DISCLAIMER: I am speaking of what I think will happen with our healthcare system at the current pace...not necessarily what this bill leads some to believe will happen.
I am working hard to provide for my family by working full time while taking a boat load of classes, volunteering, researching, and studying for the MCAT. All this in the hopes that 8+ years from today I will be able to replace someone's knee, or treat a small child with chemo. I don't care if this current bill does not have a public option; it is the governments foot in the door. The government doesn't make their influence in programs smaller as time passes.
I feel that I do not have a responsibility to help anyone I don't want to help once I am finally Dr. Jones. Equal access to healthcare? Yea right. I am currently unable to have the house that I consider most comfortable. Should that be the responsibility of my neighbor? Absolutely not. Some people may say they are not parallels of each other. Why not? The materials to build a house cost money, and someone needs to pay for the materials. If I am unable to afford them, why should I feel entitled to access them? Healthcare costs money: research, materials, bedding, buildings, education, marketing, and lots lots more. Why should we think that universal access to healthcare is possible, or in any way self sustainable? Why should it be compulsory for me to sew someone up when they come in my office door? If I am able to have access to government programs like housing, healthcare, food, and all living requirements, why would I work for anything? If I make $5,000 more than what a specific program requires, would I be tempted to make $5,000 less next year to ensure eligibility for those programs?
I'm rambling. My point:
When I am Dr. Jones, I will do my best to provide the best healthcare to my patients. I will study new procedures, diseases, and medications. When someone comes in the door, I will be as prepared as I am able. I will do this in the hopes of running a successful business. One that is rewarding to me in every way. I want financial comfort for my family, and it seems AWESOME that I can achieve that by helping dozens of people each and every day. If someone comes to me and says they cannot afford it, I will help them anyways. Not because the government makes me, but because I have put myself in a financial position to make those decisions, and because I would not be able to sleep that night if I sent someone away.
Is it just me, or is this the only way to keep everything we consider American? To continue the advancements in the medical field. Lets say we have 20 million people who TRULY can't afford health insurance. I believe we are a little below a million doctors in the United States. I think my payroll could allow for 30 free patients per year. The amount of unpaid insurance claims will be higher than that.
Is it possible to revert that far back from where we are as a country? This applies to every industry and service, but is not in hopes of encouraging free-riders.
Don't try to make it compulsory, lets just be good people!
7 comments:
Great post Rich. The law review at my law school is hosting a symposium in a couple months entitled "Beyond Politics: Health Care as a Human Right." So I'm sure I'll hear all about that perspective from various legal scholars from across the country. I'm not convinced, but I want to at least have an open mind and hear them out.
This post reminded me of a passage from M.D. Ron Paul's book. I'll share:
"In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at about the same rate they are now, and received good care. As a physician I never accepted Medicare or Medicaid money from the government, and instead offered cut-rate or free services to those who could not afford care."
"Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility toward the less fortunate, and free medical care for the poor was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn't fit into the typical, by-the-script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector."
"Laws and regulations that inflated the cost of medical services and imposed unreasonable liability standards on medical professionals even when they were acting in a voluntary capacity later made offering free care cost prohibitive, but free care for the poor was common at a time when America wasn't so 'governmentish.'"
He concludes: "We have lost our belief that freedom works, because we no longer have the imagination to conceive of how a free people might solve its problems without introducing threats of violence [or in the health care bill's case, fines, taxes, and jail time] - which is what government solutions ultimately amount to."
Interesting thoughts Rich and Devin.
With government running more and more of our lives the conception of human nature seems to be that mankind is inherently evil and will not do good unless coerced by the government. Interesting, and in some instances sad, that when you treat a person as if they are a certain way they very often become that way. If you treat a people like they are good they just may become good. If you treat a people like they are greedy they just may become greedy. In this light, the secularism of the state is growing and winning its fair share of converts.
I agree with you Publius. Similar to employee empowerment within a company. When employees feel valued within an organization, they are more likely to act in the company's best interest. If you always micromanage they are more likely to do the bare minimums they need to get by.
Devin: The word "governmentish" alone makes me want to read that book. In which law school are you enrolled?
I really liked that quote from Ron Paul, I wish it was still like that today. In March I am traveling to Peru on a volunteer humanitarian mission to do health care for rural communities that otherwise have access to no health care. It seems to me there are people in this country who may be in the exact situation as those Peruvians. Part of me blames health insurance companies for the climate of health care today, and I do believe a part of it resides with the government. What I do like about this bill is making it illegal for health insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing condition, and the practice of dropping patients once they become sick. It is easy for us to be critical of the government stepping in and mandating what health insurance should do when we ourselves can get health insurance with relatively low premiums. But there are people out there who cannot gain coverage and/or pay for it who have had their prayers answered. I do believe something had to change, I don't think this will be a huge killer to our health care system, but I do wish there was more bipartisan action on such an important bill.
Hopefully adding those people with pre-existing conditions does not increase the rates for those of us who are barely able to afford it now. It's not that I don't want everyone to have coverage, but I want to make sure that at least most of us are able to keep it.
On a small side note (and kind of old news), how awesome was Biden's comment, "we have to keep spending money to keep from going bankrupt." Amazing.
Creighton, for some doctors, it IS still like that today. Ron Paul tells the story of one Dr. Robert Berry who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural TN. His clinic did not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, a policy that allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third party bureaucrats or HMO administrators. He and his patients can therefore decide for themselves on appropriate treatments.
"In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses."
"Doing so affords Dr. Berry additional advantages as well. Freed from the bureaucracies of HMO's or government, he can focus on medicine rather than billing. By operating on a cash basis he lowers his overhead considerably, thereby making it possible to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies - only slightly more than the insurance co-pay that other offices charge. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. His patients are largely low-income working people who disliked the long waits and inferior treatment they endured at government clinics."
Great story, but sadly, by the time doctors finish their schooling and training nowadays, they are a quarter of a million or more in debt, so most want to specialize to climb out of the hole ASAP - also another reason for the worsening shortage of primary care physicians.
Rich: I'm a second year student at the West Virginia University College of Law. I graduated from USU (2007) in economics and political science after which I spent an additional semester interning for UT Senator Bennett in DC. The book I'm quoting from is called "The Revolution" and was written shortly after the 2008 campaign. It's a good, interesting read. I don't agree with Paul on everything, but I really liked the chapter outlining his economic views and policies, from which these excerpts were taken.
Many years ago, the law allowed people in all sorts of associations to band together as groups for purposes of qualifying for health insurance. Through the American Bar Association, I was able to get coverage for $25,000 DEDUCTIBLE insurance, maxing out at $1,000,000, in other words catastrophic, for less than $25 per month. When insurance covers everything, it really covers nothing. Requiring everyone to purchase insurance that covers practically everything will just amount to a forced spending plan.
Post a Comment