I have been writing a weekly newspaper column since 1987.
For 3 years, it ran in the Greeley Tribune. Since then, it has run in various subsidiaries of the Douglas County News Press. I still have most of my columns in digital format.
For many years, I only gave myself one rule: try to work the word "library" into every piece. My intent was to think in public about just what librarianship means at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st.
There have been many advantages for me. I found that putting library plans out in front of the public, and getting feedback about them, helped me make better decisions. Sometimes, I found that it was very difficult for me to describe those plans or policies -- the kind of thing that makes me realize that they might not be good ideas after all. The weekly discipline of explaining my profession to the public keeps me more mindful, more honest. It also has provided steady visibility for the library and its issues.
August 20, 2009 - health care plenty scary right now
Last week, on vacation, I drove down to Salida to see a friend. In the park across from the library was a health care protest. In tone, it was much like the many wild emails I've gotten lately about the scary takeover of medical care by big government.
I don't claim to be an expert. But speaking as an administrator of a public agency, I can tell you this: it's scary right now.
According to an article in the Washington Post (January 25, 2009), "A growing number of workers in 2009 will pay more for health benefits -- and in some cases receive less coverage -- as their employers grapple with the financial fallout of rising medical expenses and diminished revenue and profits."
In another article (Medical News Today), I read that, "In 1999, employers covered about 90% of the cost of health insurance for employees, compared with 73% today, and the percentage likely will decrease to 70% over the next few years."
It seems probable that many government agencies will freeze salaries next year. Why? Because revenues are down, just as in the private sector.
At the same time, a surprising number of my fellow public administrators are projecting health insurance premium increases of 25 percent. To put it another way, there will be less money in the public sector, and a larger percentage of it being transferred to private companies.
Alternatively, public and private employees alike may see a real reduction in their pay due to insurance company rate increases, and a shifting of those costs directly to workers.
Yet another report (by Health Care America Now!) asserts that "from 2000 to 2007, the median earnings of Colorado workers increased 16% from $25,390 to $30,476. During that time health insurance premiums for Colorado working families rose 4.8 times faster than median earnings."
Will those families get more coverage in exchange? It seems unlikely. Instead, many employers are pushing high-deductible "health savings accounts" and programs aimed at keeping workers healthy through diet and exercise. In itself, that's not a bad thing.
But why the big jump in costs?
In a piece from the AFL-CIO website, I read, "Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage. One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets."
It is common to hear people complaining, in scripted "tea parties" and so on, about out-of-control government. But I pay more for health insurance in one month than I do for schools in a whole year, for instance. And I have a lot less to say about it.
For schools or libraries, an increase in my costs buys me an increase in service. The insurance business doesn't seem to work like that. It increases its rates to ensure profits, despite the economy, and regardless of the effect on local business, local government, or the people who work for them.
As I say, I'm not an expert, but the situation does make me scratch my head. While I'm not sure outrage does any actual good, maybe a little more outrage should be directed toward the problem we have today, instead of at the attempt to do something about it.
-----
LaRue's Views are his own.
P.S. After running this article, I asked our staff to pull together a list of further sources of information about this topic. You can find it at:
http://www.douglascountylibraries.org/Research/iGuides/HealthCare
Happy (and healthy) reading!
Thank you, LaRue, for good information!!
I am astounded that anyone would object to an opinion like this under the banner of an institution that is designed to help us think! The article is informative and included facts that are indisputable. LaRue is not trying to sell his viewpoint, but he has done his homework.
We need to put some personal faces into the current debate. Two members of my immediate family are uninsurable at any price because they are Type I diabetics. They can qualify for group coverage in a work setting, but our daughter was dropped right after she finished college. Thankfully, Colorado had CUHIP--Colorado Uninsurable Health Insurance Plan. It was expensive, but it saw us through until she got her own job. In other words, insurance is for those who hopefully will never get sick or have health issues. Does this make sense? What personal stories can others share?
Medicare, a government-run health plan, has been our salvation through major medical issues for my husband. Service has been superlative. Their overhead is 3%. Private companies' overhead begins at 20%. The current CEO of CIGNA has an annual salary package of $12.2 million. Does one human being need this in a country where 47 million people have no insurance? For-profit insurance and drug companies have essentially one goal and that is to make profit. Go to Bill Moyers Journal and listen to the interview with former Cigna Executive, Wendell Potter. It is eye-opening and shocking.
