To jump right in--I have been researching today. All of the hype around our "health insurance reform" bill irritated me. Well anything sensationalized irritates me, hyper-erroneous claims that take up time and discredit whichever party the "claimer" claims more than the one they intended to attack. Anyway--this is what I have found.
Truth: Canada, the U.K., and France all have lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. We are actually sandwiched between the Faroe Islands and Cuba (which just beat us out). This is disconcerting--and I got this directly from the CIA World Factbook--we are only 180 out of 224 (the higher the number, the lower the ratio). Our life expectancy is not much better. The U.S. is number 50 (in this list the lower the ranking the better) beat out by the same three big bad socialist countries--and countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina! Now I have a friend from Bosnia, and have heard the horror stories--how are we living shorter lives than them?!? We can derive from these simple statistics that indeed, our health care system is nothing to be proud of--nothing we should cling to as if our life depends on it (because, well, it does, and it hasn't been working out so well for us now has it?).
As Americans, we have been raised to believe that "big government" is bad--communist, think 1984 "Big Brother," right? But, is it so bad to confine capitalism to sectors not devoted to the nurturing and preservation of life?
Health care and drug costs soar because the U.S. is privatized. The same medication in a regulated system costs much less (and I don't mean just the cost to the consumer, the cost period). That is just fact. But, many complain that regulation blocks the individual's freedom of choice because medicine that does not fall within the predetermined cost-to-benefit equation would not be permitted. So while both sides haggle about who loves their grandmother more--which option actually helps keep granny's money in her pocketbook and keeps her alive long enough to buy a new one next season?
Well, we can infer from the life expectancy statistics that the French, Canadians, and British will be enjoying Granny's Christmas Gooseberry Pie longer than we will. Now--this is not all due to the availability of prescription medication--it is due in large part to the focus of the entire health care system. We, as Americans, are tough. "Walk-it-off," "rub some dirt on it," or "just give it some time" are all American euphemisms for "we aren't taking you to the Doctor--so get over it." Now if this is applied to a heavy feeling in your chest instead of a sprained ankle, you could be putting yourself at serious risk for a heart attack. Other countries, where health care is no big deal, do not have this aversion to the Doctor. You don't feel well, you go see the Doctor, and as such, the Physicians are able to take more preventative measures rather than trying to fix years of unchecked deterioration.
So, re-orienting ourselves to the way we view health care is just as important as political reform. Do I think that health care should be an enumerated right, and therefore constitutionally protected? Yes. You know the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" bit? It is hard to fulfill your American entitlement if you aren't healthy and can't get the treatments you need. The real antipathy towards anything "socialized" I believe arises from our innate and over-fed selfishness. The people who speak out the loudest against the reform all have insurance, and have yet to be screwed over by their insurance company. They shouldn't have to pay for other people's sloth and inability to pay! Outrage! If a 37 year old woman dies of kidney cancer because she didn't have insurance and therefore didn't have access to expensive treatments that could have saved her--too bad, good riddance, one less social-leech? But if that same 37 year old woman were to abort a 10 week old fetus--murder, protests, indignation? How is the right to life which they claim to hold so dear not extend to the uninsured ill? This position seems a tad counter-intuitive. Either you believe in the right to life or you don't, right? Now, don't get me wrong--I am open for debate on how far pre-birth that right should extend--but if something with no brain waves deserves it, then surely an adult should be privy to the same consideration.
How is it so different then from the social security that those same people feel entitled to collect? Everyone pays in--some more than others--and everybody reaps the benefit when they need it. My biggest qualm so far with HR 3200 is the cost. At just under one trillion and 50 billion dollars for the first 9 years, it is a steep price. But, as the Canadians have, we will get better at "trimming the fat" (and no, by that I don't mean the old people) but curbing unnecessary administrative expenditures, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment