Skip to main content

Health Care

Previously I have written about being able to see both sides of an issue, but some arguments are so specious that one wonders about the integrity of the arguer. Sarah Palin and others of the far right fringe are sounding off about “death panels” in the current health care proposal; panels that would effectively “kill granny.” The irony is that some of the very same congressmen parroting the phrase actually suggested and supported the same end of life counseling proposal five years ago. On second thought, because these are blatant lies, I do not wonder about the integrity of these people; I do not believe they have any.

Another of the fringe arguments has to do with the proposed committee to study and compare various treatments to determine which work best. What a radical idea – not paying for treatments that don’t work! It’s not about coming between me and my doctor (a function that presently is performed very well by insurance company actuaries and accountants); it’s about letting us know the best approach to curing whatever ails me.

An argument that makes some sense at first glance claims that under the current proposal the benefits would be rationed, because the large number of newly insured people would overwhelm the available practitioners. Econ. 101 teaches that when the demand overwhelms the supply, everybody gets less. This is true, but if you read a little more of the textbook, it also teaches that in time the number of suppliers increases so that the demand is met. If it were not so, people would still be waiting for the Model T Ford they ordered in 1902.

In the case of health care, however, there would undoubtedly be a considerable time of shortages until enough doctors could be educated to meet the demand. But health care is rationed now, not on the basis of supply and demand, but on the basis of the individual’s ability to pay.

Based on the volume of the chorus, the most important argument against the proposed plan is that the government would control health care. Government = bad; private = good. Following that logic we should privatize Social Security and Medicare (a dream of the fringies since the 1930s), police, highway and fire departments, the FDA, the ATF, VA hospitals, the Post Office, the armed forces – the list goes on. I cannot help but wonder whether these people are arguing about what they think is right for the country, or about what they think will bring down the current administration. As a matter of fact, Rush Limbaugh, Senator Jim DeMint and others have admitted the latter.

The right has two arguments which make some sense: 1.) The emphasis on preventive care is overrated. If one out of ten people is saved from serious illness through preventive care, money has been spent needlessly on nine people. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but in spite of what the administration says, it does not seem to be a strategy that will save any money. 2.) But there is one big argument that makes it difficult for me to give an unequivocal yea to any of the proposed plans: they are all so darned expensive.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There Are Only Seven Jokes - Introduction

      The statement “There are only seven jokes – all the rest are variations,” has been around for a long time, but no one ever seems to know what the original seven are. I think I have found the solution to the mystery.       The answer is to be found in an article published in the New York Times on May 2, 1909. Entitled “New Jokes? There Are No New Jokes, There Is Only One Joke,” it goes on to say that all jokes are a distortion, and lists seven categories of distortion. Supposedly every joke will fit into one of the categories. I believe that repetition changed the seven categories into the seven jokes.       Each of my next seven blogs will be devoted to exploring one of the categories. In addition, I shall attempt to give an example or two of jokes which I think fit the category.       You must realize that this article appeared over one hundred years ago, so most of the jokes appearing therein are so out-of-date that modern readers wouldn’t even understand them. For example,

By Today’s Standards Many of my Teachers Would be in Jail

I started school in a two-room building: grades 1 to 4 in one room; grades 5 to 8 in the other. One teacher in each room taught all four grades. I don’t remember first grade very well – the teacher left at the end of the year. I am pretty sure it was not my fault. Now keep in mind that reading the Bible every morning was the standard for all grades at that time. But my teacher in grades two to four went a little above and beyond the normal practice. As a member of a “plain” sect, she considered it her duty to lead the little heathens to Christianity. She offered a free Bible to all students who managed to memorize 20 verses. I memorized my verses – “Jesus saves” was my favorite because it was the shortest – and got my Bible with my twenty underlined in red. That would be illegal today (not the underlining), and rightly so. Teachers may not teach religion, although contrary to what many folks seem to think, students may bring their Bibles to school, read them, and pray their
The National Anthem I have a somewhat minor pet peeve. I say minor because in the grand scheme of things neither I nor society will do anything substantive about it, so my best bet is probably to suck it up and move on. Perhaps after writing about it I can lay it to rest. It came up recently while I was working out at our Wellness Center. A program on television was playing America The Beautiful , and I remarked to a lady I have known for 40 years that I thought that should be the National Anthem instead of The Star Spangled Banner. She replied, rather huffily, I thought, “Some people think God Bless America should be the national anthem.” At that point I decided, wisely, I think, to back off before an argument sprang up. Now I realize that The Star Spangled Banner is a very nice, patriotic song, but an anthem it is not. According to Wikipedia, “ An anthem is a  musical composition  of celebration, usually used as a symbol for a distinct group, particularly the  nationa