Missing from the Health Care Debate
September 16, 2009 by James Dockstader
Filed under From the Left
A significant portion of the country (under 65) does not have access to the best health care. Yet, do we not ALL contribute to taxes that fund new research, drugs, public hospitals, and new techniques? Aside from the moral issue of medical bankruptcies and choosing between food and health care, there is something also fundamentally wrong with all of us helping pay for the best medical care that is available to only the wealthiest portions of our citizenry.
It takes a MASSIVE effort to place a patient in front of a doctor in a hospital with resources to treat a problem. You have: years of public schools and public universities; student and professional testing boards; student loans or scholarships; internships in public hospitals (or private ones that might have some public funding); years of public review of drugs; equipment and drugs that were developed with public research money; hospitals built with generations of technical and professional knowledge and civic oversight; agencies that monitor safety and qualifications; laws and courts that keep the system honest and stable; investments that are monitored and regulated publicly to instill confidence and ensure a flow of money; regulations that keep patients safe; etc.. This represents a HUGE PUBLIC EFFORT that all taxpayers pay for.
If the powerful engines of government, taxation, public university hospitals, medical schools, research funding (not a small amount), etc only exist because of the work and taxes of ALL of us, why do only a portion of us get to benefit from them? Isn’t that wrong? Why isn’t this part of the discussion?
Additionally, why does the Baucus bill cost so much? Can’t we just pass laws that limit immoral corporate activity (like cherry-picking patients and denying coverage and buying legislators)? Why does stopping the pillaging of citizenry wealth by insurance companies (or greedy unregulated mortgage houses) have to cost the taxpayers? Are we somehow thinking about paying the insurance companies NOT to rip us off so badly? Are we doing something about compensation, like the CEO of United Health Care who received more than 1 billion dollars for less than a decade’s worth of work? Or will we be giving money away again so that disproportionate CEO and Board compensation is preserved?
I don’t get it!
Thanks for another thoughtful essay, Jim.
To your question, “why do only a portion of us get to benefit…why isn’t this part of the discussion?” You are right that such a discussion should be engaged – all the more reason that bloated, ill-conceived legislation like the House bill and the Baucus bill should not be rushed through to satisfy political expediency and political ambitions. Did they not just rush through the “stimulus bill,” bailouts of Wall Street, GM and Chrysler? Can’t we let a crisis go to waste once in awhile, Mr. Emanuel?
I believe one answer to your question is that we all do or will benefit from Medicare, and many already benefit from Medicaid. But how much more can the taxpayers subsidize? Is not the middle class taxed too much already?
You ask, “why does the Baucus bill cost so much?” Great question, and one that applies equally to the House bill, and to the Obama bill, which of course, does not exist. I viewed today a story about an obstetrician with a perfect record of 3,000 successful deliveries whose practice is being crushed by medical malpractice insurance of $170,000 PER YEAR.
So I would ask…why hasn’t the Obama administration, the House, and the Senate included tort reform in any of its health reform proposals? Yes, I know. That is a rhetorical question, given the close ties between politicians, especially those in the Democrat Party, and their campaign contributors, the trial lawyers.
There are many such ingredients that have not been included, but should be part of health care reform. Thanks again for bringing to light an interesting perspective on the debate.