Universal Healthcare

Liberals have successfully coined another term to make their stance sound more righteous than it really is: universal healthcare. Just as they substituted the term "pro-choice" for the true nature of their stance--"pro-fetus-killing"--they have used the term "universal healthcare" instead of "government-funded healthcare." It's a not-so-subtle suggestion that opponents of government-funded healthcare don't want the "less fortunate" (another euphemism for "poor") to receive healthcare. I am not a proponent of government-funded healthcare, but I do believe in universal healthcare in that I believe everyone ought to have access to good healthcare.

There is a difference!

So why am I opposed to government-funded healthcare? Most people would say taxes. And yes, they're probably right. There is no way to fund something as expensive as healthcare without raising taxes. Obama says he's going to do it by cutting outdated programs and eliminating pork-barrel spending. Shouldn't that be done anyway? And even if he were to accomplish such a thing, isn't our nation 9.7 trillion dollars in debt? There's no budget for such a thing as "universal healthcare"!

As much as I would hate to pay higher taxes, it's not my top reason for opposing government-funded healthcare. Have you seen what happens to things that the government meddles in? Government involvement means beaurocracy. Ever been to the DMV? Have you seen what's happened to public schools? Social security? Medicare/Medicaid? Everything becomes ridiculously inefficient. In a vain effort to raise the standing of the "less fortunate," services provided to the "middle-class" suffer while the economic "elite" simply pay more for the best service--despite government involvement!

Government-funded healthcare would not mean unlimited laboratory tests, imaging, and procedures. No matter how much funding is thrown at healthcare, there will always be limits on resources. And so there will always be gate-keepers. The difference is that the gate-keepers will be beaurocrats.

Proponents of government-funded healthcare paint themselves as humanitarians, suggesting that those who don't believe in government-funded healthcare don't care about the "less fortunate" that don't seem able to afford it. They would force middle and upper class Americans to share with the lower class. "I will be my brother's keeper," they say. But when they force Americans to feed the hungry and clothe the naked they eliminate the spirit of charity and gratitude. They create an entitled, ungrateful lower class and a resentful middle class. By giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish they only succeed in widening the gap between socio-economic classes.

Government-funded healthcare only shifts the responsibility of fixing problems in healthcare from the people, where it belongs, to a government notorious for blindly throwing money at problems that require insight and careful planning.

Here are some problems and solutions:

Problem: We have forgotten what insurance is for.
Solution: Remember! People have come to expect insurance companies to pay for routine visits--check-ups, sniffles, ear infections, acne, contraception, med refills, etc. Does car insurance pay for oil changes or the gas to drive your car? No! Insurance is "just in case." Insurance ought to pay for emergencies! Broken bones, appendectomies, cancer... And it ought to pay for all emergencies--not just the ones that happened to be covered by the plan that we happened to buy even though we didn't really know the difference between that one and the other 1,000 plans because we didn't have several days to read all the fine print. When we use insurance to pay for routine stuff, insurance companies are providing more services. Which means they are making more money. Which means we are paying them more money. In the long run it's cheaper to pay for our own routine care.

Problem: Surprise! You're not covered for that.
Solution: If politicians are so eager to get their hands on the healthcare system, here's their chance. Pass legislation that requires insurance companies to provide a standard package. Coverage for things like surgery to replace severed limbs and ambulance rides for heart attack victims would not require pre-approval or be mysteriously missing from our plans. And things like heart transplants could not be denied simply because the limit was reached.

Problem: Americans have to have the best of the best.
Solution: Do we really need to pay 300% more money for an MRI machine that provides images that are 3% better? Why do we demand the most expensive care instead of the best care? Do we really need to pay for the new, expensive selective seratonin re-uptake inhibitor when we haven't even tried the old SSRI available at Wal-mart for $4/month? Do we really need to pay hundreds of dollars every month for a pill that combines a cholesterol medication with a blood pressure medication when you can buy them seperately at Wal-mart for $8/month? Is it that difficult to take an extra pill?

Problem: We don't know when to let go.
Solution: Let go. There is no reason to keep grandma on a ventilator until she's 115. We all have to go some time. And how do you think her quality of life is on that ventilator--eeking out the last years of her life in a hospital bed. What do we pay for that? Tens of thousands of dollars. And has anyone else realized that some of the most expensive medications are also some of the most worthless? Alzheimer's medications for instance. They're incredibly expensive and have only been shown to delay the effects of the disease for a few months at best.

Problem: So many Americans refuse to take responsibility for their own health.
Solution: Hold them accountable! If you don't care enough about yourself to take your insulin every day, then why should I have to pay for your kidney transplant, eye surgery, heart surgery, toe amputation, etc? If you don't care enough about yourself to stop smoking, why should I have to pay for your oxygen tanks, steroids, ipratropium, etc. If you don't care enough about yourself to lose a few pounds, why should I have to pay for your [insert innumerable interventions for complications of obesity here]? If you get a kick out of repeatedly attacking the prison guards (one of my patients yesterday), why should I pay for your MRIs, neuralgia meds, muscle relaxers, etc?

Problem: Excessive treatment.
Solution: Stop demanding that your doctor treat your child's ear infection with antibiotics. Antibiotics have not been demonstrated to make a difference in the outcome of acute otitis media and their excessive use is leading to microbe resistance. Don't demand Valtrex for your shingles when you didn't come in for treatment until 2 weeks after the onset of your outbreak. Stop demanding excessive treatment for self-resolving issues.

Problem: Mixed-up priorities.
Solution: Live within your means. Many uninsured people can afford health insurance. But it isn't a priority. They buy that new HDTV instead. And then, when they find out they have diabetes, they rant and rave about how unfair it is that they don't have insurance. Well, why do you think the rest of us spent money on health insurance instead of more luxuries, dummy?

The government has little power to intervene in the real problems within healthcare. Rather than focusing on who should have to pay for healthcare, we should be focusing on how to make healthcare and health insurance more affordable and cost-effective. This is something that CANNOT be accomplished by government and MUST be accomplished within the private sector.