Once again, my comment was too long for the box, so I made a new post.
Funny enough, a few days ago I quickly checked facebook to see some friends' news. After reading some things and logging out I turned to my wife and said "I HATE politics."
I must correct myself. A lot of good things have been done through politics. I dislike the bad things people do in the name of politics.
I had just read another scathing rant between several parties about the ACA. Yes, Benjamin, people tend to go black and white on this and call each other evil if they think differently. It is getting out of hand. I listened to a BYU forum the other day by a guy named Mark DeMoss, a prominent evangelical, consultant for Christian-based groups, and past political aide. He also started and later ended the Civility Project to encourage civility in the political sphere. Part of his forum talked about how Christians should be civil as Christ would be, even when we disagree. It is a good listen (http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2013).
HEALTH CARE: I was cleaning some oil stains on carpet this morning and thought about how what I was doing was similar to health care. Some people believe steam cleaning is the only way to go. However, steam often releases the glue holding the carpet down, leaving bubbles. Some people believe the buffer and pad method is the only way to go (I worked for Heaven's Best in high school). Both work toward one goal, but using different means. Both have flaws, both have positives. Not one is perfect.
We have to understand that health care is a huge and complex dilemma and not one thing will fix it. Some politicians tend to go to one solution to fix a whole problem because they have limited time and resources. This happens in any camp or political group. I could site many programs, but the one that comes to mind is No Child Left Behind. In all probability, it has left a lot of kids behind. You cannot fix all of America's diverse education problems or accommodate all of America's diverse students with one bill or program. This is my main complaint about the ACA. I wholeheartedly agree that health care needs to be addressed. However, ramming a program through the government is probably not the best solution.
The individual mandate? Could be good, might be bad. I'm not a fan of insurance either or being required to buy it. I can see both sides on this. I am not required to have a car, but modern society is a bit difficult without one, or without a phone, computer, and other things. Does our future society necessitate to some degree buying insurance to guarantee that life goes on without major interruptions? Possibly. Is there another way? Maybe. Tax breaks for those that do buy it? That has been suggested. I don't have an answer, I'm just saying that things like this probably won't solve all the problems.
Money is a huge issue for health care. How do we fund it? Does the government ever ask that? Ben, you mentioned helping people and society out by chipping in. I agree, it should be a voluntary thing. What I am afraid of is how creating affordable health care programs will affect spending. I've tried to research Massachusetts as the test case, but sometimes it's hard to wade through the info. Spending for their health care did double in a few years and they had to have grants from the feds. Just a little scary to think what could happen with money escalating. However, any other solution would probably require money too, so no win for money.
Socialized medicine: one major problem I have heard time and time over again is the line at the doctor when people get sick. If health care is completely covered by taxing the people or whatever they do in England, Japan, and other countries, then that means a mass of people seeing few doctors. Some people die waiting.
INDEPENDENCE: A lovely topic. Truly. But I probably won't get into the tear-jerking accounts of military or other patriotic stories.
One thing to remember is that the colonies were not fighting for independence from government, but from a tyrannical government. They believed the King and England's government was overstepping bounds and controlling the colonies too much. No taxation without representation comes to mind. They wanted a government that would allow them some rights as Americans. That is also one reason religious people came to America.
Some people may see the ACA as a federal government overstepping its bounds. One of the great debates when our country was in diapers was federal government vs. state government. Many representatives were afraid of a government similar to England's where a ruling elite would control things like commerce, industry, etc. Is this happening now?
For a later discussion, what do you think about America being involved militarily overseas? This is a large issue I've been thinking about the last few years. James, I would love to hear your take on this. Soldiers sometimes have a unique perspective on this and I am a curious individual.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry, I forgot to finish a thought, so you may have to come to the actual page to see the update. Thanks xoxox J/k
ReplyDeleteI have heard some talk about waiting for care under socialized medicine, but is there any data on that?
ReplyDeleteAnother angle is the idea that capitalism drives innovation like nobody's business. If capitalism is removed from healthcare, do we loose the ability to improve it?
Something about socialized medicine is that there is scarcity. I saw that personally in Uruguay as a man we taught a couple of discussions to couldnt even get ibuprofen because the socialized pharmacy was back ordered or something along those lines. I will see if I can get more thought down on this.
ReplyDelete@Bach:
ReplyDeleteThe internet is full of propaganda, and this piece may qualify as such. However, it does represent one side of the story that can be considered when discussing socialized medicine and its effects on its patient base:
www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf
This article is obviously biased towards capitalism/libertarianism, so please consider that as you read it. I always like to read both sides of a story and have seen plenty of arguments why our system is inferior to one of the many socialized systems out there, and there are no lack of resources to balance against this particular article.
Here is a study performed by Canada to assess their healthcare system compared to the rest of the world. Note that the US is the only major industrialized nation that does NOT have universal health care, so every country featured but the US can be used as a test comparison base.
This study and others like it are commonly referred to to show that the US is way behind in quality of care, but I don't think I really see that in this study. Add to it the fact that this study has inherent flaws (self-selection bias, proficiency bias, expectation bias, etc.) and it becomes even more difficult to extract the truth.
I just don't think you can ask two people from two different cultures a simple question like "how did your doctor do with your care today?" and expect to compare the answers. To provide an absurd example, if you ask a starving kid in Africa how his care was, and as long as he got a lollipop at the end of the visit he will rate you a perfect 10! A crotchety old English man might never be satisfied with anything, and rate his care a 1 or a two across the board even when it is great by international standards.
Please form your own opinions:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Shea_hltsysperformanceselectednations_chartpack.pdf
Bach, as you will see in the study, the direct response to your question of waiting for care is "yes, socialzed medicine generally has longer wait time, but its not longer by enough to make a difference". And that is coming from its proponents; there are those against it who say it is much worse.
For me, the bottom line is that I don't see any solid evidence stating that the healthcare system of the US is inferior. It has more than its share of problems to be sure, but almost all of the factoids put out by its opponents (mortality rate, infant mortality rate, etc.) have a very different story when viewed from the other side.