Elections Have Consequences

For John, BLUF:  I fear we have health care by the wrong end of the stick.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Over at The Maddow Blog at MSNBC, Mr Steve Benen blogs "Elections used to have consequences".♠

We've all heard the "elections have consequences" adage many times, but let's be clear about what we're witnessing in 2013 Republicans are very clearly telling the country, "No, actually, elections don't have consequences.  We're still going to do as we please."

As Professor Althouse notes, the Republicans won the House of Representatives, and that has consequences.

There was a time when Obama said "I won." It was arrogant back then, and in a democracy, that kind of arrogance invites comeuppance.

But, arrogance should not be met with arrogance, in my humble opinion.  But, back to the Professor, who thinks back to Wisconsin a couple of years ago:

Benen ends with a line that resonates with us the people of Wisconsin:  "Democracies aren't supposed to work this way."  Back in 2011, we had weeks of loud protests with chanting over a drumbeat:  "This is what democracy looks like." And those were Democrats who'd lost the 2010 elections.  They were making all the noise they could because they didn't have the votes in the legislature, and yet they still shouted all day and night that what they wanted was democracy.  The idea — to the extent that it made any sense — was that the minority opinion also matters and free expression and dissent are part of the process, adding friction and restraint to the imposition of the will of the majority.

That is our form of democracy, with majority rule and minority rights and the minority not necessarily being a religious or racial grouping, but also an ideological grouping.

For the record, I believe Obamacare is a disaster on the order of the French Revolution imploding health care by closing the cloisters.  However, I don't believe it should be defunded, but it by God sure should be applied equally to Congress, including staff, and the IRS, including staff.  Then it should be replaced by something that provides health care professionals where needed.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says that in 2010 there were 691,000 positions for physicians and surgeons.  Looking to the future, BLS says:

Job prospects should be good for physicians willing to practice in rural and low-income areas, because these areas typically have difficulty attracting doctors.

How much of our problem is summed up in those few words?

Then there are 83,600 physicians assistants.

Employment of physician assistants is expected to increase 30 percent from 2010 to 2020, much faster than the average for all occupations.  As more physicians enter specialty areas of medicine, there will be a greater need for primary healthcare providers, such as physician assistants.

There are 105,780 nurse practitioners out there.

So, that is some 880,380 providers, not counting nurses and the like and we are still underserving people in "rural and low-income areas".  Not being an economist of health care, I don't have a finely tuned number, but what if the US Public Health Service, one of the seven uniformed Services in our Federal Government♥ trained and deployed to rural and low-income areas some 10% additional health care providers?  That would be about 88,000 physicians, physicians assistants and nurse practitioners.  I am betting it would make a big difference, if for no other reason than it would provide early detection and treatment of diseases that could, untreated, become very expensive when they finally show up at the Emergency Room.  Even putting 10,000 more folks out there would be a big step forward.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I wonder what exactly is going through his mind when Mr Benen uses the term "aggressive, right-wing agenda"?  I am doubting tennis courts come to his mind.  One wonders if maybe it is neo-cons.
♥  Like the Army and Navy and Air Force and Marine Corps and Coast Guard and NOAA.