He thinks the profit motive should be removed from medicine … ok … I can accept that … but how in the heck does he plan to pay for all this stuff?
In typical progressive fashion, rather than have doctors and hospitals compete, they should pool their resources. In this case, I guess since doctors and hospitals are not smart enough to figure out what is in their own best interest, the government should insist on it …like government employees or elected officials are any smarter than doctors and hospital administrators?
He points out that the US is the only major industrial country that doesn’t offer some form of universal health care sponsored by the government. Does that mean we are supposed to follow all our industrialized friends off that cliff?
Hello, has anyone looked at what is happening in Europe or Canada lately? I mean our industrialized friends seem to be having a rather bad case of the financial woes … and most of it stems from borrowing to give people something that they “can’t afford”.
Now, I know it appears that profit would be an anathema to my friend, but maybe the profit motive ain’t such a bad thing. But then he is a corporate executive, so I suppose that profit matters to him … just it shouldn’t apply to others. Ok, I am being unfair to him here. I apologize.
Of course, the first thing he throws up is taking care of our elderly who are infirm … but wait a minute. They are not the people who are uninsured. They have Medicare … oh yeah, and it doesn’t have any financial problems at all … and what about all those doctors and clinics that refuse to see new Medicate patients because their costs exceed what the federal and state governments will reimburse them for. I mean the Federal Health Financing Commission is absolutely famous for over-compensating health care providers all over the US. (Don’t throw up the fraud strawman; that is an entirely different issue). How do I know this, we won’t go into how many times I wrote about health care issues during my career as a print journalist, trying to understand and explain how the health care financing system works in the US. After nearly 40 years of studying the problem, I have come to the conclusion that the federal government is toxic when it comes to this issue and state governments (at least in the states where I had to cover the doings of various and sundry hospital boards) are not that far behind.
The poor also are covered … it is called Medicaid …and in some states you don’t have to be “poor” to qualify … at least as the federal government decides to define the “poverty line”. No, you and your family can, in some states, make two or three times as much as the poverty line and still qualify for Medicaid. Am I missing something here, or is the definition of poverty in this country seriously out whack? I contend that is another issue we really need to take a look at. And Medicaid, like Medicare, is unsustainable as it is now structured.
Ok, who are these millions of uninsured … by process of elimination we are talking mainly about a lot of 20- and 30-somethings who are gaming the system since they normally are pretty healthy that they won’t need health care, so providing themselves with some form of insurance is not a priority. Ok, whose fault is that? Now, after not paying to some third party to cover them, they want those third parties to have to accept them? I am sorry, but that doesn’t sound fair to me.
Ok, so their employer doesn’t offer health insurance, or offers a high deductible insurance plan (been there, done that, lost the T-shirt), does not the individual have the right to sell their talents elsewhere? Is that not their choice?
People, the US was made on choices. It is the basis on which our society, freedoms and government stand on the principle that individuals have the right to make their own choices. And if you haven’t noticed, they also have the right to suffer the consequences of their choices. We don’t have the right to take that right away from them; however we may disagree with it.
But the progressives want to do just that. They think they know better. But, I am sorry, but they are wrong. Of course, I could be wrong, but if anybody comes up with a way for the concept “from each according to their (limited) abilities, and to each according to their (insatiable) needs” to really work, short of a gun in your face and you becoming at minimum an indentured servant, if not an outright slave, let me know … because it ain’t gonna happen.
It all boils down to you have to make it in the self-interest of people to do what society wants. Now, there are two ways to make that happen: You can throw the fear of God into them or you can make it rewarding to them. Fear only works on the short-term until people get fed up and start to fight back. Rewards (profits) really do work. We have seen it all through history, but some people just don’t want to acknowledge that.
Now, I admit, all rewards are not “fair” or “equal” but guess what: Life ain’t fair and no one is “equal” (nor should they be, except before the law. There, they do have the right to expect that the “law” will treat them just like any other citizen – Pollyannaish view I admit, but it works better than from each/to each)
Another thing about profits: What profits one person will not be seen as a profit to another … it all depends on their point of view and what motivates that individual person.
Now, we could let people fail … and maybe learn from their mistakes (however costly that that might be) or we can insulate people from their mistakes (and hope they learn). For example, my wife calls people who ride motorcycles “organ donors” (especially if they don’t wear helmets), but does that mean for safety’s sake we should ban all motorcycles because of the dire consequences from an accident? Sorry, but in my usual phrase, that dog don’t hunt. People do have the right to be stupid.
Still there are those who will argue that health is an issue that cannot be allowed to be left to the choice of the individual. It is too important, they say. My question is who set those people up as God and who says people involved in the health care industry (and not matter how you slice it, it is an industry providing goods and services to consumers) are gods. Doctors don’t always know the answer and that medicine isn’t going to always work … and that is the dying truth, I swear.
So, if the individual is not responsible for his or her actions (or non-action) and the subsequent consequences to themselves, then who the heck is responsible? If you say society has an obligation to make people secure in their health, then I will remind you what Ben Franklin (another bright guy) is quoted as saying.”Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Your health is merely temporary, and, no, we won’t live forever. Everyone’s health will go south … that, like taxes, is a given.
No comments:
Post a Comment