Here’s a terrific blog post by Shannon Love on ChicagoBoyz.net, who describes how universal healthcare would ultimately create class warfare between groups that under the current system have no need to compete for health care resources:
The Dangers of Decompartmentalized Health Care Spending
In a nutshell, she argues that the current system’s compartmentalization of health care through Medicare (for the elderly), Medicaid (for the poor), and private insurance (for everybody else) keeps us from having to compete with one another for delivery of services. With universal health care, it all becomes one big limited resource pie and each group will have to fight for a slice–particularly the elderly, who have the most health care expenditures.
What you’re really talking about here is greed and lack of compassion. People who are young and healthy don’t want to pay more for medical coverage because it might mean that some elderly person they don’t know might get a life-saving treatment. Or that some person less fortunate than you who couldn’t afford to pay spiraling premiums with high deductibles might be able to see the doctor of their choice rather than an emergency room doctor. We have two very basic problems in this country, which makes our health care the laughingstock of the world: first, we allow for-profit insurance companies to manage our healthcare and dictate what things they will and will not cover. Second, we allow those companies to refuse coverage to people who are unfortunate enough to have a pre-existing condition, which includes just about everybody above a certain age. It is for these and other reasons that our quality of care is ranked 37th in the world, despite the fact that we’re paying more than double what the next most expensive system costs its citizens. Our life expectancy and infant mortality rates are an embarrassment to the country that has some of the greatest hospitals and medical schools on the planet. In effect, we are edging our way towards being a Third World country because people like you are incapable of understanding that a “public insurance option” would result in decreased premiums and more choices for everybody. If you want to preserve Medicare, you have to address spiraling medical costs. The only way to do that is to expand the number of premium-payers and offer public options that will keep insurance companies honest. Right now, we are living with a form of corporate socialism, where a handful of giant insurance companies are dictating who they will and will not cover, and which doctors or hospitals you can use. If you don’t want choice, if you like paying high premiums, and want to see the economy tank because of the increasing number of bankruptcies, then keep right on whining about health care reform. If, on the other hand, you’re interested in hearing any facts at all, go to PolitiFact.com or FactCheck.org. You won’t catch Sarah Palin or Michelle Malkin visiting either of those sites. Too honest for them.
No, johnrjo8, what I’m really talking about here is throwing out the bathwater without chucking the baby. Health care reform is desperately needed, but it requires a scalpel, not the mother-of-a-chainsaw that is H.R. 3200.
Furthermore, “people like me” are indeed “incapable of understanding that a ‘public insurance option’ would result in decreased premiums and more choices for everybody,” because in the end the opposite will be the case. Unlike private enterprises, the federal government has the ability to operate at a loss for very long periods of time–courtesy of its ability to levy taxes and monetize debt.
Private insurance companies will have little choice but to reduce coverage and benefits, raise premiums, or go bankrupt against the federal leviathan. Regardless of the choices insurers make, increasing numbers of citizens will shift into the public option–further eroding the cost-effectiveness of private insurers by decreasing their ability to diversify risk and thereby leading to more reductions in coverage and benefits, premium increases, and bankruptcies.
Your point regarding “corporate socialism” (not the term I would have used, but I get where you’re coming from) is well taken. However, I find it hard to accept the notion that the answer to socialism in any form is more socialism. The specific problems you cited can be addressed without an eventual nationalization of the entire health care industry, which is what many people believe will be the final result should H.R. 3200 pass in its current form.
Finally, I want to thank you for your comments. I appreciate your willingness to debate and admire your passion. In the future, should you choose to post here again (and I hope you do), I would only ask that you refrain from formulations containing “you people,” “people like you,” or other similar variations. Since we don’t know each other personally, it’s best not to include such personal assumptions in our arguments. For example, you have no idea of how “fortunate” I am or whether I’ve ever had a personal experience with “some elderly person” who needed “a life-saving treatment” and “couldn’t afford to pay spiraling premiums” (I have).
p.s. Some of your figures aren’t entirely accurate, either–or at least require additional context. I encourage you to follow the link below for important information regarding health care rankings, and infant mortality and life expectancy rates:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html
astrojockey,
I agree with you. Under the current guidelines that Obama has reopened with the “your life, your choices” pamphlet, my sister-in-law, who has had a massive stroke would, instead of being treated medically by the VA insurance she is covered under, be given a little blue pill to ease her pain until she faded off into oblivion.
We do need some reform, but not the elephant package that they are trying to push down our throats.
Exemployee, that is a lie which is beneath contempt.
Exemployee: Thanks for chiming in. My thoughts and prayers are with you, your sister-in-law, and your family during this difficult period in your lives. Keep the faith.
Johnrjo8: It’s good to hear from you again.
So I just finished re-reading the pamphlet in question (http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf). While I didn’t find any specific mention of euthanization, I did find the overall tone of the document to be chilling. Here’s why:
Although the general purpose of the document is to encourage veterans to craft a living will–which is a very good idea for everyone, not just veterans–the document’s language and structure contains a clear “DNR” bias toward any decline in quality of life. Self-guided worksheets within the document ask not only if you would wish to live if you were in a persistent vegetative state, but also if you would want to carry on if you were often depressed. I would hope such questions will be removed from the document upon its revision.
The other troubling aspect of the VA’s use of the pamphlet is that it presents a conflict of interest for the federal government. A care provider has no business promoting living wills beyond saying that they’re a good idea. When the VA, which must balance cost against benefits like any other care provider, begins to council its veterans regarding specific end-of-life choices using the language contained in “Your Life, Your Choices,” there’s a problem.
Reform, yes. Nationalization, no.
I am sorry that you disagree with me, john. However, it’s apparent that we stand on polar opposites on this healthcare go tplan. But please, don’t go to slamming statements that can be supported by President Obama’s own words. Case in point, his answer to Jane Sturm concerning her elderly mother’s medical treament.
The questions that are in the “Your Life, Your Choice” pamphlet are alarming in the fact that they are so open-ended. I work in healthcare. I see advance directives everyday, and the one that the VA is trying to push onto our Veterans is way beyond anything that I have ever seen. Too open-ended leads to too much government in my decision making.
Exemployee, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Each anecdotal example presented in the pamphlet presents a situation where the only logical choice is to forego treatment (take the feeding tube and live “in the same or worse condition,” or pass on the tube with the knowledge that you’ll die in a couple of weeks but “probably won’t feel hungry or thirsty”).
Furthermore, the pamphlet contains a worksheet entitled “What makes your life worth living?” which asks you to decide whether being wheelchair bound, relying on kidney dialysis, living in a nursing home, burdening your loved ones, or being unable to “shake the blues” makes your life not worth living.
The last thing I want is the hospital’s accountant counseling me on my health care choices. The same holds true for the federal government, which has an interest in lowering cost of delivery of its programs. It’s simply unethical.