Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 7 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Another column about health care reform?
Published Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Guessing what goes through readers’ minds as they read headlines can be hard, but I’m going to try: “Another bloody column about health care reform? What, am I, bonkers? Hasn’t this been written to death by now? Please, write about anything else, even snow removal or sidewalks.”
How did I do?
Well, despite the obvious attraction of snow removal policies as a topic, health care reform is the target today, mainly because “today” is when it’s on the front burner politically. And I’m not the only one who keeps writing about health care reform. Last week featured yet another guest column with a local opinion on reform. I wrote one back in September, and others before that. Letters have been exchanged, as far back as the year we moved to Freeborn County. When I look back over my own writing, health care reform was featured as far back as 1992.
It’s because the topic won’t go away until we actually answer some big questions we’ve been ignoring.
Health care reform has been on the agenda for years — mainly on the agenda of progressive politicians, it’s true — but it’s been discussed and written to death for nearly a hundred years.
Although the political party championing reform has not always been the same (ironically enough, it started with a Republican), at least one of the opponents has been: The AMA, defenders of the status quo — at least once they had gotten rid of the midwives and other health-care providers that used to be the status quo in American medical care.
David Behling
Among the questions that haven’t been answered in all those years are ones about insurance and profit. Why are we so obsessed with the insurance side of basic medical care? The real problem lies in the costs of the care we Americans don’t want to give up. We don’t want to lose our high-priced treatments on demand or the employer-subsidized deluxe insurance packages that pay for them. We really only want costs controlled for those whose medical care is paid for by the government.
And why are we still protecting the ability of investors in huge corporations to make profits off the diseases and accidents of others? Using profits to build better facilities or invest in better treatments seems perfectly reasonable. Using those profits to buy vacation homes in Aspen or a new Jaguar every year do not.
At the top of my list of questions that won’t go away, however, is the one about health care as a right. Oh, the question sneaks into public discussion every so often, usually asked by voices on the left, but the discussion never really goes anywhere. And it does need to go somewhere. We need an answer to this foundational question; everything depends on how we see access to health care.
Is health care a right? Some people — including many patients — argue it is.
Is it a privilege? Others — including many providers — say it isn’t.
Do we have a right to any kind of medical care we want?
Is treatment by paramedics at an accident or emergency room care of a heart attack victim a privilege, dependent on the patient’s ability to pay?
Does the Hippocratic Oath imply a right to health care? Or is it an ethics code covering doctors’ relationships with their customers?
What’s my answer?
Prepare to be disappointed, because I don’t have one — or perhaps better to say the answer is so complicated that one column in a newspaper isn’t sufficient.
I do believe that there is a right to health care for kids and basic medical care for adults — preventative medicine and emergencies. But even as I write those words, images of motorcyclists without helmets or unbuckled motorists speeding down Interstate 90 appear. Do they have the right to the same level of care as those wearing helmets or using seat belts? What about the smoker with lung cancer or emphysema? What about the heart attack victim who celebrates recovery with a bottle of Jack Daniels, a huge steak and double order of fries?
I think it’s worthwhile noting that, technically, we haven’t answered the same question about some other things we take for granted. Is clean drinking water a right or a privilege? Is breathable air? Is the food we need to eat?
Speech is protected. Our guns are protected. Our churches, mosques and synagogues are protected. But most of the basic needs of any human are not because they’re not in the Constitution. Ironic, isn’t it? Or maybe tragic.
Answering the question about a right to health care is linked to how we think about all of those other basic needs. Like I wrote above: It’s complicated.
David Rask Behling teaches at Waldorf College and lives with his wife and children in Albert Lea.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on October 20, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"And why are we still protecting the ability of investors in huge corporations to make profits off the diseases and accidents of others? "
Ho-Hum. ANOTHER anti-business college prof. Where does he think that money comes from to pay his salary? The government? The tooth fairy?
Using his "reasoning"--
Why are we still protecting the ability of investors in huge automobile corporations from making money in selling cars--the alternative is to walk? THAT'S RIGHT--OBAMA IS FIXING THAT BY NATIONALIZING THE CAR COMPANIES!
Why are we still protecting the ability of investors in huge pharmaceutical companies from making money by introducing miracle drugs? THAT'S RIGHT--OBAMA IS FIXING THAT BY NATIONALIZING THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY!
