Health care, what can I say?
|
|
How about the fact that American employers who pay for their employees are less competitive than foreign counterparts, and how employers who don’t provide health care have sicker employees less likely to show up to work on a regular basis.
I could write about the uninsured – how half of all bankruptcies in this country are related to medical expenses. Or that 87 million people – one in three Americans under 65 – were uninsured at some point between 2007 and 2008. I could say that 80 percent of the unemployed come from working families. Or tell you the bleak fact that 22,000 Americans die prematurely each year because they don’t have insurance.
But what good would this do? You’ve heard the facts before. They’re overwhelming and numbing. For most of you reading this, you’re lucky enough to afford insurance, or you have Medicare or VA benefits. And you’re happy with the way things are. For you.
Let’s forget about the political verbiage for just one second and look at our values, such as fairness, freedom and stewardship.
One aspect of fairness is universal participation in the system. Currently, only those who can afford it, the very poor and the elderly are covered. Young people – those least likely to get sick – do not participate in the system, making risk pools more expensive. Under health care reform, the young would have to enter the system or pay a tax to make the system fairer.
When we think of freedom, we think of the freedom to choose your own doctor or to choose the care you receive. Under the current regime, we will soon price ourselves out of the ability to make these choices.
Opponents have said that people in countries with universal health care wait in long lines to receive care and are basically brought before death panels. Why is it, then, that these countries have longer life expectancies than the United States?
Stewardship is the concept of collective responsibility to pay attention to the way our system serves us all. In Leviticus 19:9-10, God issued an order to his people:
“Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvestâ€-you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.”
This passage isn’t about government intrusion into an individual’s freedom. It’s about those who have sharing the bounty with those who do not. It’s about keeping preventable starvation from occurring.
Health care is like food is, capable of sustaining life. The stewards of today may become the poor of tomorrow. It is therefore our duty to chip into the system when we can so that we can call upon it when we need help.
When we actually look at it, we share the same values. We want leveling of the playing field in our sports, we want freedom for our nation and we are stewards of our churches and our communities.
We are in more agreement than we probably think. If we put aside our knee-jerk political reactions, and a biased media more intent on ad revenue than educating the public, and return to fundamental American values, maybe we can come to a consensus on health care reform.
(Editor’s Note: Aguirre is a Nogales native. She is a University of Arizona graduate and attorney in Tucson. When not practicing, she is a Community Organizer for Organizing for America, a grassroots campaign, focused on realizing President Obama’s agenda.)






Comments
George Wilgers wrote on Nov 16, 2009 11:17 AM:
Undoing that barrier and let the 1300 or so insurance companies fight it out across state lines and we will see the insruance rate drop.
In addition, the further the actual decisions move away from being between the doctor and the patient the worse things will get. Mark my words. "
Truth Hurts wrote on Nov 13, 2009 11:56 PM:
Health care is not a constitutional right, at least not in this country. Our Founding Fathers valued equality in that everyone has the right to an equal opportunity not an equal result. People have the right to chose health insurance or the right to buy the best coverage they can afford.
I will say health care is becoming too costly and needs to be brought under control. People will be better served by capping medical malpractice suits and limiting what people can sue for. People have a right to be made whole if a doctor is negligent or otherwise violates an establish rule. The cost of medical malpractice insurance aggravates the price of health care. This must be addressed at some point.
We can not intelligently debate the health care issue by excluding the cost associated with uninsured migrants. Citizens are at a great disadvantage when dealing with health care expenses. Citizens are subject to civil penalties and many have faced the reality of bankruptcy due to medical bills. Non-citizens, specifically undocumented aliens, are not subject to civil penalties. An entity may try and sue an undocumented alien for treatment related costs; however, undocumented aliens have the luxury of anonymity in that there is no way to track them or force accountability upon them.
The federal government often covers catastrophic health emergencies suffered by undocumented aliens. Programs such as Emergency Access compensate hospitals so they may continue to operate with a reduced risk of financial hardship. While this reduces the burden on health care providers it does not eliminate it. These programs rarely cover routine emergency room visits or less severe emergencies. It also displaces the financial burden from the individual being treated to the American Taxpayer.
A solution to this problem would be to require anyone with a Visa (border crossing card) or residency privilege to procure, at minimum, catastrophic health coverage. This will reduce the financial burden on the American Taxpayer and place it on individual seeking treatment. I would take it a step further and require hospitals to report all non-citizens to ICE who request emergency treatment without insurance. Those who can not fulfill their financial responsibility should be deported. Of course this would require a functional Homeland Security Administration.
I feel everyone should have the ability to obtain and chose a health care plan. A nationalized health care system will stifle competition and increase the cost of private health insurance. A government health option, whether it is a government entity or publicly subsidized, will not be influenced by free market variables because it is not subject to failure. This means the program’s budget will grow proportionately to its demand. Just stop and think about the supply and demand chain for a moment. The free market controls demand by adjustments in price; government controls demand by managing access to supply. Allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines will increase supply and competition without government intervention.
Government programs should be limited to those who can not otherwise provide for themselves. Was it not JFK who said, ask not what this country can do for you but what you can do for this country. There is no free lunch America.
phx7775@gmail.com "
Close it wrote on Nov 13, 2009 10:31 AM:
The opponents of public health care don't bat an eye at the trillions of dollars we spend on war or the welfare we send to other countries.
Why not shift the war budget to healthcare?
A healthy population is just as vital to our nation as free public school education. "
George Wilgers wrote on Nov 12, 2009 10:57 AM:
You are quite right that you have a right to choose whether or not you purchase health insurance, and whether or not you go see the doctor (though if you do seek the service you do have a responsibility to pay for it, or at least try to). This bill, if left unchanged will take away your right to choose to not buy health insurance.
PS. I do not subscribe to the idea that our rights are God Given. Our rights were taken and defended by the point of a gun and the vigelence of our fore fathers and the men and women who willingly serve and defend this nation. I just wish our federally elected officials would remember thier oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. "
dwfk wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:03 AM:
Hans wrote on Nov 10, 2009 4:09 PM:
" a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages."
Is it also your duty to make sure to line the pockets of your own profession? One could argue that lawyers in fact are being "paid back" for their work on "organizing for America" with that costly little piece of legislation thrown in. I believe health care and the Insurance industry need real reform, but, this is NOT what fixes anything- it just gerrymanders to the party elite. The non political CBO says we can save $54 billion over a decade if we limit medical malpractice lawsuits- and what say the oh so concerned attorneys about this fix?...I mean, if its our duty, one would think the attorneys would insist, nay, demand their profession suck it up and take it like the rest of us are told to, yet... specific items added to make sure lawyers don't get left out of the filthy lucre is included in this bogus legislation, NICE.
Heres a quote...where on earth I found it, I have no idea...but, hey...you might recognize it..."nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvestďż˝-" unless your a lawyer! teehee
AHHH-the irony of it all. "
George Wilgers wrote on Nov 10, 2009 3:36 PM:
Can you actually name one program where the federal government actually CUT COSTS and KEPT THEM CUT? Because I can't. In geology there is an old saying. The Present is the Key to the Past, and the Past is the Key to the Future. Meaning that unless there is a major change you can understand the past by understaning what is happinging in the present, and without a major change, what happened in the past will continue to happen in the future. The Past and Present is that our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is IGNORING its Constitutional Mandate and Limits, and SPENDING us into a third world status.
DO you SEE any hope that that WILL CHANGE? I thought it might with Mr. Obama. I was SADLY WRONG. "