Yesterday I went to see the new Michael Moore movie, "SiCKO". It s a documentary on the current state of healthcare in the US and while there is no doubt that there is "a viewpoint" that Moore wishes to express, the truth is we all have a "viewpoint", right? Most of us aren't gifted in moviemaking like he is though.
Overall, the movie was fantastic. The stories pulled together and a strong case for reform is made. I happen to agree with most of Moore's assessment and it is one of those places where my libertarianism is trumped by liberalism.
I strongly suggest a viewing of this movie so that you can decide for yourself. What kind of society do we want? And now...for the rant...
I'll answer my question on that here.
In my opinion, we come down to one basic question in the world of American politics and that is "What kind of society do we want". On the economic side of that (and that is by far the most important as it allows all other questions a chance to be paid for). The choices are simple really. Do we want "a ceiling and a floor" or do we want "no ceiling and no floor". That is really it. I for one, want a floor so I'm willing to accept a ceiling. While none of the economic disaster theories floating around on the far right have been proven when it comes to this, I'd still be in favor of the "ceiling and floor" philosophy even if they were proven to be true (or even assumed true..like, say "gravity" is assumed true). As a matter of fact there is a lot of evidence out there that suggests that "economic ruination" isn't going to happen. Look at the list of countries with single payer (or "socialized" medicine) and just look at the destroyed economies of Japan, Ireland, France, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, England, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, and a list too long to complete.
Furthermore, when did "socialization" of certain things become such a terrible thing? I mean look at the things in the US that have already been socialized. I don't think any reasonable person is calling for the de-socialization of libraries, police, firemen, or the education system. All of those are core parts of the American belief system. Free education and protection by police and firemen are basic beliefs in the American system and are seen as "birthright" privileges. Why isn't the basic human right of health care?
Furthermore, why do conservative pundits not rail against free health care for TERRORISTS in Guantanamo Bay and individuals in the US prison system but not for law abiding working citizens. Even more amazingly, American courts have heard cases asking to allow SEX CHANGE OPERATIONS for prisoners in California and Massachusetts. These would be paid for by the government and are part of the rights one has when imprisoned in the US. Maybe we should suggest to those that discover serious illnesses that the best way to get treated in the US is to commit a crime and to go jail. Have cancer? Rob a bank. Heart disease? Build a meth lab. An attorney could ask for continuances on the case and even cop plea deals with the state to get those "criminals" jail time in similar length as the expected treatment. I bet if citizens started using the prison system as a hospital our politicians (and the drug and insurance companies that corrupt them) would get the message.
As someone that has experienced a government run health care system I can speak to its advantages. I was treated better in Japan by the health care system, was seen quicker and had my issues resolved faster than I ever have had in the US. I didn't wait in line, didn't have to go to a specific location and could have chosen my doctor if I wanted to do so. I know from personal experience that it can work.
Another flawed theory is that the tax rates would go through the roof. While there would certainly be an increase in taxes to pay for the care, I can't imagine that it would be much more than what I'm already spending! Currently, in the US at my job I have BlueCross and BlueShield as my provider. I pay $95 a month for a premium, have a $350 deductible and then 80/20 coverage after that. So, I pay nearly $1200 a year NOT TO BE SICK. IF I get sick and go to the hospital once I'm stuck with that $350 deductible. Suddenly, something as minor as the flu can actually cost me $1500 and this doesn't take into account medicine! Also, at any point, the insurance company can simply refuse to pay the bill and leave me stuck with it. I think that this actually costs more to the economy and the company than a higher premium payment by the employer as I defer trips to the hospital or doctor until absolutely necessary. Then, I call in sick which ruins productivity. In other words, I wait til I'm REALLY sick to go. This drives up the cost of my care and also removes the "volume discount" that seems to work so well in every other industry.
Back to the "ceiling and floor" theory. It is kinda my own theory and belief system and it is really basic. I'm willing to accept the consequences of putting a bottom into the economy. I believe that health care is a basic human right, that we as humans have a right not to be turned out on the street to die (which DOES happen..look at Martin Luther King Hospital in LA) if medical treatment is available. Certain things must be outside the realm of economic value. Other nations have done it successfully for decades (Britain since 1948 for example...and something that even Margaret Thatcher said was "in safe hands" with the Tories in power). Even our most adamant conservative allies like Australia and Great Britain have supported nationalized health care in their countries and not suffered ill affects from it. Even if the development of a health care system in the US slows GDP by a full percentage annually (and it would NEVER be that much)it is worth it.
Pharmaceutical companies have long claimed that nationalized health care would dry up research. I simply don't believe that to be the case. Money can still be made in the industry. Furthermore if what the drug companies say is true, then we are subsidizing health care for the entire world, in effect, paying for the socialization of medicine in other countries and receiving no benefit for it. Also, what good is all this research and development of new medicines if we can't get approved for them. I'd rather have a system that will use all of its available resources to make me better than to have all sorts of research going into drugs and treatments that my insurer won't pay for and I don't have access to otherwise.
I won't even launch into the insurance companies and the thousands of people that have died waiting to get approved for treatments that the companies didn't see as "medically necessary" or found them to be "experimental". In some cases, chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants are still seen to be "experimental" and therefore not covered. My health care plan, while covering Viagra, doesn't cover PAP SMEARS!
Overall, the system is breaking here in the US and something must be done. I have my beliefs on what they should be and the above is just a scratch on the surface. I hope that this has stimulated some thought on your part and really hope that it makes you become more proactive in your efforts to affect change!
Feel free to rant back! I'd love to hear your thoughts! Just post them to the "REPLY" button on the bottom here. Remember though..all posts are visible to the general public so play nice!
No comments:
Post a Comment