•8:46 PM
We hear stories from the President of the daily letters from people who cry to him to reform health care. I have no doubts regarding those people's sincerity nor do I dispute the need for reform. I hope there is reform – true reform. I personally believe that there is a place for Government in health care. That place however happens to be in governing and not in running an industry.
One of the problems with the government running health care is the inevitable rationing of care that will take place. This is more than a notion or a scare tactic. It is something that is happening even now with Medicare and Medicaid. One such example recently came too close to home for me.
Within the past week I received some sad news regarding a friend of mine. She was blind and lived in the inner city. I used to wash her windows (why she wanted clean windows was beyond me) and we were a part of the same congregation together. She had her struggles but was one of the kindest, and most soft spoken people I have ever known. She really was a sweet heart. Tragically, a few weeks ago she fell and severely injured herself. I do not know all of the details of her fall. However, I know that her injury was very bad. Nevertheless, because she was on Medicaid the hospital wouldn't take her because it didn't cover the hospital stay for that kind of injury. Because she didn't receive the care she needed, she passed away a little more than a week ago. Her passing is the sad and real fruit of rationing care. She will be missed as she was loved by all those who knew her.
The rationing of care is not something that can be trusted in the hands of politicians, appointed committees, or Capital Hill lobbyists. Surely we can see that this power is best left in the hands of the people and regulated, not administered, by our Government. Government is to govern - not to own and operate businesses.
To learn more about the rationing of care by one who knows, please see the included video.
One of the problems with the government running health care is the inevitable rationing of care that will take place. This is more than a notion or a scare tactic. It is something that is happening even now with Medicare and Medicaid. One such example recently came too close to home for me.
Within the past week I received some sad news regarding a friend of mine. She was blind and lived in the inner city. I used to wash her windows (why she wanted clean windows was beyond me) and we were a part of the same congregation together. She had her struggles but was one of the kindest, and most soft spoken people I have ever known. She really was a sweet heart. Tragically, a few weeks ago she fell and severely injured herself. I do not know all of the details of her fall. However, I know that her injury was very bad. Nevertheless, because she was on Medicaid the hospital wouldn't take her because it didn't cover the hospital stay for that kind of injury. Because she didn't receive the care she needed, she passed away a little more than a week ago. Her passing is the sad and real fruit of rationing care. She will be missed as she was loved by all those who knew her.
The rationing of care is not something that can be trusted in the hands of politicians, appointed committees, or Capital Hill lobbyists. Surely we can see that this power is best left in the hands of the people and regulated, not administered, by our Government. Government is to govern - not to own and operate businesses.
To learn more about the rationing of care by one who knows, please see the included video.
3 comments:
That's too bad to hear about your friend Ken, but how would have this situation been any different with any other type of system?
I assume that if she was receiving medicaid it was because she wasn't able to afford private insurance. In a system where the government is not actively involved with health care, she would've still not have been able to receive the necessary care.
Thank you Bryan for that. She lived a good life and will be missed.
Her situation is not unique. It is one that every one of us must deal with. The purpose of the article was not just that care was rationed but who rationed it. Rationing of care of course happens in all systems.
The point that I keep reminding myself is that there are more than two possible systems. There is more than just the status quo (or an alteration to it) and the "public option" as it is referred to. There is a system that isn't even being debated by the president or Congress. The system I refer to is the one I wrote about in my "Health Care Reform Introduction" post. Why isn't there a debate about true reform? The answer is because of lobbyists, politics, and self interest.
James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government."
With a public option you destroy the balance between the People (as seen through their own creative enterprises, freedom and choices) and the government. One choice is no choice at all. One sided anything is not balanced and the balance of powers, or check that Madison wrote about, is broken.
That market of free and creative forces supplies options and people can purchase services or insurance coverage that will cover some services and not others. A subsidized public option puts other players out of the market and therefore it decreases, or eliminates altogether, a person’s freedom to choose which care they will receive and which ones they won’t receive.
The government should not be in the business of rationing care or choosing for us what we need and what we don't need. We should do this ourselves. Our ability to do that is almost eliminated by a subsidized public option or single payer system. The government’s place is in governing.
Additionally, the government has contributed to the poor's dilemma. To name just three, here are some of the ways they have done this.
1. They have increased the problem by subsidizing employers providing health care coverage to their employees with its tax breaks. This unnatural balance has shifted the industry from focusing on all people and providing coverage they can afford to focusing on employed people. This leaves out the poor and the needy.
2. Additionally, the Government has killed the entire market for private insurance for low income families by taking it over. What incentive or inducement do insurance companies have to provide low cost coverage to low income individuals when 100% of them can be covered by Medicaid or Medicare?
3. The Government has protected businesses and not consumers by its Anti-trust exemption on the insurance companies. There are essentially no free market forces at work to even begin to drive down the costs. There are options you and I can choose from, but no market to drive down the costs.
The government's type of involvement has disrupted the natural balance and reduced the market's ability to take care of my friend, of you, and of me. We are all suffering the consequences. The government has a place in health care - the place it hasn't taken yet. It is the place of governing, of overseeing and of protecting the people.
I repeat myself, the rationing of care is not something that can be trusted in the hands of politicians, appointed committees, or Capital Hill lobbyists. Surely we can see that this power is best left in the hands of the people and regulated, not administered, by our Government. Government is to govern - not to own and operate businesses.
In our system of Government supported monopolies over health care you are entirely right, she wouldn't have received the care she needed. In a public option she wouldn't have either as is evidenced by her passing away (because that is the one she was in). Her best chance would have been in a system where competition drives down prices and increases value by supplying better services and better coverage that people can afford - regulated by the Government. This is the system that will best help out Americans - and all people of the world.