And most of all, if we are a moral and compassionate country, how can we consider leaving millions of our children with no coverage at all? The rest of the world can hardly believe that we must live in fear of paying for medical coverage, losing medical coverage, or having none. And we have just now received word that the retirement health-care policy promised to my husband after almost 40 years with one company will be dropped as of January 1 next year. The company is Aetna, another giant making millions each year. Their argument is that, if we have Medicare, we don't need a supplemental policy.
I, for one, love the Douglas County library system and I think it is totally appropriate to have both the comments and the responses on the home-page. No one is forcing anyone to read it. Let's get back to some honest discussion in which we listen to and respect one another even if we do not agree. And please, can all of us agree to listen to some of the indisputable facts of our current situation? Jobs are being eliminated over the cost of health-care for employees. If the job is retained, the coverage is eliminated. If we do nothing, we will look back and wonder why we put our children and grand-children in this kind of jeopardy when we had a chance to rework health-care.
Larue's Opinion on Library Website are Inappropriate
Posting Mr. Larue's "own" opinion on the Douglas County Library Website is not appropriate use of county assets. This is not an "op ed" page where Mr. Larue's opinions should be welcomed and should not be used as such. Using library assets in an attempt to persuade patrons to a political viewpoint is a violation of the taxpayers' trust. We are all capable of soliciting information on the issues currently being debated in the political arena without having them seemingly "endorsed" by their presence on the libary system of the Douglas County Library.
And, judging by his comments, one can easily agree with his admission, "I'm not an expert": that is obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the healthcare issues facing our nation.
May I have some clarification?
Hi, Jamie-
I'm sitting here, eating grapes, enjoying my lunchbreak. I opened my browser and the first thing I saw was this post with lots and lots of comments. I thought I should see what the commotion is all about. I can't resist a good argument and I love jumping into the fray (not the Colorado band).
You're very good at introducing hot topics and then letting the commentary fly. And that's good because right now, lots of people have a whole lot to say and allowing people to share their opinions can often be uncomfortable but almost always beneficial in some way.
But here's what I'm interested in knowing: Why did you choose to share this particular opinion? I mean, what sparked this post in the first place (aside from your trip to Salida)? What is it you want to tell us? These are real questions, not a challenge for more debating. I'm actually confused. I want to know where you're going with this and why it's important.
Here's what I got: you want us to know that change is scary and that right now, we're at an economic imbalance, so change is constant, thus, we're always scared -- though probably not as melodramatic as I've just put it. The gap between our incomes and the money we give out for healthcare is widening though healthcare, itself, does not reflect the rising costs. Then you end by saying that public outrage may not do much good but that if we're going to take a stand, we should give public outcry to the actual problem instead of public outcry toward the solutions that are being discussed on a governmental level? So...are you saying that we should get riled up because our paychecks are getting smaller while our healthcare costs are rising? I know that makes me mad. But is there something else in the message I'm missing? Am I supposed to be thinking about something, like how I can help lessen the income/healtchare-cost gap or maybe whether or not I'd look good as the new Che Guevara? (I wouldn't. I've checked. I don't have nicely-shaped facial features nor the proper hair.)
I'm just wondering why you chose to share this thought instead of maybe the cruddy weather we've had this summer or perhaps carpet samples for Castle Pines.
And now my lunchbreak is over. I have work to do. I'm going to go do it before curiosity kills this cat.
Thanks,
Erica (the troublemaker one)
what it means
Erica: just thought the public should know that in Douglas County rising medical insurance premiums means the loss of government jobs and/or the loss of pay in this next year. That's not an opinion or a political statement; that's a budget reality.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" - Groucho Marx
Why these opinions here?
With all due respect, the political opinions of Mr. LaRue do not belong on the banner page of the Douglas County Library page.
Mr. LaRue is well within his rights to author his own political blog on his own time on such sites designed for this sort of thing. But not with the heading of the Library system backing it.
Thank You!
I agree with anonymous. Mr. LaRue is a government employee - start your own blog. Mr. LaRue's political opinions do not belong on the PUBLIC library page. Where is the counter opinion Mr. LaRue?