Why are we still protecting the ability of investors in huge electric companies from making money by charging for electricity? THAT'S RIGHT--OBAMA IS FIXING THAT BY NATIONALIZING OUR ENERGY SYSTEM!
It has been said "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." To a Socialist/Communist/Liberal/Progressive, every problem requires government intervention!
We have more and more of these "teachers" spewing their anti-free market rhetoric. Josef Goebbels said that "It only takes 2 generations to change the country"--is it any wonder our young parrot the leftist line?
Posted by realchange (anonymous) on October 20, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't we protect the ability of the politicians from making millions of dollars. Oh right Obama is, he is going to protect them because in a socialistic society the only rich are the politicians, the rest of us join the poor. The politicians force on us their programs that just build themselves up because they are exempt from them. And the libs just say, but they are doing what's best for us. NO, THEY ARE DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM AND THEIR POWER.
Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on October 20, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not sure I took this article to be completely anti-free market per se and actually thought it was well written and thoughtful. Good points and questions. But I do have a correction to make.
He states that we only care about containing costs for those who have health care paid by the government. Actually, unless I am mistaken, this isn't paid by the government but rather the taxpayers. Secondly, I do have an interest in cost containment for all because as we all know, employer based coverage keeps costing more. Employers can't afford the premiums unless they pass the cost on to employees. All of our premiums and out of pocket expenses keep going up so we should all care about this.
Just because you may not support a public option doesn't mean you don't think something needs to be done. Something needs to be done for children without coverage. Something needs to be done for those with pre-existing conditions or those who face catastrophic illness like cancer or AIDS, for example, who risk running through their lifetime max. The concern I have with a public plan is the cost and how well it would actually be run. Look no further than Medicare and Medicaid. I rest my case.
There was an interesting article in the Star Tribune a while back about France. They are actually starting to run out of money for their national health. So the way I see it, two choices. Raise taxes or cut back coverage. I fear the same thing would happen here.
Posted by realchange (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I'm not mistaken, people who are uninsured do get coverage. The children who are "uninsured" are already covered if they get sick. It is just a fear tactic the libs are using to support public opinion. Heck, even illegals are getting free health care. People are being told that there are people dying because they can't get care, but if they go to an emergency room they will get care whether they have insurance or not. I don't see people hobbling around on broken legs or dropping dead on the streets because they don't have insurance. It is out there. We need to fix what we have and not add something that is so overwhelming expensive and doomed to fail.
Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You bring up a good point. Anyone can walk into an emergency room and get care, period. They can't be refused care based on ability or inability to pay.
The people I feel bad for are the "working poor". They work but don't make a lot of money and many times don't have affordable insurance. But they make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. It's like we punish people for working. You could go on welfare and get state aid but if you work a low paying job, you're basically screwed (pardon my language).
So question to anyone who supports a public plan. How do you propose we pay for it? Or rather, when we are in the debt we are in, how can we afford this? How can we spend money we don't have? I am not trying to start an argument but I really want to understand how anyone thinks we can do this. Feedback appreciated.
Posted by realchange (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, the people in the middle are the ones mostly hurt. They either qualify or they don't, there should be some kind of progressive help. Kind of like the reverse for welfare, it should progressively go down, which means it won't be a lifetime support system. (Unless you are unable to work because of illness or injury etc) That will give people a chance to get back on their feet. I'm sorry, I am not picking on single Mom's only, but my goodness, stop having kids you can't afford, we can't afford them either. Start taking away money with each kid, then they will find out that birth control is cheaper.....you can't afford one, why do you think 3 or 4 will be alright. The tax payers shouldn't have to support your lifestyle choice. Sorry, that does sound pretty politically incorrect. We do need to help American citizens and stop helping illegal criminals...
maybe then we can help the people that truly need and deserve it. Let's face it we all may need some help at some point in our lives. Let's stop making it a lifestyle.
If you can afford cable, manicures, cell phones and smokes, you should be able to support your kids.
Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I couldn't agree more! We need to provide incentives for people to support themselves. And sadly there are people who keep having kids to get more welfare. That isn't fair to those children - they don't ask for that. Something needs to give....
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)