posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:48 AM
For what it's worth, here is my perspective on the subject.
I oppose government healthcare for two simple reasons, with some minor branching.
One, it is not the government's role to provide healthcare. This is primary, before all other considerations. It is the government's role to protect
me, and my property. That is it. Everything else should be handled at a state level. Living in Texas, healthcare already is. We have a program where a
negotiated price will be turned into payments if catastrophic illness occurs. My property is protected from my debt, and based on my income a payment
plan is created. End of story.
Without exception, the government will screw up healthcare and exploit the sources of funding it creates. I have a Canadian friend who has a
congenital, chronic illness. He has no complaints with the system either. But, I recall when a CAT scan was a new, and novel approach to diagnostics.
The waiting list in Canada was listed in years. Many were fleeing to the US to seek this type of imaging. It is only within certain parameters that
government healthcare seems to work.
Which brings me to another point, choice. I don't have a problem with a CAT scan, but I do with x-rays. The effect of exposure to radiation is
cumulative. While it may cost the insurance companies a grand to have a CAT scan, I can opt to pay out of pocket < $500 for one myself to avoid the
exposure. I can also approach a physician and have him order the tests I wish, paying for them out of pocket. The point is, I have a choice.
Then finally, government healthcare doesn't address the real problem with healthcare in America. While people insist that bucking a nationalized
healthcare is simply falling into the trap of big pharma and insurance lobbyists, the truth is that we are already in their grasp and that is not the
way out of it. Torte reform; handing over punitive awards not matching losses is ridiculous and not equitable. If something is that egregious of an
offense, then criminal prosecution is warranted.
When I was young, I paid $20 to see a doctor. He wrote a prescription and that was that. When I was a boy and stepped on a nail, hitting my artery, a
call was placed to the family physician who met us at his office. A tetanus shot, penicillin, a script for antibiotics, and a few stitches and we were
on our way home. Not so anymore. Why, a doctor could be sued now for such treatment!
I once had a good family doctor. He used to talk with me, answer questions and work in multiple items where I didn't have to pay for another office
visit. One day he said he couldn't afford to continue running his office, which he shared with another doctor and a dentist. He said the overhead
from having to hire so many extra workers to handle insurance billing was killing him. He went back to teaching and sold his practice.
When my son broke his arm at 2 years old, we had insurance. Everyone on the plan said it would be 5-6 weeks before a doctor could put a cast on his
arm. My wife called around until she found a sympathetic doctor who was not a pediatrician, but a sports doctor who had a child around my son's age
who was willing to put a cast on him. Fortunately, he took my insurance. But he also said he was leaving what outwardly seemed a successful practice
so that he could join another group of doctors in another state. When I asked why, he said his malpractice rate as too high to handle on his own. As I
recall, it was around $75k, or higher.
I have a neighbor who is a family doctor who couldn't afford to practice on her own if it wasn't for her husband, who has a lucrative practice as an
orthodontist. After rent, payroll and insurance, she clears in the 30k range.
This doesn't even begin to address the myriad of alternative cancer treatments which are effective for some people. Shackle the ambulance chasers,
release the doctors and explore the treatments. Reform the FDA while you are at it as well.