Slanted Sources -- Where's the Transparency?
Jamie LaRue is scared and scratching his head at the outrage of American citizens voicing their opposition (isn't this the backbone of our country?) to Government run health care. He uses statistics and information from a number of sources to convince the reader why we should desire Government run health care. What has me scratching my head are two of the resources Mr. LaRue has used to persuade us that Government run health care is good and that greedy insurance companies are bad.
The AFL-CIO -- Okay, we all know about the powerful AFL-CIO, that nearly 100% of their campaign contributions go to Democrats and that they are major players in policy, including promoting Government run health care. But how about some transparency with the next source:
Health Care America Now! -- From their website: "The HCAN Steering Committee is made up of the following organizations: ACORN, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Campaign for Community Change, Children’s Defense Fund Action Council, Communications Workers of America, MoveOn.org, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, National Women’s Law Center, SEIU, UFCW, USAction, and Working America." And from their home page: "Fight Back Against the Right."
In other words, more powerful organizations, many of them unions, that are involved in electing liberal Democrats and widening the scope and control of government.
But LaRue in his column not only promotes Government run health care, he seems to have concluded that there are two options: Government run health care or greedy insurance companies. (Ever notice how Government is never greedy though we are forever having to pay more in taxes?) There are other solutions being touted and promoted (though not getting the media's attention) and I think it would behoove our director to broaden his knowledge and awareness by checking them out. If he's curious, he could check out: Heartland Institute's Health Care Solutions:
http://www.chcchoices.org and National Center for Policy Analysis, www.ncpa.org to name just two.
If Mr. LaRue would have at least given a nod to an understanding of the other side or to other options, I would have more respect for the director. T.S.
is the issue the sources or the facts?
Thank you, both, for your comments. I appreciate people doing as I have done: identifying some sources for information. But I beg, respectfully, to differ with "T.S." The only thing I'm promoting is what seems to be some indisputable facts, whatever the source. Costs are rising, benefits are falling, and we're spending a larger share of all our paychecks underwriting big profits for a few private companies. In my judgment, that's a problem: bad public policy, and an unsustainable system.
I went to the www.chcchoices.org website and saw this headline: "Palin not wrong on death panel."
In other words, this site seems to be another "opposition to change" site. But how does any of this solve the problem I hope we all CAN agree about? Are the facts of rising health care costs somehow in dispute?
I didn't cause this problem. I'm not sure I know the answer. So let's not make this about me. Let's make it about the issues, eh?
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" - Groucho Marx
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" - Groucho Marx
There's more than one way to change
Thank you for your reply, Mr. LaRue. To answer Groucho Marx's and, I assume, your question, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" I choose my own eyes to believe. I have read about the government run health care in France, England and Canada and I am fully convinced that a massive, centralized system of control, financing and delivery of health care can only mean higher taxes, higher costs, more regulation, more control and lower quality health care for Americans. I'm convinced it would mean the individual would no longer have control over the choices and decisions in their own health care.
I did not write or believe we should stay the course. But the "C" word, change, does not have to mean change to government control of health care. You managed to trash Palin in your reply (there really was so much more to read at that site) but you did not address the fact that there are other ways to CHANGE for the better. I'll help you out. Here are just three ideas: 1. Instead of being tied to employer-provided health insurance, allow individuals to control their coverage. Not the government, not the employer. This frees up individuals and gives them choices. 2. Fairness in taxing health plans. Currently, those who purchase their own coverage do not get the tax break those who receive employer coverage get. 3. Residents are held to the regulations and mandates of their states' regulatory policies. Allow them to purchase insurance in another state that would fit their needs better.
No, Mr. LaRue, health care costs are rising for a variety of reasons (not just because of greedy insurance companies), but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. There are choices and options that will make access to health care more affordable and even better. T.S.
ps I suggest you click on the link about Palin and death panels, Mr. LaRue. You might just get an inkling of understanding of why we should have individual choice in our health care decisions.
As I have clearly stated,
As I have clearly stated, I'm not advocating for any position. But I believe it's important to state the problem succinctly: right now, rising health care costs jeopardize jobs and wages in both the public and the private sectors. That's a fact.
