The Forty-Eight Dollar Band-aid

The healthcare system in this country has some problems that need to be fixed. I don’t think it needs a complete overhaul, but it does require more than just a few tweaks. For example, I visited the doctor recently with an infected sore (it was not a pretty sight). While reading the itemized bill, I noticed they charged me for the band-aid and for putting it on. The strip of plastic cost $48 and the labor for putting it on cost $18.

This was not some type of specialized band-aid developed for rapid healing. This was the same kind of band-aid I was wearing when I went to the doctor, the kind you can buy at the Wal-Mart for $5 a box. The skill of putting it on did not require special medical training. There was not even any topical ointment.

I don’t know why it costs so much to slap on a band-aid. Perhaps they noticed on my insurance card that I had good coverage so they went for it. What my card says is that my co-pay is zero, but it does not reveal that I have $1,000 deductible. In other words, I will be paying for the band-aid.

I do have good health insurance, but it is expensive, even with the high deductible. Not everyone can afford expensive insurance. In fact, 47 million Americans do not have any kind of health insurance and are at the mercy of public medicine and the fortune of good health. Although I would rather not pay $48 for a band-aid, I will survive. It is those folks without any health coverage who need help.

Not only am I aware of the need for a change, the government is also on top of things and a bill has already been introduced in the Senate. It has been the subject of a massive amount of debate, on radio, television, print, and the Internet, as well as conversations at the coffee shop. Several have even asked me specifically for my opinion on the subject (if you have really good insurance, that attitude might be covered as an illness). So, I decided to wade into the health care waters and offer my perspective.

The logical place to start is to read the bill that is being debated in the Senate. Please don’t make me do that. It is more than one thousands pages of legalese and political jargon. Besides, it is not necessary to read the document before forming an opinion. I get bombarded with opinions from folks who I know have not read a thousand pages in their lifetime, much less these pages.

Since I am not willing to pay the price to become an expert on the government plan, I decided to take a look at the comments about the plan. As I began to make a list and put them together in categories, I discovered some interesting things about those who are opposed to health care reform. I have divided the opposition into three categories that can help us better understand their reasoning.

The first classification I have chosen to describe a group of concerns about health care is selfishness. I hesitate using that term because it makes us sound wicked and evil. However, I think it is an accurate term. Listen to the objections that I have placed in this category. Many are opposed to change because they are afraid they will lose benefits or that the benefits they currently enjoy will cost more. Essentially, they reveal an unwillingness to give up anything, even if it will allow 47 million more people to have something. There will never be a plan that will provide adequate coverage for everyone and still allow those presently covered to keep everything they have and not pay anything extra.

Another form of selfishness is being overly concerned that medical services will not be as convenient as they are now. There is an expressed fear that we will have to wait months, or even years to get necessary tests and treatment. Those who fall under this classification often refer to the Canadian or British systems as evidence that public insurance is slow and inadequate. I have a friend who reminds everyone of the time he lived in Canada and his experience with a sluggish system. What he fails to point out is that he lived in Canada twenty years ago. Hopefully they have arrived at some solutions in the meantime.

By the way, I am not sure our current system is any more responsive. The $48 band-aid was not applied by my regular doctor. She was busy and I could not get an appointment to see her for several days. Since I needed to tend to the problem sooner than that, I went to a clinic that does not require appointments. It is kind of like an emergency room without an attached hospital. That is probably one of the reasons they charge so much. I paid for the convenience of getting in sooner.

A second category of those opposed to the proposed health care plan can be labeled skeptical. Their argument is that the government is not capable of running anything efficiently. To give elected officials the power to control such a massive undertaking is only asking for failure according to their reasoning. I admit that I have used this argument over the years and most people simply agree without giving it much thought.

But, is it true? Has the government failed at every undertaking? This is certainly not the forum to discuss government involvement in business, but there are examples of very successfully run government operations. Perhaps the best example is the United States military. Is there a better operated enterprise than our military system?

