Health Insurance and 'Choice'

I agree with Scott Lemieux, and thought this column by Eugene Robinson today was kind of weird. Although it seems to strengthen Robinson's resolve for some kind of health care reform, as Scott says, there's a weird moment at the beginning where he talks more about choice. It was heavily hinged on his personal experience with a bacterial infection and right before he went into surgery, his doctor said to him:

"You know, if you and Obama had your way with health care, it wouldn't be me doing this operation. It would just be some guy."

At the end of the column, Robinson says this:

What's changed is that I also feel more strongly about the ability to make my own choices. I decided where I would be treated and, ultimately, what would or wouldn't be done. I'm willing to pay for that, too.

This reasoning always baffles me. In an attempt to tap into libertarian sensiblities (or whatever it is) people who promote "individual choice" in health care seem to completely ignore the fact that most people don't get to choose their doctors already. Most health care plans have something called "in network" doctors and "out of network" doctors. You certainly can "choose" to go to an out of network doctor, but that would be crazy. You would end up paying hundreds -- or, more likely thousands -- of dollars for your "choice." So you go to the doctor outlined on your insurance providor's website. We should just stop pretending that now everyone can choose whatever doctor they want.

Obligatory St. Paddy's Day Post

I learned to pour my perfect pint of Guinness while in Ireland. You should too. Also, the Irish are so excited they're dancing in the streets. Literally.

Travel Writing

After just coming back from my trip to Ireland (pre-St. Patrick's Day, thanks to some strategic blackout dates from Aer Lingus) I was interested to find out that the travel book market tanked last year. This is interesting to me because I had always thought of travel writing as having an inverse relationship to actual travel, but as we've seen from recent reporting, that's not the case.

Of course, it's silly of me to think about travel writing this way because a great deal of travel writing is of the "how to" variety: Where should I go? What should I see? Where, most importantly, should I eat? But all too often these types of travel writing aren't particularly interesting to me. Instead I tend to be more interested in the more long-form, narrative kinds of travel writing. These are the kinds, I would think, that would become more popular as the ability to travel cheaply diminishes.

Still, airlines and hotels are offering deep discounts and "recession specials" to encourage people to travel, so perhaps people are going to continue to travel without buying the useless books that only point you to one helpful thing. I'd think that the real damage to travel books isn't the loss of travel -- it's more that more interesting and more useful information can be found online or through friends than through an inane travel book that tries to cater to everyone. After all, there are different kinds of travelers that are interested in doing different kinds of things. Catering to all of them is nearly impossible. Instead, we can rely on local coverage and the blogs of those who have happened on a cool place while they were there. The internet. It's changing everything.

Getting REAL

Today, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced a bill called the REAL Act. It's a bill that would require comprehensive and medically accurate sex education to be taught in schools.

I went to look at recent polling data on support for teaching comprehensive sex ed in schools -- the most recent I could find was this Pew study from 2005 (if someone has a more recent study, please post in comments). It shows that roughly three-quarters of people support the teaching of condoms AND the teaching of abstinence in sex education. While this might seem to be a contradiction, it's actually the definition of comprehensive sex education.

It's why many people who specialize in sex ed have begun calling this "abstinence plus" to illustrate the fact that comprehensive sex education includes a component of teaching that abstinence is the best way not to get pregnant, but there are other things you can do to mitigate your risks if you decide to become sexually active. And let's face it, most people at some point do.

UPDATE: Added the link to the Pew study.

Pope Says Condoms 'Increase' HIV Infection

It's not really surprising that the Pope would say something as dumb as this, but still. I continue to be amazed that the religious spend their time demonizing condoms. As if condoms somehow are the root of evil in this world, rather than a prudent precaution for those that are sexually active and want to minimize their risk of exposure to infection. It's true that condoms aren't a total guarantee against infection of HIV -- after all, condoms can break -- but it's still really important to promote the use of them. I really hope people stop listening to the Pope when it comes to sexuality.

More on the Family Research Council

I have a profile of Tony Perkins, Family Research Council president, up on Campus Progress today. Check it out.

Messing with VA Care

There is a story that the VA, with the support of the Obama administration, is considering a plan to change VA care to be provided via private insurers -- the plan has been met with a lot of resistance. Senators described the plan as DOA: "dead on arrival."

Veterans in this country, despite all of the problems that have been reported in recent years -- experience health care in a way that no other American can hope for. A veteran makes an appointment for medical care (and there have been some reported long wait times, although to be fair, I often have to wait several weeks to see a doctor on my employer's insurance) and arrive on the day to see the doctor. When they are done, they walk out the door. No payment necessary. No insurance checks, no waiting to see if procedures are covered by their insurance.

In the end, veterans in this country, despite the problems, have health care that any American would love to have. I'm not sure if this is a plan to work everyone into this public/private hybrid that Obama envisioned during the election, but to mess with VA care by switching to private insurers is political suicide. Veterans like their care. They deserve it. It's been around for decades. The only thing they want is for it to be better, and they definitely don't want to change it.