Health Care Hysterics

By Josh Carmel

A collection of circular tables supplemented the conventional rows and chairs, their martial flank tapering off toward the far end of CUB 260. The stiff atmosphere of the afternoon dovetailed nicely with the subject matter present and mirrored ominously the trenchant din of conversation within. An eclectic group of individuals gathered, some bearing the amiable grin of colleagues or friends, while others bowed in pensive concern. Only one issue could elicit such a spectrum of emotion and properly define the explicit dichotomy of opinion: health care reform.

Such was the atmosphere on October 2, when the Eisenhower Institute presented the first of three panels, encompassing a two-day period, as part of its Health Care Conference at Gettysburg College. The Conference attempted to examine the many misconceptions of health care reform, while continuing the debate over finance, ethics and policy.

“Our best hope for today and tomorrow is to find a shelter from the storm,” said Professor Emeritus Lou Hammann on the subject of health care. “Why do we have to keep suffering the storm,” continued Hammann. “When will the storm abate?”

Comparing the health care debacle to a Gordian knot, a convoluted labyrinth of policy and incisive discussion, Hammann then yielded the floor to Professor of Philosophy Lisa Portmess.

“[We] craft response [to] iniquities,” said Portmess with reference to the current demeanor of justice in the United States. “[We have to be] noble in crafting for [an] ideal of justice.”

Moderator and Professor of Economics Brendan Cushing-Daniels detailed upon the statistical and economic paradigms of health care before welcoming the panel, composed of Regina Campo, Co-Director of Human Resources and Risk Management at Gettysburg College, and Aaron McKethan, Research Director at the Brookings Institution’s Engelberg Center for Health Reform.

Campo qualified the ramifications of the economic climate, and its clear influence on health care at Gettysburg. She charted the evolutionary growth of the College’s system, which allowed for the partition of the Wellness Program and the standard of providing a number of services, while explaining the necessity of an arrangement which can both accentuate efficiency and “lower out-of-pocket expense.”

McKethan, conversely, detailed the key challenges of health care reform. He noted the economic expenditures incurred from the current system, as well as the disparity that is subsequently produced.

“Regions that spend more on health care are not higher in quality,” McKethan said. “[The question is] what are we spending [and] where is it going?”

Panel II and Panel III were presented in similar format the following day. Moderator, Gary Mullen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy introduced the board, which consisted of: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director for the Committee on House Administration in the United States Congress, Kate Michelman, former president of National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice America, and Larry L. Light, Vice President of Legislative and Political Affairs for the Pennsylvania Medical Society.

“We [NARAL Pro-Choice America] were about social change…[the] most important one [being] grassroots movements,” Michelman said. “Movements [are] necessary to make change happen.”

Michelman continued to attack the issue of health care on an idealistic front, alluding to a necessary reduction in bureaucratic hypocrisy and the fundamental right affirmed by public heath care option.

She was succeeded by Fleet, who explored the nature of Washingtonian politics and its unfortunate interplay in the health care system. “It is important to understand who the uninsured are,” Fleet said.

Last to the podium was Light, who enumerated the interests of the hospitals on whose behalf he works. “Politics is about addition,” said Light. “Change is difficult.”

The third panel, which, moderated by Professor of Political Science Ken Mott, featured Dr. David Moore, Fairfield Family Medicine, Michael Strazzella, Vice President of Federal Relations, The Hospital and Healthsystem Associates, and Dwight Michael, a local general practitioner.

All three devoted their questions to the interface between the medical profession and insurance companies, with particular emphasis on specific complexities of the health care system.

Moore relayed several anecdotes about the disparity between insurance requirements and actual necessity, noting the standards by which he is forced to charge his patients.

“[We must be able] to order the test they [the patient] need,” Moore said when qualifying the price brackets that insurance companies relegated his practice too.

Strazzella, much like Fleet in the former panel, relayed the fundamental difficulties of passing overall effective health-care, emphasizing the principle monetary motivation of insurance companies.

Perhaps, however, the most passionate discussion was propagated by Dwight Michael, a proponent of the single-payer health care system. This form of medical representation is often linked (as it was by several speakers) with the idea of socialized medicine. Under a single-payer system, medical fees incurred would be processed by a single governmental body.

“Civilized health care is a right in this country,” Michael said. “[We have to] continue to craft the right.”

Despite the rather succinct nature, throughout this article, in which the opinions of each panel are delineated, the fundamental axiom they convey is in no way altered. Health care reform will prove a bastion of contention and, despite the circumstance, will continue to elicit the vitriolic response of proponents and opponents no matter what the context. It is both the advantage and disadvantage of so contemporary and issue.