On the other hand, private enterprise does not always prove to be better at business than the government. How about General Motors or American Airlines? What about American banks for the past few years? My point is that being operated by the government is not automatic failure, nor is being a private enterprise an automatic success.

I am not a big believer in government getting involved in most situations. I have often thought that one of the best reasons for living in Texas is that our legislature only meets once every two years. However, I am not sure the current health care system will change without some pressure from the government. It is doctors and free market health insurance that have put me in a situation where I am paying $48 for a band-aid.

The third category of opponents to changing health care is those who use scare tactics. The primary tactics they use are abortion and euthanasia, threatening danger to those on both ends of the age spectrum. The argument is that health care reform will allow the government to provide funding for abortions and put Uncle Sam in position to deny health care benefits to the aging. Certainly, I am opposed to both of these possibilities, but I am confident we can find a way to change health care without allowing either of these situations.

Having said all of that, let me now try to help us move toward a solution. The reality is that health care is such a huge expense that it requires government and private business participation to work together toward a solution. However, there is another key piece of the puzzle that I think provides the possibility for the best solution – the church.

The church is not a new participant. In fact, the church has been in the health care business from day one. The founder of the church, Jesus, listed one of His primary objectives was to provide healing to the sick. During His three-year ministry, Jesus was best known as a healer. As His church, we are certainly in the healing business.

For the most part, the church has abdicated this responsibility to the government and private industry. In this country, the church has quietly faded out of the health care business. I have considered myself a Texas Baptist for many years. Our denomination has numerous institutions in Texas, but only seven hospitals or health care systems. The youngest of these was founded in 1968, more than forty years ago.

I admit that I do not know what the role of government should be when it comes to health reform. Neither do I claim to have any idea about private industry. However, I do know that the church must be more involved in health care needs, especially of the poor. If the non-profit world took charge of health care, it would probably not cost $48 for a band-aid. If we could provide options for folks then private insurance would have to become more reasonable. If Christians were willing to take care of the poor, then we could allow government to be about its business in other arenas. I am confident that the church could solve this whole problem with a willingness to take ownership of our health care.

As I say that, I have no confidence that it will happen. In order to have the necessary resources, churches would probably need to build state of the art health clinics rather than state of the art child care facilities that are only used a couple of hours a week. Christians would need to drive $20,000 vehicles rather than $50,000 SUV’s. We might need to swap our 2,500 square foot homes for 1,500 square feet. Health care is expensive, and the most I have heard anyone say in the current debate is that they might be willing to pay a little extra in taxes. To be honest, a little extra in taxes will not be enough.

Lest you think you are on the safe side of this issue, let me remind you that sixty percent of bankruptcies in 2007 were primarily the result of medical bills. The real scary part is the seventy-five percent of these families had health insurance. You and I might be just one major illness away from financial collapse. How wonderful would it be if families found, not just affordable health care from the church, but also financial salvation.

Listen to the words of Jesus as He began His ministry and realize how appropriate they are still today:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.  He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are downtrodden, To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord."

(Luke 4:18-19)

Comments

[David Morgan]

Terry,
Thank you for a courageous, timely, and Christian response to the need for health care for all.

[Del]

Terry,

That was beautiful. So good to finally find a religious leader to stand up on this issue and apply the principles Christ gave.

Thanks,
I plan to pass this on to others with the hope they too will respond

[Tom Leland]

Terry,
Keep in mind that 47 million people does not mean 47 million Americans. In addition, does anyone know how many chose not to have health insurance so as to use $ for other purposes? How many of the 47 million do not get "health care" {in actual fact they get care from our ER & medicaid.

