Back to the election dialogue. Other issues in this election that illuminate Compassion a great deal, and frankly get the attention this election, are immigration, health care, minimum wage, trade, and the war in Iraq (I would add global poverty and sickness). I'm writing this while listening to Obama and Hillary debate their health care plans in Austin. I usually think of the refrain "Where you live should not decide whether you live or whether die" applying to other parts of the world, but the reality is much closer to home. Where you live in these United States, where you live in my state, even where you live in my city does impact whether you live or die. It's a human travesty I cannot excuse because someone should work harder or smarter or spend less or whatever economic argument I try. Who am I to judge their opportunity or their circumstances? I don't know. Even if a person is in desperate need as a result of choices, how does that excuse my ignoring or inaction? If karma is the rule, I'm screwed.
Exasperating to me to hear arguments over details of "my plan does this and your plan does that." The truth is no President's plan will get through as it is. More important to me is the effort, the direction, the goal. Where do you want us to go, and if I agree with that direction are you capable of getting it done in today's bitter political environment? Universal health care has more traction than ever, the leadership will be critical. It has the potential to save many lives and improve the quality of millions more.
The cost matters, certainly. I had an interesting conversation with a Republican friend who was lamenting the inevitable huge cost of universal health coverage (someone who has coverage, of course), and I asked if he knew cost estimates? And did he know how much Bush had increased spending? From his 2001 budget to this 2008 budget, Bush's increased spending, increase only, was 1.1 trillion dollars (proposed 2 trillion in spending in 2001, proposed 3.1 trillion in 2008). Hillary's plan, accepted as the most expensive, would be 100 billion or so a year. Only 1 trillion to go to match Bush's spending increase! My only point with this is to say we are spending the money and we are increasing our spending - it's a choice we make to spend it on things other than caring for the medical needs of people who need help.
It’s a complicated issue, but it is an outrage that my brother dies in sight of a building full of technology and people that could have saved him, it’s unacceptable that my little sister cripples without the prevention and care that was within literal, but not economic, reach.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It's certainly true. I agree that the president's spending has been incredibly irresponsible. I have a hard time making the jump to being willing to spend billions on a universal healthcare plan that is destined to be misused and abused. However, it seems a far better option than wasting the same tax dollars on economic bandaids and questionable military action. It's an interesting conundrum. Still, is the better plan simply to spend less on government all together and allow for more freedom in the healthcare industry? I don't know.
Hey, I enjoyed your game of Itunes roulette. Pretty amusing, huh?
I'm confused about more freedom in the healthcare industry. What is it the industry needs to make health care available to more people at an affordable price?
What is the potential abuse you are envisioning? Patient abuse of state funded systems is typically to qualify, and that would not be an issue if everyone had coverage. Provider abuse by the healthcare industry, heck yeah, so let's give them more freedom!
It's hard to make even a pure economic argument against universal health care. The uninsured rack up 99 billion per year in health care costs because their chronic conditions or preventable disease became an "emergency" and they must be treated under federal law. Or they reach age 65 and obtain Medicare with much higher medical costs than if they had seen a doctor at an early age. The economic benefits of universal health care have been estimated to be between 65 billion and 130 billion dollars.
So the net cost of universal health care becomes smaller than the initial price tag. And that's not counting the staggering moral cost we pay now for the travesty that is the present condition.
It sounds like you have decided that it's no longer a complicated issue.
During my time serving state government, I ran across plenty of patient misuse - not dealing with qualifying. I can get you specific examples from my contacts in Social Services if you need them. I can just promise that not all patients will be responsible with their choices simply because they have coverage.
I am not saying that we do not have a moral responsibility to serve those in need. I am simply reiterating your point that the issue is, in fact, complicated. I think a simple answer does not exist. However, that does not give us the freedom not to make our best efforts to find one that serves the needy and protects the health of our economy.
I think it's a complicated issue to solve, but the complications I see are on a macro level. I just don't see patient abuse as a barrier. The complications, in my opinion, are HOW you get it done, not IF we should get it done.
Suppose that this conversation is over, but am wondering what part information about success and failure of existing universal healthcare plans in other nations,such as Canada, Great BRitain, etc., might be of interest in this discussion? Or am I missing something in what you are talking about?
That's a good question. The US is widely considered to be the only wealthy industrialized nation without universal health care of some kind. One advantage for the US in being a late adapter is that there is wide variety among the nations with universal health care so there is great opportunity to study what works. Interestingly enough, the US ranks below most of these other countries in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy. There is some truth to delays in some situations, but not as bad as we might think, and little truth to quality of care.
I can summarize some of this research at another time. We no doubt will return to this topic during the general election. Thanks for reading and commenting, whoever you are ...
You no doubt have supportable data and statistics to back-up what you are stating here. However, there have been many sources that report alarming stories to the contrary. What are we to believe? Ideally, we may have the advantage of learning from the mistakes of others, but unless a miraculously different plan is devised, how will we escape the inevitable snarl, corruption, and, at best,mediocrity such a bureacracy would create? Everyone in a nation as weathy as this should have adequate food, shelter, and healthcare, you correctly assert. Why is it necessary for all to be the "same" for that to occur? (There is a much bigger problem of maorality here that is another topic) Another question is, since there is healthcare for those who are in a position to afford it and those who are poor and indigent, why not address the problem of those working poor and those that fall through the cracks or are marginalized for whatever reasons? Why not find a way to provide healthcare for those who need it, rather than forcing everyone to enter into an even more complicated and bureacratic nightmare involving government? Perhaps you could investigate those who have had to manage their health through HMO's, a similarly constructed vehicle for managing healthcare costs, because in universal healthcare, how could cost not become the major deciding factor in treatment once government becomes the only ballgame in town?
By the way, not really, anonymous. Just technically challenged!! Couldn't figure certain things out. Am really "yours truly", Linda
Like many terms used in the social arena these days, "Universal Health Care" has its own meaning to the hearer. I admit I used the term with my own meaning and inadvertently invited a few questions I did not intend. For example, I do not think care will be the same across all socioeconomic lines (as unfortunate as that may be). More importantly, I am not specifically advocating a healthcare bureaucracy that looks something like a behemoth HMO. Not every country does this, and given the foundation already built here by private industry, it is not something the US needs either.
We can bring serious change by a few mandatory coverage rules on insurance companies and a few subsidy (or other financial assistance mechanism) categories. Unfortunately, the gap is far greater than just the working poor falling through the cracks. This is a significant amount of people and the current rules are often counter to self-help. To change will be costly, and the cost may even be to my personal access to health care not just my pocket book, but I struggle to find another justification for continuing the current situation.
It seems I am having difficulty following your logic. It is no doubt due to my ignorance of the topic. There is sure to be much information that you have access to due to your work that is not readily available to others. In order to grasp your plan, to be open to hearing your proposals, it might be helpful for you to be specific about certain things, such as:
What are the demographics of the people you are referring to?
Since emergency care is mandatory, what services and at what cost for services would provide needed care?
What are the macrolevel complications that concern you?
What are statistical facts about delays for care, quality issues in other countries, if "not as bad..."?
How would the structure in place of private industry be utilized to prevent the "behemoth" structure that seems to evolve from government involvement?(I am not trying to be antagonistic, but would love to have some expamples of when that has not been the case when gov't takes charge.)
How would mandatory coverage rules on insurance companies and a few subsidy (or other financial assistance mechanism) categories work? What cost? Administrated?
Hope you will take these as legitimate questions. I am moved by the intensity of your concern for this issue. It is an issue of morality for all of us, one that those who have been fortunate enough to "live" in the "right" place need to give a great deal more thought and action to. Linda
Post a Comment