Column:
Wealth should not determine health
Published Sept. 29, 2009
Like all Americans, I am getting sick and tired of the health care debate that continues to rage on in what I can only assume is going to be a never-ending bickering session.
But even more than that, I am tired of the rhetoric being used to beat down the proposal — things, such as "the public option will provide insurance to illegal immigrants," or "it will establish 'death panels' that decide if you live or die" or my favorite, "it will ration health care."
Allow me to be frank: Anyone who has actually read the bill would know absolutely none of this is true. There is no provision within the bill that allows illegal immigrants to access the public option. Those with a vested interest in seeing the public option fail manufactured the idea of death panels. Rationed health care is something Americans already experience today. We call it health insurance. Those who make claims as mentioned above would do well to actually sit down, shut up and read for once.
I spent the past summer working in a congressional office. As many of you know, the public option was introduced this summer, and with its introduction came a torrent of phone calls and letters from angry constituents all saying the public option, with its blatant socialist foundation, will be the downfall of the United States.
The United States has "socialized" educational, police forces, fire departments, libraries, transportation, road and bridge construction and a myriad of other things. We have even "socialized" medicine with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid. For all of you that think all Americans reject socialized medicine, ask anyone 65 or older how they would feel giving up their Medicare coverage.
What bothers me even more is that everyone continually calls the public option a socialist concept when it will actually increase competition. The government health insurance will act as another player in the health insurance market, thereby increasing competition and lowering premiums. Because the federal government will not be looking to pocket a nice $50 million bonus at the end of the year for President Barack Obama the way insurance companies do for their CEOs, the premiums a person will pay to the public option will be markedly lower. But what true American would support something as radical as competition?
The most frustrating thing is not people's ignorance, but their contempt for their fellow Americans. Although nearly everyone has donated money to help a friend, coworker, teacher or whomever else fights cancer (because their health insurance wouldn't cover them!), many seem to hate the idea of giving to people they do not know in the exact same situation.
Everyone gets sick. Whether you are white, yellow, blue, black, spotted or otherwise, you will get sick. Instead of being self-righteous and thinking that people's inability to afford health care is their fault, why do we not empathize? Why are we suddenly so incapable of understanding the plight of others? Not everyone has money. In fact, 46 million Americans have so little money they cannot afford health care, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Having money should not entitle you to a longer, healthier life. Living in a country in which so many people believe it should frightens and disappoints me.
Comments (3)
4:59 a.m., Sept. 29, 2009
Pimmsoclock said:
Thank goodness! A straight-forward couple of sentences that has reassured me that there are decent, morally-sound Americans. As someone who works for a US company in the UK, I'm constantly fighting against the two sterotypes that I'm afraid most Europeans have of a typical 'Yank'. Loud capitalist or loud god-fearing redneck. What I still dont get is why, seemingly intelligent middle-class Americans believe that improving access to health care, is socialist?
12:35 p.m., Sept. 29, 2009
Eric Wilson said:
You are living in a dream world. I have read all 1100 pages of this bill. I see where the cuts are, I see the government deciding if my father can have a hip replacement, and I see on PAGE 16 buying private health insurance will become illegal. Read on my blog: http://isellhealth.blogspot.com. You will see the problem in the bill. This what you have written is irresponsible journalism
4:28 a.m., Sept. 29, 2009
John said:
You are in error. Medicare and Medicaid are NOT "socialized medicine". They are "social insurance systems". The systems that are socialized medicine are DND and DVA. In "Socialized Medicine" physicians are civil servants & hospitals are built, owned, and operated by the government. This is DND, DVA and NHS in Britain. These are all single payer systems. The alternative is a social insurance system. In a social insurance system, physicians are in private practice (except medical researchers, medical school professors, and physicians working permanently in hospitals-like ER physicians). Hospitals are private (profit or non profit) and have non government boards. Medicare, Medicaid, and the Canadian system are all examples of social insurance systems (not socialized medicine). These systems are also single payer systems, with government paying physicians at arm's length, without any intervention on the decisions of physicians and operation or decisions of hospitals. Single payer systems may be either social insurance systems or socialized medicine, based on the descriptions and conditions I have provided above.