So Folks, sorry - it's been a while (yeah I say that alot, I guess I work for some for the Government)!
But What I want to make a *brief* comment on today is health care. So...we've got bills in the House and Senate that are each about 2000 pages long. And Both of which are crap, which both politicians and regular people know.
Now Hold On! My name is NOT, i repeat NOT Glenn Beck! I do not think it is bad because it cost's money, or because it is authored by Democratic members of congress, I think it's bad because it covers little - and excludes too much!
So, here is a short synopses of what I think should be included in this health care bill:
#1. Coverage for all - period. People get it anyway in the ER's and the ER's arn't payed, so lets fix this - and make it so that everybody is covered, at least minimally for SOMETHING! After all this is health care - if people are sick or hurt, they miss work - if they miss work then they arn't productive members of society, if they arn't productive members of society then society will crumble. So give them coverage.
#2. Cover Children for EVERYTHING - another no brainier. Children are the future of this country, they are the ones we should be most concerned with. If they break their arm, cover it, if they need medicine for a heart condition cover it. If they overdose on ADD meds? COVER IT! Yes responsibility plays a role, however we can still help them when they need us, period.
#3. Prevent Federal Funding for: Elective Termination of Pregnancies, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and Euthenasia - Whether you agree with the following items, are against them for any reason, or just don't care. These three items don't need federal funding, because they are not items that will extend life, and their effectivness at "improving" quality of life is strongly debated.
#4. Prevent Federal Funding of ELECTIVE PROCEDURES - Just because you want Size DD breast's, a poison injected face, or "whiter" teeth does NOT mean I should pay for them with taxes. These are things that while they may enhance your ability to "get laid" on a Saturday night, they are not things you NEED to have better overall health! If your so interested in not going home alone, there are plenty of people who with a couple of 20's will spend the night with you...
#5. Use the Majority of the Money for PREVENTIVE Care - if it will cost $50 dollars to get a vacciene for HPV which will help prevent cervical cancer, or it will cost $5000 for an Emergency Room visit, and all the procedures to treat the cancer which one makes more sense? That's right, the 5000....wait? Wrong. It's a no brainer if I can save both the Patient and the Provider thousands of dollars???? It's easy.
Some lesser requirements would be to define: What is a child (uh...anyone under 18 years of age?); what is considered a cosmetic/elective procedure ( anything that is not required to improve your life/prevent you from dieing a premature death); and what is preventive care? (Well...anything that means I don't have to go to the hospital later, because the problem was taken care of when it was a small problem and not a BIG problem!)
Other than that....health care is pretty easy. That took what, 2-3 pages? Wow I just saved money on paper too! Oh well, maybe when I actually flesh this out it will take a few more pages (like 7-8) but the biggest point? There isn't any point in adding extra stuff. So...we will have to wait and see!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am going to comment mainly to let you know why solving health care is know easy problem. My position is not necessarily to disagree with your points but to show you why it is so hard. There is no simple fix and any proposal involves both a benefit and a cost that is difficult to weigh with any certainty.
Viewing health care from an overall perspective - I see two major difficulties. One is the basic overall problem of economics - our desires are unlimited but our resources are limited. Healthcare certainly highlights this situation. We want to live 20 years longer but it costs resources to achieve that goal. I think most of us would agree extending life spans is a reasonable goal. However, at some point we would all change our minds if the cost was too high. You can live 20 more years but it will cost $500 - no problem. You can live 20 more years but it will cost $10,000,000. We would have no trouble making that decision about ourselves or a loved one - but what about someone else? Even if we did conclude $10,000,000 was a reasonable expenditure, then at some point we would run out of money and we would have to make choices.
Like everything our desires are unlimited but our resources are limited. That means some form of rationing has to take place. That could be done based on wealth, breadlines, or central planning. There are arguments for and against each.
The second problem is that health care is a deeper issue than mere economics. My desire for material goods may be unlimited but no one really cares if my resources limit me. No one cares if I do not have the red billiard table I have always wanted on a crystal toilet seat. Yet, healthy and longer lives are not in this same category. Therefore the debate about how the problem is solved is fierce and difficult.
So lets looks at your proposals and let me point out why this is not easy:
1. Healthcare for all - Sounds great but who pays for it? First rule of economics - there is no such thing as a free lunch. Can we afford to pay for it? Should only rich people pay for it? Why shouldn't the middle class pay for it? What about health care for people who make poor choices? Why should I have to pay for someone who eats at McDonalds twice a day while I exercise and eat right. What about people who engage in risky behavior? Skiing has a high injury rate - should I have to pay for an injury that results from an optional activity while I choose less risky behaviors? Once society is paying for everyone else's health care then society has a say. That means we restrict diets and fine risky behavior. Do we want to trade away that freedom?
2. Cover children for everything - I am certainly sympathetic to this one but won't there be unintended consequences? Teen pregnancy is huge and I wonder if it would be as much of a problem if the government did not provide so much care for children. My wife and I did not have children while we were in school because we could not afford it. Yet Caswell County has teen mothers everywhere. Why? Because there are really no consequences to having a child. I do not mean this to say that I would actually change that. Certainly, the child was not at fault and I want children to be cared and provided for. My point is that it is not so simple.
3. Euthanasia and abortion would both save money. Embryonic stem cell research may lead to breakthroughs. I am opposed to all three but its based on moral considerations. You are trying to divorce the moral implications from them and it just will not work. These are intimately ethical issues and the debate cannot be one of practicality.
4. Elective procedures. Well certainly this is clear cut. Then again no one is really arguing that health care should be spent on elective procedures. Yet how does one decide what is elective. Are eye glasses elective? What if people don't have a very high prescription? What about a procedure for a serious condition with a low success rate? Lets say someone lives with a constantly irritated digestive problem as a result of gall stones. Laparoscopy fixes the problem but the patient could have just lived with the discomfort. Or the patient could have changed their diet to one that was not as likely to promote gall stone formation. The point is that at some level the definition of elective becomes difficult.
5. Is preventative care necessarily going to solve our problems. Say someone quits smoking and does not die of lung cancer. Then the money spent on the Chantix was well spent you say. We saved a fortune in medical care for lung cancer. Yet now that patient is going to live for another 20 or 30 years. How much is that going to cost you now? Once again I don't want to encourage smoking so people will die younger and save money. My point of using this scenario is to note how prevention does not necessarily save any money.
Also most preventive care is outside of the control of society and is dependent mainly on the patient. We cannot legislate healthy lifestyles. We can not mandate non-sedentary behavior. Its not that simple.
So no its not easy and its going to take more than 2-3 pages or even 7 or 8.
Post a Comment