Writer's Block: Health Care
In this country, sadly it's more of a privilege than a right. I support universal health care but I believe there need to be conditions.
First off, I think anyone participating in this program needs to not smoke or, at the very least, enroll in a treatment program. Sorry, but it says these things will kill you right one the box! If you want to live ( Read more... )
"""I expect that the emergency care they seek now is probably nearly as expensive as if we just gave them preventive care."""
So true. When people talk about opposing universal health care, they often neglect to mention the drain on money and medical resources involved when people are forced to go to the emergency room. Often these ER visits are a result of them not going to the doctor earlier because they can't afford it. So in many cases it actually ends up costing more. And that's in addition to the needless human suffering.
"""What if you could means test out some folks? Would we accept a triaged health care system?"""
If you mean rejecting people with pre-existing conditions, in general I'd be against that. My big issue is that people are suffering through no fault of their own. They end up with some disease they have no control over and they can't get any help. The insurance companies turn them down because they say people with pre-existing conditions cost too much. Yes, it's true, it is a great expense but I think there is something wrong with a society that doesn't do what it can to protect its citizens from unforseen and random misfortunes.
Which again, is my other point. I'd rather shift resources from people who engage in behavior they know is harmful (like smoking) and extend it to those that are suffering from something beyond their control and not able to get help.
"""Would you exclude the obese? alcoholics? thrill seekers? Like you said it's a difficult list."""
Agreed. And any list will sadly have some problems with it and would be unfair.
Another problem I see with my 'solution' is that enforcing such a list may entail a great deal of bureaucracy which could stand in the way of providing efficient and timely medical care to people. To prevent this, we'd probably have to let a lot of people receive care even though they are grossly irresponsible. But again, I do think that some 'no brainer' restrictions like smoking could be easily implemented.
That said, let's take a hypothetical situation. I will also add that this in an incredible simplistic situation and is more philisophical than practical but here goes...
Let's say there are four people that need treatment. We only have the resources to treat one. They are...
#1 A thrill seeker
#2 An obese person (and I have to add that some people cannot help being overweight no matter how much they watch their diet or exercise. I'm not including those people in this example. This would be more along the lines of those overweight people you see going up for their fifth heaping plateful at the buffet)
#3 An alcoholic (who is not entering in AA or any other treatment program and is doing absolutely nothing to help themselves fight this disease.)
and
#4- Someone who has contracted a lethal disease though no fault of their own. Just luck of the draw. They just got screwed.
So, given that I can only help one of these people- hands down it would be #4. No contest. It may sound somewhat cruel and cold-hearted but no matter what system we adopt, there will be limited resources. I'm all for helping those that fall through the cracks. I'm a bit more reluctant to help those that jump through the cracks head-first of their own volition.
Reply
Leave a comment