I did read the Palin article. I found it speculative -- imagining a problem that is in fact unlikely, and ignoring the one in front of us.
Here's another fact: the current medical system in the United States results in a higher infant mortality rate, and a shorter span of life, than that of those nations with a national health system. Does that mean we should adopt those systems as our own? Not necessarily. But it indicates that relative to other nations, we DO throw the baby out with the bath water.
I repeat: my article is not advocating for national health care. But it does attempt to say that the problem with our health care today is severe, affecting businesses and employees. The PROBLEM needs some attention, not just trying to "trash" one of the proposed solutions.
Finally, where is this mythical land of free market health care that works so well? I can find no evidence for it. If a citation exists, please share.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" - Groucho Marx
Are you on the sidelines or in the fight?
You can state that you're not advocating any position but the sources you used say you do. Your sources and the statistics you cited from, have a dog in this fight. Their dog is government run health care. What do you think we should conclude about where you sit? But if you are just an objective observer making the point that our health care system needs changing, well, I guess we can all agree there.
But as to your "fact" about the higher infant mortality rate and a shorter span of life in the United States compared to countries with government run health care, just like the simplistic sounding single payer idea, there's more to it. When premature or low weight babies are born in the United States, doctors spend considerable effort to revive and save those infants. If the infant does not survive, then in this country, it is recorded as a live birth and then a death. In other countries, where a single payer formula doesn't merit such efforts, this event is not recorded as a live birth but as a fetal death. In fact, the World Health Organization recommends only live births of 1,000g or greater should be recorded. So you see, it is not a perfect comparison and therefore cannot be used to promote government run health care, which, of course you are not.
While I'm trashing -- yes, I admit it -- government run health care, I also offered three (and there are many more) solutions. Of course a "land of free market health care that works well" (your open mind here?) does not exist. But I believe that moving in that direction is more desireable than to have imposed upon us an already tried and failed system. T. S.
Health care reform
As a former pediatric intensive care nurse, I agree with the person who just replied. Our infant mortality rates are higher because we do everything we can in this country to save infants that are prematurely born, infants born with severe congenital defects, etc. We have much success because we have a great health care system, but there are many infants that can not be saved despite our best efforts. Thus the higher infant mortality rate. One should not rely on statistics only without delving into the facts and then analyzing that information. One should not also jump to the conclusion that we need a government run health care system because of the cost of health care insurance. There are other factors that contribute to rising cost health care. For example, just look at all the advertisements on television soliciting people join in lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, physicians, etc. Maybe we should look to tort reform. Just a thought.
If the problem is too much gov. how is the solution more gov?
LaRue is correct that there is too little competition in the insurance industry and that more competition would lead to a better solution. So the relevant question is why isn't there more competition in the insurance industry. Simple economics tells us that if there is an sector of the economy where lots of money is being made, lots of money will flow to that sector, competition will increase, and returns on investment will return to the norm. That means that there must be something that is preventing money from flowing into the insurance sector.
The only entities that is capable of preventing money from flowing into the insurance sector are the state and federal governments. The state governments control the insurance commissions, licensing and set the mandatory care. If you are an insurance company and don't want to pay for aroma therapy or abortions you can't sell insurance in many states.
The Federal Government has a tax structure that drive the insurance market toward employer sponsored plans, this leads to competition for the few largest employers, if an insurance company in a state can get the four or five largest employers they have a competative advantage and be able to dominate the marketplace.
An equitable tax treatment and ability to purchase across jurisdiction would lead the to competition that LaRue claims to want.
Of course if you get all of your fact from the AFL/CIO web page and refuse to believe that anyone who disagrees with you, (the tea party folk), may be just as independent and concerned as you are you will be confined to see more Government as the solution to every problem.
Chris Kennedy
Ditto
Ditto
The purpose of the public library
This experiment -- allowing comments to newspaper columns -- is interesting. Thus far, I can't help but notice that this "hot topic" mostly seems to generate disparagement of sources (either me personally, or despite the fact that I cited several, among them the Washington Post and Medical News Today, the notion that they are tainted by other sources).
And now, we have the suggestion that even political opinions -- of any kind? -- of the director should not be accessible on the library's front page, even though they are responded to by people who disagree with them, and those disagreements are also aired on the front page.
