Collateral Damage in the Health Care Debate
November 8th, 2009(This post will be a bit US-centric)
Right now, in the US, is a huge battle over medical care. At issue is the basic question: Is health care a human right? Of course most people agree it is, but not everyone agrees that *they* should have to pay for someone else’s rights (yet, that is the very definition of “human right” – it’s something that must exist, regardless of cost, so much so that discussion of whether it is expensive is truly irrelevant). Essentially, many people are happy with the status-quo, and feel the need to preserve that – people who don’t want anything that impacts them personally to happen, whether it is higher taxes or different service provisions.
This leads to legislation with bizarre compromises, like providing services federally, without increasing federal revenue (seriously, have these people never balanced a checkbook?). Of course sometimes doing the right thing will cost money – even for the common man, who, ultimately, will have to provide the money for this universal care. The question at issue is: is my right to have my flat screen TV and Cable TV more important than someone’s right to medical care that follows them into employment? This is the key disability rights issue – right now, someone (like many disabled people) living on public assistance has to worry about losing medical coverage should they “make too much money” – making it very hard to accept that first job. After all, you don’t know if the first job will work out, nor does it usually include medical insurance (think back to your first job – did you get medical insurance with it? You were very lucky if you did!).
We live in a very strange society where people complain about how hard it is to make ends meet – while owning many items the rest of the world would consider luxury items of the rich – while at the same time ignoring the plight of people who have trouble getting much more basic needs, such as food and medical care. (note: I’m not saying that people who are claiming to have financial trouble don’t really have financial trouble – this is a rough time for many people, and I recognize the legitimacy of that – please read what I write carefully)
Unfortunately, while this is argued about by people with good health care – care that doesn’t prevent them from seeking employment, others suffer. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, and I don’t know what to do about it. But it is sad to see how selfish people can be sometimes. (I’ll note that I’m not currently someone who needs any sort of universal health care – I have good health care through my employer, but I hope I can recognize that other parts of humanity could use the same thing I got, and that this shouldn’t be a privilege of class)
My mother needs health care. I have state health care which was useful because of the severe stomach aches I have all the time and getting medicine I need for it and anxiety and stuff.
I believe in universal healthcare, as so many folks need it. It doesn’t make sense for folks to have to pay large amounts of money and hardly receive the coverage they need.
And I don’t get the strong harsh anti-health care folks either. They are so… adamant… I’m lucky to have a computer, my own apartment, stuff I worked for, but I’ve been mostly unemployed this year like so many other people. Don’t they realize they might need support and health one day?
Doesn’t make any kind of sense.
I have this feeling that only a unfunded mandate to buy health insurance will make it, never mind if you really can’t afford it. Unless we can tackle the costs of drugs and medical care, there is no way we can afford to have universal health care. We can’t honestly say health care is a right even if it would be great to have care for all. Our government is way too deep in debt to be taking on another commitment dwarfing Medicare. But if there is no “public option”, neither should there be a health insurance mandate. Health care reform is destined to fail again this time.
Those who are not prepared to spend on the health care of others ought then to pay the entire costs of there own health care without insurance then.
After all what is insurance but a pooling of resources, and what is a tax based health care system but an even greater pooling of resources.
Essentially a national insurance scheme (with insurance credits for those who are out of work and recieving state benefits) is the way to go. just so long as it does not become a stealth tax that is spent on anything but health provision.
I agree with what Larry says: even private insurance can only exist because relatively healthy people pay premiums. The upside is that, should they someday need healthcare, they can count on the insurer paying for it. If they only wanted to pay for their own care, there would be no reason they’d have to step into an insurance plan in the first place.
Whether “health care” is a human right does, to some degree, depend on how you define it. Health care can include medically necessary care, like accessing trained doctors when illness occurs and getting necessary medications or procedures to combat illness. Health care can also include unnecessary care, which can range from homeopathy to liposuction.
I believe that everyone should have access to medically necessary care. I believe that pooling our nation’s resources is necessary to provide that care. But I do not believe the legislation pushed by President Obama and his fellow Democrats achieve that end, because insurance is not the primary resource available that provides that care. Insurance is only an intermediary.
The problem is not merely a lack of insurance–if medical care was more affordable, insurance would be more affordable and less necessary. A significant part of the problem with the cost of medical care is that there is a greater demand than a supply–that’s why prices continue to rise. Increasing the demand for services (by providing more people with insurance) and trying to hold prices at bay will not solve the problem. The prices for services will rise, and so will waiting times for patients.
I don’t mean we shouldn’t strive for a solution, but the solution being considered does not even come close to addressing the problem. It’ll add expense without providing needed care in a timely manner. The solution has to involve finding ways to increase the supply of medically necessary procedures–this involves staffing, space, and supplies. If the supply were sufficient to meet the demand, then the prices would become affordable again. Insurance coverage would be more attainable and less burdensome. Government assistance programs could be expanded without raising the tax burden as drastically.