[Archie Wooley]

there are more examples for government failure than successes. This is a limited list. If a compromise on euthansia and abortion could be worked out then the rewrite would have included the mediation. The church should be a driving force but not everyone goes to church or believes in a Intelligent Creator or God. This being said one need s to evaluate their own household and beliefs system and change their world to make the rest of the world better. The decision being made without our input in the past 9 months were all one sided. there was opposition but it fell on deaf ears. As Americans we have fought harder to speak on the impending health care reform and therefore are possibly getting heard, hence the reason President Obama is speaking to Congress and the Nation next week. The opinions and beliefs of the majority need to be heard and not fall on deaf ears. We all need to take an active part in our government and decisions that effect all of us. With that being said we should also stand up for our own rights and beliefs.

[Terry Austin]

The 47 million number comes from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). I don't think it matters if they are all American citizens or if they are good money managers. God's Word is clear that our responsibility is to the poor, irregardless of who they are or how they got that way.

[Jeff]

I totally disagree that healthcare is a responsibility of our government. It was never dreamt of in the constitution and the greatest generation of all never expected it. They have fared quite nicely. However I do agree that much of what we expect our government to own (welfare as an example) should be owned by the church. I don't know how that would ever happen in this example, but a great start is for Christians to support, after their tithe, organizations that can help those in need.

As far as the healthcare debate, the problem with immediately adding some 47 million new users to the system would not create just some moderate inconveniences for us today but it would be a total blockage in the system. We would need some 500,000 more doctors to be able to handle all these new primary care patients. Let’s assume we only need 25% of the 500,000 new doctors for the sake of the argument. Everything in an economy is based on supply and demand and I don't know where that supply of 100,000+ new doctors would magically appear. It took us 6 weeks to see a Dermatologist. We have excellent insurance but because the supply of Dermatologists in DFW is too low for the demand we had to wait.

We also hear about that all are covered in France, Great Britain and Canada. But the facts are the Canadian system is broke, the lines are extremely long in Britain and the so called better care in France is misleading because they don't count "live births" the same as we do in the US as just one example. I lived in Houston and the number of foreign nationalists that visited that city for healthcare was astronomical. When was the last time you heard of some one going outside the US for healthcare (besides for illegal drugs)?

The examples given of good government run systems and bad run private business are both the "exceptions" and not the "rules." The US military is second to none in the world but it doesn’t turn a profit nor does it even try to break even. We all know it essentially runs on an unlimited budget, or so it seems. How many times have we heard of military toilet seats costing $500 or other crazily priced items that we could have bought from our local Lowes for pennies on the dollar?

Yes GM and some banks have failed but my recollection GM turned a profit for most of its 100 years and the number of banks that have failed, in relation to the total number of banks in the US is quite small. I agree that we should have let them fail in a free market and both political parties failed us in those "bailouts."

Yes we do have a responsibility as Christians to help those in need. The government is not the security blanket to provide those services because inevitably abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and other items that are not "basic" healthcare will be covered in a government run organization.

Healthcare costs are out of control and action needs to be taken. We should look at tort reform (Christian principle) and allowing insurance companies to offer insurance across state lines for better competition.

It’s not selfishness but knowledge that our government never solves problems as well as individuals or small groups. And yes I am skeptical of change because it is never produces the “new transparency” that it promises.

[Michael]

Terry, wow. You just blew it. This sounds like socialistic spewings, to me. The government is the one who pays hundreds of dollars for a hammer and gives us excuses as to why, rather than fix the problem. How are the armed forces an example of good government run business? Never more will I take anything you say with respect.

Oh, by the way. I live in a small house and drive a car that costs $17,000 new. I tithe to my church. I give money every month to our food bank. We help a lot of people, but "the government" takes so much in taxes from me, it is very difficult to do more. Maybe you should have actually read that massive "health care bill" before writing about it.

[Terry Austin]

Mike,

I think you missed my point. I am not advocating government run health care. My point is that the solution is with the church. The governement, nor private industry can solve the problem.

[Bob Tallent]

Terry, You are to be commended for for such a forthroght article! But I am dismayed by the selfishness and ignorance of your respondants. Yes there was a time when we Baptistsd did more in the healing department. But I don't see us doing that today. Our own house is too messed up! We don't even have an effective voice on such matters!