So my observation is this: libraries are advocates of free speech. Providing a public forum for issues of the day, with links to various viewpoints, helps to make all of us better informed.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" - Groucho Marx
Interesting view of Disparagement.
Considering that this comment came under my post I feel that it is necessary to respond.
The first disparagement that I saw, and what I referred to in the final paragraph of my post was Mr. LaRue's comment about people complaining "in scripted 'tea parties' and so on". I view the implication that Tea Parties are scripted is a larger disparagement than questioning the unbiased nature of Health Care America Now or the AFL-CIO. I have not seen anyone questioning the Washington Post or Medical News Today.
Since Mr. LaRue saw fit to quite Groucho Marx it only seems appropriate to Quote Benjamin Disraeli, "There are lies, there damned lines and there are statistics." If we go to less spun sources (Fortune 500, I didn't feel like digging through SEC filings) we can see that UnitedHealth Group (as the first Insurance Company on the list) made $2.977 Billion in Profit on $81.186 billion in revenue or a 3.6 percent profit margin. In contrast Apple(a little cherry picking because lots of people like Apple) made $4.8 Billion in profit on $32.4 billion in revenue or 14% profit margin. Doing a scan of the fortune 500 a 3.6% profit margin is not particularly impressive performance and probably not the kind of gouging that the AFL-CIO was implying in their article.
As to the other comment, which I did not make, about the propriety of Mr. LaRue expressing his personal political views on a Library web site, and the role of Public Libraries. I feel that the Douglas County Library and Mr. LaRue should be able to raise hot topics for discussion. In this case I believe that the concept was good but the execution lacking. With hot topics such as this I feel that the Library and it's patrons would be better served with a point/counter-point style original presentation. Also based on the obvious need for screening of comments Mr. LaRue does appear to be in the advantage when it comes to replying to comments. As such the back and forth between Mr. LaRue and the various commenters discourages rather than encourages continued vigorous debate.
Overall this is fun and compared to lots of other comment boards quite civil.
CK
Perplexed by opposition
What I find interesting in this health care 'debate', is that the folks shouting for 'no change' and that socialism is around the corner, seem to be adamantly supporting the very health care companies that will raise their premiums or cut off coverage for medical problems which they might entail, or these same people will possibly lose their coverage if they lose their jobs...What would a person do for coverage then; just go to an emergency room for small medical problems, thereby increasing the cost of health care for everyone else? Why not have available an alternative option that would not restrict health care for lack of funds, or pre-existing illnesses? I am totally baffled as to why they have become such strong supporters of corporations that could essentially destroy their lives with out- of-control medical bills....
And as for the 'panels' that people describe for regulating available care at the end-of-life, have none of these folks ever suffered or agonized over the decisions that must be made when an older loved one and family member can no longer live with any quality of life and has failed to make a previous declaration of how/if they want to continue living...
This is one of the most painful times a family can go through....If a person is provided a private and personal time to discuss with a physician, should one choose, how one wants to deal with a catastrophic health emergency, that should be considered a gift, not a mandate for death....
I implore people to try to understand that these attempts at change are to facilitate a more humane approach to keeping healthy, which should certainly be right and not a privilege.
Health care
Right on Jamie and "Perplexed by opposition" - I too am astounded at how many people think nationalized health care will lead the way to socialism and bad health care. We are a third world country when it comes to health care and we should be ashamed to once again be lining the pockets of the rich medical conglomerates at the expense of those who can least afford it. If you are afraid that a government plan will mean less access to quality health care, then you'll be free to buy private insurance to supplement it - just like you have to do now. But if you fall on bad times and can't afford to pay for insurance, you will be taken care of, you won't have to go bankrupt to ensure that your family receives medical help. Justine Shaffner
But who's going to pay for it?
I agree there should be some reform but my frustration is who is going to pay for this public option? Certainly not the poor. Not the rich - they can figure out the system not to pay taxes. It is the average working middle class who do have decent paying jobs and small businesses. So I'll be working hard to cover all the poor and also to cover my own supplemental insurance?
If the money won't come from more taxes, is it fiscally responsible for our government to just to print more? Our money is backed by mostly air as it is already.