They say you can't put a price on good health, at least I know I couldn't put a price on my own. It's more difficult for me to say whether I can put a price on your good health. I've heard endless loops about the things people disagree about on the new health care law, but there is actually consensus on a few big things: 30 million people that do not currently have health insurance will have health insurance, coverage under Medicare and private insurance improves, and the changes will cost at least $100 billion per year. So it seems to me that the effect of the new health care law is that the health of many people will be improved but it's going to cost a lot of money.
It's a complex issue and I realize that is a rudimentary simplification, but I believe it's true.
The similar simplifications I've heard against this new law are: the new health care law is a violation of American liberties and will bankrupt the United States.
Is the simplified decision, then, how much liberty and money am I willing to give up to improve the health of my brothers and sisters?
I'll admit I've lost my right to go uninsured, but every other liberty I've heard I'm losing has been settled in the US since the 1920's. Other cries of lost liberty I've heard ring hollow to me as accusations of what might happen later or are too wide-ranging and frenzied to take seriously. As for the cost, I agree this is costly. I take the cost seriously and I want accountability. But I also understand that we find the money for what we believe is important (few Americans blink at spending over $600 billion per year on the defense budget).
Wait a moment... See how quickly and easily this can turn into a discussion, a debate, or even a fight over liberty and money?! And as we turn on each other in this debate that has been more bitter than accurate, we leave the sick to the side... The sick. This group that Jesus favored, and that we all eventually join.
With my focus again on compassion, I push past these superficial distinctions I create of wealth and health and Americanism, and I find myself without support for clutching to control and to my wealth. Instead, I am impressed again that EVERY human being is Yahweh’s child and protecting the health of every human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility. This new law is a mere drop in the bucket, an imperfect step toward human equality. We will really have to roll up our sleeves and soften our hearts if the goal is to value and care for every person, if the goal is equal opportunity for health and care for every child in Philadelphia, every senior citizen in Flagstaff, every mother in Los Angeles, every father in Des Moines... and then on to the rest of the world...
8 comments:
I think we could have extended health care to those needing it without requiring everyone to have it. Some people may desire to save the monthly premium and spend cash at the doctor's office. Most years I lose money on health insurance premiums because I don't go to the doctor that much (thankfully). In other words, I would be better off economically speaking to save the premiums and simply pay cash for the few times I go to the doctor's office. I just don't see how the two (offering care to those who need it and can't afford it and requiring everyone to purchase) are related.
One issue that would help is prescription drug coverage. That is a real cost. An average trip to the doctor is only $100 or so, but if you have to take any sort of medication that does not have a generic, you can spend hundreds per month. Limiting those prices would be a good idea.
However, I agree an imperfect start to the resolution of an issue that requires deep thought and compassion.
We need the premiums from low-cost people to make the premiums for high-cost people affordable. A form of socialism I'm glad to participate in, and really appreciate in the years I need it (like last year).
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Understood on the nature of insurance and how it works (thus the irony of the uproar against socialism when we have in fact had such a sharing of assets for many many years, and which are generally championed by the right, but I digress). I still disagree. But that doesn't cause me to think this is the worst idea ever and that Dems are evil and trying to undo the USA.
An additional question that is outside the scope of your call to compassion and sanity post, but goes along with who is included in the requirement to participate, is what about employers who currently self insure. There are several such entities. Are they now going to be required to change their system? I will confess ignorance of this issue with respect to the new law.
Despite this area of disagreement, I agree that the bill itself is a start and that the disdain, anger, and sometimes violent reaction of opposition is disheartening and counterproductive.
Finally, the right has been touting "real solutions" ever since this debate began. My question is, where were these "real solutions" when they had control of Congress and the White House and everyone knew of the problem.
I picked up a medicine today for my 7-year-old, my cost was $111. I wondered how many dads out there would have been forced to leave their boy coughing. One is too many, and I suspect it's more than that.
But I write this to share something more in line with my intent in this column. I chose to tell my 7 and 5 year-old boys how much the medicine cost. They were appropriately impressed, and it became clear they understood the significance. But their priorities were also clear. The older boy said pretty quickly, "It's more important that I feel better than that we have money." My younger boy thought about it for a few minutes, then decided that this unexpected expenditure would mean he would not get the toy "prize" he has been working for these past few weeks. Before I could reassure him, he said, "Oh well, taking care of kids is more important than new toys."
