I can't find any reliable sources to explain the current incarnation of the health care bill. It has morphed so completely during its journey that I am admittedly clueless as to what is included in it. Whatever its contents, I know it has become a mutated hybrid between private and public health care coverage. I don't see any way the two can successfully hybridize.
It's like oil and water. Sure, you can add some seasoning for flavor and shake them up in a bottle to create dressing, but they eventually separate. One supports the rise of the other. I'm not opposed to either oil or water, and the dressing can be tasty with the right herbs in it, but I don't pretend that the mixing of them will be indefinitely successful.
I don't personally see government sponsored health care coverage as beyond the scope of the purpose of the federal government. Their sole purpose (boiled down to a single statement) is to protect the citizens of this country. That protection currently includes keeping us safe from foreign threats and creating domestic order to keep us safe from each other. These two protections are maintained through a plethora of methods, from military might to jailing Martha Satan (Um, I mean Stewart. You know, that idea stealing, disrespectful-to-her-mother on national TV, self-righteous person who made stock trades with insider knowledge.). But what about protecting us from curable disease, simple viral infection, and financial ruin following treatment for a serious accident. There are many people in this country who, for one reason or another, cannot acquire or maintain health insurance through the private sector. These people are not currently being protected. This is why I am not inherently opposed to the idea of government sponsored, universal health care. It is not outside of the design principles and purpose of our government. That is, as long as it is done properly.
Similarly, allowing privately managed health care to flourish is also not outside of the edict of our government. We are, after all, a nation that functions primarily under the principles of capitalism. Protecting that right and ability is also a form of protection afforded by our political design. The problem here is that this system has not been successful enough. It works for many, but not all. So what should be done about it? A complete answer is ultimately beyond my ability and knowledge level. I do know that whatever is done, it will have impacts beyond medical treatment. Before proclaiming private insurance as inherently evil (though I do believe it is often mismanaged and so bureaucratic that it looses sight of its original purpose), think about where the money to build large office buildings, skyscrapers, shopping malls, and even hospitals comes from. Private insurance funds a very large portion of "big money" loans for large scale construction.
Ultimately, I don't see how two, intrinsically opposed forms of health care can be hybridized in a way that does not create serious issues outside of the realm of the problems it was intended to address. Does this hybrid put some companies under? Do financial burdens on the middle and lower-class working citizen push them into the realm of poverty, thus creating a bigger pool to drain the new middle-class? Do private insurance companies no longer have the capital to fund construction, thus eliminating more jobs?
Possibly.
It's also possible that it could work out. One thing to remember about humans in general and Americans specifically; we are adaptable. The doom-n-gloom predictions may prove true, in the short term. But they may also spur adaptations in how we do things that create an ultimately better system. We don't know exactly what will happen, but we do know we will get through it. Even if a flawed health care bill is passed (again, I admit to being ignorant on the specifics of the bill up for vote), America will eventually adapt.
No comments:
Post a Comment