The health care debate swirling about us is a subject I hate. Not because I don't see a need for reform, but because of the way we are once again split into warring sides, half nodding their allegiance to a plan they have not read, but feel in their heart of hearts is right and moral. The other half digging their heels in to stop what they feel is the end of civilization as we know it, or at least, the Democratic Republic for which we stand.
I believe that tension is a useful law of the universe. When two connected halves are pulling away from each other, the tension restrains them from complete and total fracture. That is why we have had a largely effective two-party system for the last 150 years. It is good that there are conservatives and liberals. We are meant to balance each other, but I'm afraid, that over the past two decades, there have been few things one side hasn't ramrodded into the other. Discourse is a lost art form.
This brings me to the current turmoil. Should the federal government exercise a mandate to take up the health care costs of every uninsured individual, and in so doing, take money from those who are likely the insured--in a time of recession and diabolical deficits? Perhaps I tip my hand just a bit in my wording of this question, but my largest concern is in how we pay for this proposal, how we ensure the success of it if it becomes law, and in the legal right of the federal government to take such action. I acknowledge that these concerns of mine ignore the emotional sides of the argument--that no one wants people to be uncared for, neglected, or destroyed for lack of access to medical care. That is a good and noble desire, but it should not cloud us from making a wise choice regarding the solution.
The slogan du jour on Facebook.com today was this:
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
I don't have all the answers, in fact, I have very few. What I do have are questions, issues I hope to explore to some level of satisfaction. My first question is this: Are you asked about your medical insurance when you call 911 or an ambulance? If you're rushed into the ER, clearly in crisis, are you denied treatment? I don't think this is so, perhaps these instances do fall under the second category of the above statement of belief, that 'you shouldn't go broke' because you need medical care. Perhaps coverage is denied to those uninsured who have more gradual forms of decay, disease, and debilitation.
How much is our inability to pay for medical care outside of insurance a product of the insurance system itself, and the litigation that has followed? If most of America expected to pay out-of-pocket for prescriptions and office visits, how much less expensive would the costs be with the elimination of the middle man? I know we can't begin to go back to this bygone age, but still, it's a question. There is concern today for the young--those who are least likely to be insured. How much is coverage for a single, 20-something anyway? This is supposing they can't get covered from their college or an employer. Would the cost of such coverage--taken with the understanding that we live by paying cash for things, not incurring rotating monthly payments for things--be equal to or less than the tax burden of this same 20-something to pay for their government-provided health care? I don't know.
Another thing that concerns me, besides my suspicion that very few of our representatives have read the bill they'll soon vote on, is all of the varied policies that are conjectured to be in a final bill. Things like: denying coverage to those who are deemed to have made 'poor life choices', or paying for abortions (which terminate life), or suggesting non-treatment of illness because of one's age and the need to look out for those who are younger.
What I do know is this: the federal government has failed and failed again with massive programs. The areas of medicine that the government is currently involved in are going broke. They seem unable to fix these problems, how can they begin something new, on a much grander scale, and hope to succeed?
I've looked over the Constitution of the United States, and the only thing that seems to have any bearing whatsoever on this issue is in Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts
and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and
excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce... etc. (Read more)
There is much that follows, but nothing about securing the medical care of the citizens, or collecting taxes for that end. The closest we get is in that phrase 'for the common defense and general welfare of the United States'. The instances listed below this include 17 examples of what this welfare consists of, and none of it brings us close to what we are proposing in the legislature and from today's White House.
Of course, this brings me back to the opening of my post. We are two warring sides, unwilling to entertain discourse on the subject. I have a hope that we would go back to the documents that define us to guide us today, and to clarify what is permitted. But I know that is wistful thinking. We are left with the problem: how can we help our disadvantaged citizens without crippling our future and disregarding our past? I am in search of the answer.
