I little while ago, I read a letter to an editor that said we should “join the rest of the world” on the socialized medicine bandwagon. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?! I would love it if our communities, like some in Canada, raffled off medical services annually to those who need them. I would love it if the government raised taxes to pay for health care, then, like those who can afford it in France, buy my own health insurance to get treatment when I need it. I would love telling the “unproductive,” like the retired and disabled in England, that they are going to have to wait indefinitely while “productive” members of society get treatment. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have diagnostic procedures (MRIs, CAT scans, etc) rationed, so that hundreds of people go undiagnosed like in Canada and the UK? Hippocratic Oath, shmippocratic oath.
To illustrate, a man I student taught with had an aunt who lived in England who didn't have any immediate family and was retired. She got cancer, and her doctor knew about it, but he didn't tell her or diagnose it until after she died because she was "unproductive." It was a good thing that that doctor saved everyone so much money by not prescribing expensive, lifesaving treatment to someone who doesn't pay taxes.
Our current system is without a doubt the worst system in the world. We are due for change, and hope for that matter. Don't mind that the WHO(that is often critical of the US) in a recent report found that the US has the highest cancer survival rates of any other country in the world and that patients in America can expect the most prompt and relevant service of any other country in the world.
And we here in America already have wonderful models set up for this socialized wonderland! Isn’t it wonderful that Medicare only has a 30% fraud rate? That’s only tens of billions of dollars annually right now. And how about the treatment that veterans get. Some of them even get the treatment that they need and don’t have to wait more than a decade.
If the government were providing it, cost would definitely go down! You wouldn’t have to pay administrators, just bureaucrats. The government has proved how efficiently they can run businesses. Just look at the restaurant in the basement of the Capitol Building. It only runs a loss of a few million dollars every year.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Healthcare
With the rising debate on a "public option" for health insurance, I've been thinking about a few things. There are very few people, I think, that don't think our current health care system needs some sort of adjustment. I am definitely one of those who thinks we need reform, although I fundamentally disagree with the current proposals in congress.
Many people base their arguments on health care reform on the idea that health care is a right. It is certainly not an enumerated right, and if they claim it is, I would like them to name the amendment it's contained in. It could very well fit into the 10th amendment, though. If we are to accept that health care is a right, what does that mean for the relationship between us and our government? The 1st amendment protects our right to assemble and worship how, where, and what we will, but I don't think I've ever seen a government-funded church building project. The 1st amendment also gives us freedom of speech, but I don't think I've ever heard of a radio station that gives each person their fair share of air time. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms, but I have yet to receive my government issue sidearm. Health care may be a right, but that doesn't mean that government should provide it to everyone, it means that the federal government can't take away legitimate health care from its citizens (which under the current proposal, I'm not so sure it would fulfill this obligation of good government).
My major concern with the "public option" is that private insurers will not be able to compete with it. The public option would be subsidized by taxpayer dollars whereas private insurers have to do all of the mundane things of private companies like not letting expenditures exceed revenues. Also, a public insurer would happen to be a part of that entity that regulates the industry. That forms a conflict of interests and a high likelihood of corruption. In the end, there is little hope for private companies to compete with the government.
Many people base their arguments on health care reform on the idea that health care is a right. It is certainly not an enumerated right, and if they claim it is, I would like them to name the amendment it's contained in. It could very well fit into the 10th amendment, though. If we are to accept that health care is a right, what does that mean for the relationship between us and our government? The 1st amendment protects our right to assemble and worship how, where, and what we will, but I don't think I've ever seen a government-funded church building project. The 1st amendment also gives us freedom of speech, but I don't think I've ever heard of a radio station that gives each person their fair share of air time. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms, but I have yet to receive my government issue sidearm. Health care may be a right, but that doesn't mean that government should provide it to everyone, it means that the federal government can't take away legitimate health care from its citizens (which under the current proposal, I'm not so sure it would fulfill this obligation of good government).
My major concern with the "public option" is that private insurers will not be able to compete with it. The public option would be subsidized by taxpayer dollars whereas private insurers have to do all of the mundane things of private companies like not letting expenditures exceed revenues. Also, a public insurer would happen to be a part of that entity that regulates the industry. That forms a conflict of interests and a high likelihood of corruption. In the end, there is little hope for private companies to compete with the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)