The commonsense of the 60's tells us that straight welfare does not work in America or anywhere else. Paying people to do nothing simply enables them to continue to do nothing, and there is no incentive to get off the dole, because initially you may not be able to earn enough to make it worthwhile.
1) Everyone acknowledges that all United States citizens deserve to have health care.
2) Pre-existing conditions should not deny anyone the option of keeping health care to cover them regardless of the circumstances.
3) No one should be denied coverage because of their age.
These are the problems we need to address. There may be others, but these are key.
There is no example of government health care providing these options and doing it better or at a cheaper price than free enterprise. Medicare and Medicaid are great, but both are going bankrupt. They can't take in enough money to cover what is being spent. If we can't provide cheaper and better quality service here, then what could possibly make us think the government could do it better for everyone in the United States.
Ever stood in line at the post office? Is this the kind of service you want or require?
Ever stood in line to renew a driver's license? Perhaps you like taking a number and waiting for the bureaucrat to call your number only to be told you may now wait in another line to have your picture taken.
When you were in the military, didn't you just love the service when you had to see a doctor, that outranked you, the customer. That is, if you saw a doctor and not a medical corpsman. How was that experience of going to one medical unit only to be told they needed your x-rays from department y.
Don't get me wrong. It was all free wasn't it?
Nothing in life that is free has the urgency to it that something that is paid for has. Nothing that is free has any incentive to lower costs. In fact it encourages accelerated use. The government operates on a 40 hour work week, except in rare instances. That means we will need more doctors and more nurses to do the job and they are in short supply already. We will pay them higher wages for fewer hours and we will let them retire at 50 instead of 65.
Where in government have we ever done anything faster, cheaper, and smarter than free enterprise. Name one!
CommonSense2009
There do seem to be flaws in every healthcare system. The systems out there that cover everyone may not seem as efficient- but I would hesitate to say that they aren't doing better than our free enterprise system simply by the fact that they don't have hardworking citizens worrying about going bankrupt and losing much of their livelihood as a result of an unforseen medical condition. Their citizens all have access to care, they are not denied as a result of "pre-existing conditions", and they are not denied because of their age. All three of the stated problems are solved with a sacrifice of some efficiency and cost.
ReplyDeleteRegarding efficiency- I have to say that I wouldn't mind waiting a little longer for medical care if it meant that everyone who needed care was in line to get it. What I mean is that right now the lines are short for medical care because many of the people who need care simply can't afford to pay for it. So they aren't in line. My QUICK care at the expense of the small business owner who can't afford insurance, and therefore treatment... that's nothing to boast about in my eyes.
There has to be a balance between our individual, free market ideals, and our care for our own brothers and sisters that creates a common fabric for us all to be part of. If all Americans agree that everyone should be covered, how do those against a government healthcare alternative propose that this is done? Private healthcare insurance companies will not cover those that can't afford it, so what's the alternative?
Caring for our health is a more basic need for life than education. We have a "socialist" public education system with alternatives (private schools). We have government post offices, and we have alternatives (privately owned mail centers). Again, these government programs and others MAY not be the most efficient, but they offer service to everyone that needs them. Those that can afford to may pay for privately owned alternatives. I realize that we will pay for the program in taxes, but what is the alternative if we are to solve the three stated problems?
One more quick note- military health care has a bad rep. I know there are many people who have had bad experiences with the system, but I am not one of them. I recieved care at the Everett Naval Station in Washington State, and it was absolutely outstanding. I would take that again any day to the care I have now. There was no waiting on the phone to clear up insurance problems. There were always people available in the building to talk to, face to face. Consultations, examinations, and prescription pick up happened in the same day, in the same building, and it was FREE! The equipment seemed up to date, and the staff were attentive, knowledgeable, and helpful. Without exaggeration, I have never had such efficient care in my life.
Private insurance companies are money-makers, and they tend to assume that we, their customers, are idiots. We don't read the fine print, and are regularly paying for their deception. How many of us check to make sure that our insurance companies are paying their agreed part? They know we don't. If you want to clear up a bill, you have to make numerous phone calls, wait on hold for lengths of time, and impersonally talk to someone who may or may not willingly help you. During some part of the process many of us say "Screw it," and we overlook the money lost because the process with the company is not worth it. I think they probably know that too. The private system is a seriously flawed one that I despise, though I'm afraid I may need it someday.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. Debate is always welcome.
First, we both agree that our healthcare system should cover an individual regardless of pre-existing conditions. This is where the government could mandate that insurers
cover pre-existing conditions, but it does not require us to revamp our entire healthcare system to get that piece written in legislation that covers all insurance companies.
Second, we both agree that age should not be a condition of medical treatment. This is something that should be between the patient and the doctor with the insurance company simply covering the options that are available. Again, this can be a required part of the legislation that covers medical insurance companies.
Third, we both agree that all United States citizens should be insured. Currently, a large percentage of the uninsured 46.8 million are younger adults who opt not to buy health
insurance. According to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services ( 2005), “there are 6.9 million workers and dependents that have declined employer coverage and remain
uninsured (19% of the uninsured).” Therefore we will need to make a decision about whether medical insurance, like car insurance in many states will be a required mandate and not optional for those who choose not to take it.
The major area we disagree is in how these steps should be administered. Do we really want a larger federal government with all of its flaws administering a multi-trillion dollar
health program for all Americans. Currently Medicare alone represents a looming $336 plus billion dollar Program (New Tech Media, 2006).
This is not the most efficient option for the entire country. If Medicare as a 100% government program is going to fail financially by 2018, why would we want the
Government to mandate a single payer system for all of us?
Why not have the government demonstrate how it will lower costs and streamline the Medical hospital and doctor inefficiencies and the Medicare bureaucracy. If they can lower costs and not just arbitrarily lower costs while hospitals and doctors raise prices to the rest of us, then maybe a government option could be tried. Perhaps it could be tested in one state in the Union before we roll it out to everyone.
The Federal Governments purpose is to protect its citizens, provide legal guidelines for disputes between the states, and uphold the tenants of our constitution. Nowhere does
our constitution mandate that the Federal Government shall provide healthcare for all of its citizens.
Let’s allow our Federal Government to provide a framework for how medical insurance shall be offered across state lines, and let the free market system provide the best and most efficient administration of that framework.
Commonsense2009
Sources:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm
Medicare Cost to Pass Social Security in 2028,
Part A Trust Fund Broke in 2018
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/6-05-01-MedicareCost.htm