I have been told by a few people who have known me for a good long while that they were surprised to find that when I moved to Texas my political nature blushed a little. In the waning years of high school I was a fairly liberal individual. One thing that hasn't changed is my support for health care for everyone, even to the point of socialized medicine.
I believe that in a perfect world where everyone is working for the good of society that everyone should obtain the benefits of the total work done. Inherent in that statement, everyone gets healthcare. Some people would say "What about those who don't work? Do they still get health care?" Yes.
Now I'm not blind to the problems of socialized medicine. The first being the cost. According to the Congressional Budget Office Director's Blog:
According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period. That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill’s insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years.July 18, 2009
Granted, since this was posted, both the proposals in the house have been revised and even as this entry is typed the committees are debating and line iteming this bill. So, the hard question - "Who pays for this?" My easy answer is, we all do. If you think about it, insurance premiums are where they are because of a number of factors, the uninsured, our litigious society, "defensive medicine" (as a result of our litigious society), our lack of preventative measures like eating right, exercising, quitting smoking, moderation with alcohol, etc. So all in all we are already footing the bill for those who aren't covered, so why not admit it and acknowledge it outright.
The second big question, "Who is in control?" The answer that is being debated is the government option. Put the government in charge of medicine. One side says, "Why not? Then we can control costs." The other side says, "Look at what control we've already given them. They've screwed up Social Security, Medicare, education, Veteran Health care..." I think both sides have points here. Privatized health care has run rampant over patient rights. But the government could do the same thing. While no one wants to admit cost vs. value in a healthcare situation is life and death. Is the government really going to give society a blank check when it comes to healthcare options? Who is going to make sure that the government run healthcare is doing good by us? Another government oversight agency? The conservative base will just lose it if that happens.
I thought it sad that in the documentary Fahrenheit 911, regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, a United States citizen couldn't get treatment here but could take a boat to Cuba, and receive medical services without charge.
Why wouldn't a citizen who can afford it want to help a fellow man? If I knew that my contributions to an insurance plan would help someone who needed it, especially since I don't need it now being a strapping healthy young individual, I would absolutely pay into something like that.
Many of my friends say that I give too much benefit of doubt, that I am too trusting, and maybe I am. But I think a refusal to do so is just a fear that the person you might help wouldn't do the same for you in a reversed situation. How many people don't eat, get a doctors care, get a hug because of that lack of trust. Forgive me for thinking that people as a whole are good natured and willing to do the right thing.
Do I think that a government run healthcare system that allows everyone, and I do mean everyone, healthcare without question? No, at least it isn't the only option. But something needs to change and needs to change fast.
No comments:
Post a Comment