I am sick to death about the health care arguments. I know you are too. In fact, that’s something about which we can all agree, I hope, as it appears not much else is. Well, wait, there’s something else: we all feel the health care system needs reforming.
The devil is in the details, as always, and there are far too many details for most of us to process. So we argue about generalities or about specifics that are either irrelevant, less relevant or completely misunderstood by most of us. Now I read that as Congress recesses, partisans are planning attacks on each other and on selective specifics, such as targeting Congressmen who oppose a public health plan option as being in the pocket of the insurance industry (MoveOn) or preventing a public insurance option because it might cover abortion (private conservative group). The DNC will accuse Republicans of trying to kill health care reform and the RNC will accuse Democrats of trying to foist a risky experiment on the American people. Doctors will show up at Republican rallies to rail against medical malpractice costs and lawyers will show up at Democratic rallies to rail against inadequate protection for consumers. At this rate, Congress will reconvene in September and do nothing because they can’t agree on what they’ll claim are key pieces of the legislation. 
Where does that leave us? Bluntly, it leaves me with more than adequate health insurance that, at the present time, I can afford, notwithstanding health-related expenses are becoming one of the single highest yearly expenses I have. But it leaves my single mother friend, my 58-year-old consultant friend, and my married friend with two children and self-employed, disabled husband with a lot less.
The insurance companies are promising to reform themselves, which I’d like to believe but unfortunately, I have only to think of the financial industry – well, you get the point. I detest the idea of more regulation but wouldn’t mind a conditional attempt at requiring the private sector to cover preventive health care and alternative approaches, not to mention pre-existing conditions. I don’t like the idea of more taxes but I don’t like the idea that small businesses can’t afford to insure their employees. I know the between forty to fifty million people are estimated to be without health care but I imagine many more are under-insured, and so the idea of a publicly financed option looks good. I think that trying to track down positive or negative examples of how health care works in Great Britain or Canada is asinine because first of all, the systems don’t resemble each other and second of all, neither will resemble whatever the Senate brings out of committee.
The real question all of us have to ask ourselves is whether we believe health care for all our citizens is a right or a privilege, an obligation or a blessing, a guarantee we must make or one we can’t make. We should have asked and answered it long ago, but we sure as hell better know when we run into our representatives in August.
As usual, you have succinctly and superbly described why those of us who are fortunate enough to have enough insurance should be advocating for those who don’t. It may seem impossible now, but so did removing all tv ads for cigarettes and hard liquor, or legislating installing seat belts in all vehicles.
Agreed. Actually, the point I was making was also this: if people are really and honestly committed to coverage for all, they’ll be willing to pay a little more and take some risks. I am, frankly. But I’m feeling that at some level, and particularly in the public sphere, the arguments about who pays what and who takes over what and what it means for means for one’s “freedom” to choose one’s own doctor might really be about some citizens’ (with coverage) fear of losing what they have to take care of people they’ve never met.
There are many other questions.
-Is it the role of the government to make health care decisions?
-Does the government have the right to decide who should or should not receive care?
-Does the government have the right to our medical records?-… Read More
-Can the government really do a BETTER job of providing care and if so, what examples can you site to back up your position? The VA,maybe,or the Indian Health Hospital. Is it possible to ameliorate the system we now have in order to cover the uninsured without scrapping it entirely? Might it be worth a try?
-Should the country be put in further debt to provide insurance to those who live here illegally?
-If you believe that the government should provide health care to all, shouldn’t it also provide food and shelter which are even more basic needs?
-Even though the plan may not be exactly like that of Canada and Great Britain, do you not believe that we could learn from their mistakes and try to avoid the same pitfalls?
I could go on and on and on.
All good questions. I will say that providing quality health care seems to me a way to save money, as having the uninsured use the emergency room for their basic care seems very cost-inefficient. We can certainly learn from Canada’s (fee-based) and England’s (government-run) model – successes as well as mistakes as long as we remember that each of these systems is different from one another and we don’t seem to be close to scrapping the system we have now; as I understand it, we’re talking about providing a public option. However, there will be competition along with regulations; the insurance industry appears to fear the first, which is interesting because competition could make them better and, second,up until now, the industry has rejected any attempts to make life easier for those they do insure let alone those they deny. I do think there are state laws that might be able to take care of some of what the Feds are suggesting and so I suppose that, depending on your priorities, you can live where you can expect NOT to be denied for a pre-existing condition (New Jersey) and not to be awarded over $250,000 on any malpractice suit (Texas). I need to look at the current bill in committee in the Senate to see whether health care for illegal immigrants is provided. Finally, as to whether the government can do a BETTER job, I don’t know. We’re talking about giving coverage to more people by making it more affordable and thus far, the insurance industry hasn’t shown they can manage that, either because they can’t figure out how or they don’t wish to.