the logic.....

Just escapes me. Truly escapes me. Reading the following story at the Minority Report really makes me wonder if the inmates are running the asylum.........

Oh, wait. I understand now. They're just trying to apply that old principle of 'you've got to spend money to make money'. Yah, sure then. That's about as good as: 'I can't be out of money, I've still got checks in my checkbook.' I thought economics was taught in school, but then again, this is the government we're talking about. They think money is like Doritos 'spend all you want, we'll make more!'

My take on health care

This is one of those topics where everyone has their opinion, so I’m going to jump in with my own perspective. With this issue being one of the most discussed in our country right now, I think it’s a good idea to get down to what is the root issue and problem.

Many people feel the health care system in the United States needs reforming. Why? Because a significant section of our population is unable to afford health insurance, and therefore cannot afford to go to the doctor. I think where the discussion starts to break down is in the idea of the purpose of health care and its' associated costs.

Health care, or going to see the doctor, go to the hospital, etc., is something we in today's society seem to take for granted. Regular checkups and subjecting ourselves to testing on a regular basis is accepted as part of the cost of living. We look back to previous generations and shake our heads in amazement at the general lack of medical care people received. Yes, the mortality rates were higher, but can we truly look back to those times and say that their quality of life was so much poorer than ours today?

A question I would ask is 'what is health care?' I view health care as something people do to keep ourselves healthy and feeling as well as possible. There are people in both the patient and health provider camps, who are trying to use medicine to slow, or even prevent the aging process. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm in my late 30s, I don't expect to feel, or have my body act the same as it did when I was 22. I'm older, aches and pains are going to start, and there are things I just cannot do anymore. Anyway, that I don't consider part of health care. That is more 'chasing the fountain of youth'. I hate to tell people, but life here on earth is a terminal condition, and it's going to end sooner or later.

There are also quite a few people who attack the health insurance industry, and its' practices. I guess I tend to have a slightly different view of things, because I'm not going to begrudge those companies for wanting to make as much money as possible. They are, after all, corporations. The purpose of corporations is to make money for themselves, their stockholders, and others who have a stake in said corporation. It's not always good, and there are times when it seems that those corporations have themselves in mind instead of the people they serve, but we shouldn't be surprised. Now, do corporations belong in healthcare? I don't know. No matter what metric you use to measure, the current system is less than optimal. It is expensive to obtain care, and it feels that soulless corporations are making healthcare choices for you, but does anyone really think the government wouldn't do the same thing? One example I can give as an illustration of what could happen if the government takes over health care is the military (government) wants to 'tell' soldiers, sailors, etc., to not smoke. No matter what your view on smoking is, the bigger concept we need to recognize is: the government is more than happy to tell you not just what healthcare you will get, but how you are to live your life. Sure it's easy when it's something like smoking, or whatever other socially unacceptable activity you can think of, but what about when it comes to something like size of family, or whether to try and save a baby or elderly person with a serious health condition? We need to keep this in mind when we look at who we want in charge of health and medical care in this country.

Some seem to believe the government should be in charge of health care. I've been in the military, and if you want to get an idea of how the government is going to run healthcare, look at the military and the Veterans Administration (VA) system. There was a movie that came out in the late 1992 called 'Article 99'. It was a dramatization of how the VA system works (or at least worked in the time it was set in), and it is something very heart wrenching and sad. If you think it's gotten any better, I've got some oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you. The government has done an extremely poor job of managing that system, why would anyone think it could handle a system involving the entire country? People will then fall to the emotional appeal of the goal of 'affordable healthcare for all'. It's a nice sentiment, and I don't want to see any of my fellow men suffer because of something as small (in the grand scheme of things) as money, but unfortunately this world runs on money. It is completely unreasonable to expect those in the medical field to provide high quality care (the kind most people have come to expect) and live below the poverty line. We make those who want to pursue medicine as a career spend a lot of money to get the degree and pass all the tests, and then spend more money on malpractice insurance, so why should we be surprised when we get the bill and it's this large amount of money? I think the best best way to lower costs would be to adjust the legal system in such a way as to take away these $500 million malpractice cases, so people aren't terrified to treat people because they may get sued (I know, that's tort reform, as our legal system seems to be the socially acceptable form of the lottery, but I digress).

There is also the issue of cost. Turning over healthcare to the government is not going to eliminate cost. We will end up paying for this (monetarily) through taxes, fees, and higher costs of products (because the 'rich' and corporations are taxed to pay for the care) to name a few. The non-monetary cost will likely come through fewer choices, possible delays in care, and other limitations that we don't know about yet. We as a country just don't get the concept of 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'. We need to ask if we're willing to pay the price for the government to run what we as a society have made such an important part of our lives.

For my own part, as far as health insurance itself goes, I really cannot complain. I am able to have health insurance through my employment at (what I consider) a fairly decent rate. What is covered and not covered seems to be fairly standard compared to other insurances, and the amount I end up paying (both in premiums and in out of pocket expenses), while more than I would really like to, is not so onerous as to truly discourage seeking medical attention. I've been in the military, and I've also been at the point of no insurance through my employment and trying to figure out personal insurance, so I think I've seen multiple perspectives. Again, it's not a prime system, but it's one of the best in the world. If we're going to figure out how to get more people to be able to access this care, we need to do it in such a way as to keep those parts that are good.