Soft hearts.
First, let me say I understand the yearning of your heart to provide health care insurance to those who do without. It is right and Christian to want to care for those who cannot do so for themselves. In fact, up though the middle of the last century, there was a good system in place that allowed those who could not pay to receive healthcare at least on par with the rest of the civilized world -- charity hospitals. They relied on entities, spiritual or otherwise, and the goodness of the people in the community to willingly donate time and money for the health of their fellow man.
The issues at hand to me, and pinpointed by the 2000+ pages of this bill, are: whether we should be compelled to give and care for them by our faith and love for fellow man or be required by law to surrender the blessings provided to us individually to do so, and will the system that results be better overall than the current system?
OR, is it the responsibility of any government to tell us when and where to provide our charity, and can they give us a better system of providing healthcare than what is already in place?
If you would like to avoid a liberty/money debate and focus elsewhere, may I ask how much you trust the government to be the sole administrator of something as essential as healthcare? If your answer is that you trust such an entity moderately or better, I would challenge you to visit a skilled care facility of your choosing and have a few conversations with Medicare recipients as to their satisfaction with their insurance. Or better, talk to a few local Medicaid recipients about what a government-run insurance has done for them.
You stated that you take the cost seriously and you want accountability... How much accountability do you think exists in Washington? How often do we hear of scandals and fraud within our government? Further, is an entity that controls the education for the richest country in the world successful if it results in a rank of ninth in literacy and has it's children ranked 17 and 24 in math and science, respectively (most recent stats I could find)? Do you trust that government to do a better job with healthcare than it does with education?
Finally, when passage of changes such as these result in more doctors leaving the profession early, what will be the effect on healthcare as a whole? My personal experience in speaking to physicians tells me that a significant portion, including those between the ages of 40 and 60, are planning on being "out" before the changes are fully implemented. The most common sentiment amongst those planning to leave was "it just won't be worth all the headaches involved" as one doctor stated. Further, when fewer college graduates see a bright future in medicine and choose to apply their talents elsewhere, how will we replace those physicians who leave? How can this deficit result in better healthcare for all?
I agree that the Republicans are just as culpable in this mess. They had a beautiful opportunity to implement changes that could have had real, positive effects on our system. They could have implemented tort reform that allowed doctors to practice medicine with a mindset other than that of a goalie in overtime. They could have removed regulations on health care insurance that limit plans to being state-specific, causing a dramatic reduction in price as Tennessee-based companies began marketing in Ohio and New Jersey, etc. They chose to sit on their thumbs and gloat at their dominance, right up until said dominance vanished like a fart in the wind.
I am all for change that benefits the people of this nation, allowing us the opportunity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as promised to us by our forefathers. I have a major problem with changes that limit our potential both as individuals and as a country. This legislation, I fear, is the latter.
Wow, sorry for the wall-o-text.
Wall-o-thoughtful-text is always welcome! I appreciate your reasoning.
Sounds like we agree that caring for others is the Christian (and Muslim and Buddhist and Hindu and Atheist...) thing to do. What a difference it makes when we start the conversation there! "How can we care for the most people in the best way?"
You ask if we should be compelled to care for others by our own faith and love, or told to do so by the government. We ARE the government. It's "us" we're compelling each other to care for others - but we're a group, which means the entire group won't always agree with the group decision. Sometimes a part of the group vehemently disagrees with the group decision.
I wish the group could unanimously agree to pool our resources and feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the outcast, tend to the wounded, care for the sick... Alas, it's not unanimous, but that doesn't make it any less caring or loving.
Peace, friend. I look forward to more conversations.
Enjoying the discussion. Just a couple thoughts regarding the issues raised:
1. Having worked in government and private industry, my trust level in both is about equal. Though government corruption is a reality, corporate corruption is just as real and complex.
2. I want to believe in the "let the churches and private citizens care for the sick, orphans and widows" theory, but when it comes to actual practice, I'm not convinced an extra $XX in our paychecks (from reduced taxes) would go those in need. My extra money would likely go (and has gone) to another restaurant meal or a slightly larger TV instead of increasing my giving to those without.
And maybe that's the most important part. Regardless of what "the government" (whether I see it as "them" or "us") chooses to do with a small portion of my income, I still make direct choices daily with the vast majority of it.
Post a Comment