[David Lane]

Terry,

You knew I would have to respond.

I want to correct some facts. You say, "In fact, 47 million Americans do not have any kind of health insurance". This is not true.

Here is the breakdown:
- 12 million (26%) – Americans without affordable option
- 5 million (11%) – Illegal Immigrants
- 5 million (11%) – Legal Immigrants
- 9 million (19% - Individuals earning more than $75,000 per year
- 10 million (20%) – Eligible for existing Government programs
- 6 million (13%) – Eligible for employer –sponsored insurance

Suddenly the scope of the issue is much smaller.

You also say, "I discovered some interesting things about those who are opposed to health care reform". I want to check and see just exactly what group of people you are referring to.

For example, I am opposed to the current bill H.R. 3200 and any bill that puts the government in charge of a larger number of citizens health insurance/care. This does not mean that I am "opposed to health care reform". In fact, I wholeheartedly agree that reform is necessary and that the system should work better and that the U.S. should find a way to help out the 12 million Americans who are without an affordable option.

There are also some folk who don't want to see any change at all. They have what they want and as you expressed they do not want to see it changed - for many reasons. These would be the only people "opposed to health care reform". I would submit that of the people in the public square expressing an opinion that this is a very small number of people.

I would also like to address the U.K. and the Canadian systems. Both of these countries are beginning the process of trying to make their systems work better by changing them from the "universal" type. The lady that is getting ready to take over a large portion of the Canadian system has said that Canada's system is about to implode - they cannot afford it and it's level of service is terrible. It has not improved over the last 20 years.

The same type of thing is happening in the U.K. - see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210109/Prisoners-better-diet-Health-Service-hospital-patients-scientists-warn.html.

To change direction a bit. I have been thinking about your $48 band-aid. If you just pay this bill without making a fuss or comment about it then that is why they charge $48. They can!

Question. Would you allow the mechanic who works on your car to charge you $48 for a quart of oil? Probably not. Same thing should apply to this urgent care bill with a $48 band-aid.

I also have to agree with you about government involvement to improve the current health insurance/care system. It cannot be done without changes in laws and regulations that apply to insurance, doctors, hospitals, clinics, nurses, therapists, drug manufacturers, medical device/equipment manufacturers, Tort law, etc. Thus the government is involved in fixing. They however should not be more involved than they already are in providing medical insurance/care. (The U.S. government is having such great success with Medicaid/Medicare with their surplus in reserves and the fact that they are not near going broke.....NOT!)

Please note my careful use of the term "insurance/care". This is two topics. Two distinct things. One is insurance and the other is health care, i.e. doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc.

I agree with you as well that the church should be part of the solution. If we were to do the Acts church thing then your examples of doing with less to help others would be the norm. Now, they are not. I don't know how to get there, but I am thinking a lot about it.

Sources for breakdown of census generated numbers:

1. http://src.senate.gov/public/_files/graphics/UninsuredPiechart0.pdf

[David Lane]

Bob Tallant,

You said, "But I am dismayed by the selfishness and ignorance of your respondants."

I am dismayed by your judgment on the folks responding to call then/us selfish and ignorant because you do not agree with them. This has been addressed.

We are not selfish we just don't want government provided universal health care. We all agree the system is broken. We all agree we can do better. Let's just find a way that excludes universal health care and stop making rash judgments about folks motivations. Most of us commenting on this are at least as informed as Terry and yourself. So if we are ignorant.....

We are not and neither are you or Terry! We just have a differing opinions. Sometimes not all that different.

[Terry Austin]

David,

I don't know that I disagree with any point you made. I am not an advocate of the government providing universal health care. What I am trying to say is that the church holds the solution. Last year, Christians gave $107 billion to churches which represents about 2.5% of our income. If we simply gave a minimum of a tithe (10%) the church would have enough to keep doing what we are now doing plus an additional $321 billion to help solve this problem. If Christians really got serious, we can meet this need.

[Bob Tallent]

A rose by any other name.