = a fool proof recipe for our obesity epidemic.

The following article from today's Sunday magazine section of the NY Times: Fat Tax by David Leonhardt lays out a well reasoned argument for surtaxing soft drinks. He postulates such a tax to lower the epidemic obesity and related diseases, such as diabetes, facing our country. These diseases are expensive to treat, increasing costs for everyone thru medicare, medicaid and raising private insurance premiums as the aggregate health care costs increase. Leonhardt argues that sodas (and i would say all junk food) have similar public health costs by causing obesity as cigarettes in causing lung cancer. KB

On the Hidden/Real Costs of Healthcare/Insurance: NY Times Article

I avoid getting political in matters relating to my practice, which would include on this blog. In the case of universal health care, the political relates to my practice, and I find myself no longer able to restrain my urge to speak out.

I suppose first off I should straight out say that I am emphatically for universal health care because it is the humane and compassionate thing to do. With the advances in western medical technology causing health care costs to rise astronomically, I can not see any reason why the so called 'most advanced nation on earth' does not provide health care/insurance for all members of it's society. The notion of not providing health care to all, and rather only providing it to the 'haves', is medieval, IMO.

On the day that Obama will address the nation regarding providing universal health care for all, the New York Times has published an article regarding the hidden costs of health care, which it reports has risen annually to $7,500/person, $15,000/household. Up 5x the cost, from about $1,500/person, in 1960. KB

Obama on Acupuncture

Here's the reply from Obama to a question by an acupuncturist inquiring about whether alternative medicine is on the table to be included in the new health care plan:

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7209:remarks-by-president-obama-in-arnold-missouri-town-hall-april-29-2009&catid=88888983:latest-national-news&Itemid=88889930

Q I'm a licensed acupuncturist and licensed massage therapist in Florissant. And so --

THE PRESIDENT: I could use one right now. (Laughter.) My back is stiff. I've been working hard.

Q I'll be happy to help you. (Laughter.) And this kind of fits into what you were just talking about as far as health care. I'm wondering, as a practitioner of Oriental medicine, knowing that the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization has discovered through their studies that alternative medicine often is more cost-effective and very effective, how will alternative medicine fit in your new health care program?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, my attitude is that we should -- we should do what works. So I think it is pretty well documented through scientific studies that acupuncture, for example, can be very helpful in relieving certain things like migraines and other ailments -- or at least as effective as more intrusive interventions.

I will let the science guide me. We just swore in an outstanding new Secretary of Health and Human Service, Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of Kansas. (Applause.) It's good to see that a Jay Hawk got applause on this side of the border here. (Laughter.) But she's going to do an outstanding job. And my charge to her is, as we're going through health care reform let's find out what works.

I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. So giving children early checkups, making sure that they get immunized, making sure that they are diagnosed if they've got eyesight problems, making sure that they're taught proper nutrition to avoid a life of obesity -- those are all issues that we have some control over. And if we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long-term.

Unfortunately, the hardest thing to do in politics -- and certainly in health care reform -- has been to get policymakers to make investments early that will have long-term payoffs. Because people -- their attitude is, well, I'll be out of office by the time that kid grows up; and, the fact that they're healthy, that doesn't help me. And in the private sector insurance system, oftentimes insurers make the same calculation. Their attitude is, well, people change jobs enough for us to pay for the preventive medicine now when the problem may not crop up for another 20 years and they'll be long out of our system, so we don't want to reimburse it because it will make things more costly. That's the logic of our health care system that we're going to have to change.

The recovery package put a huge amount in prevention. We are, in our budget, calling for significant increases in prevention. And my hope is, is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that will start seeing the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier. All right? (Applause.)