So the other day I went to the doctor for a check up. My doctor, an uber-cool guy, always chats with his patients before we do the needful. It's part of his process and I love it. Yesterday the talk turned to health care. His main complaint was about the shortsightedness (or perhaps it was straight selfishness) of some folk. Apparently he knows this well off couple who are happily using their Medicare, but who are vehemently anti any Health Insurance reform that might give support to lower and middle income Americans in their quest for health coverage and care.
I'm always fascinated by people whose only concern is well, themselves. All for me, none for you is their motto. There is usually a strong expectation with these folk that others pull their own weight and I have no problem with that. What is troubling though, is the disdain that often accompanies the demand that others "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". Having, as these kinds of conservatives often do, zero experience of what it is to be working poor, or worse, hopelessly poor, I tend to wonder if they have ever considered what it must be like to walk in a poor man's moccasins.
Now that the bill has passed (I'm publishing this on March 22), I'm having an odd exchange with an old friend who is rabidly pro-life and yet, can see no benefit to changes in the health care system. How is that even possible? If you believe so vehemently in the sanctity and value of life, surely you should also believe in the value of health care that may indeed prolong life? But no, her challenges are simply these: naturopathic medicine won't be covered; as a nation, we can't afford this; and there aren't enough doctors to support this change. Let me try to debunk each of these in turn.
Naturopathy
Naturopathic treatments are currently not covered nor will they be under the new law. Is that a reason to dismiss the law out of hand? I don't think so. What percentage of the population currently uses naturopathic approaches? Clearly not enough to create the pressure on the system to have the interventions supported in health insurance. I'm not sure that you can lay the blame for that at the President's door. But if you must, feel free. Do naturopaths have a lobby? Who is speaking on their behalf? Clearly whomever it is, isn't speaking loudly enough. And if no one is speaking, let's be clear that silence is not the way to being taken seriously in this society. Silence buys you nothing. Without loud voices calling for their inclusion in the provisions of any health insurance reform package, naturopaths and their work will continue to languish on the sidelines. But I ask again, is that reason enough to dismiss the reform package? I think not.
Cost
Cost however is a significant concern for many, myself included. I, however, am governed not by the 'cost' notion but rather by the notion of 'value'. Too often we allow ourselves to be stymied by cost rather than do the necessary analysis to see whether the value of our purchase outweighs its cost. Health reform is not a car that will begin depreciating as soon as we start the engine, nor is it a book that valuable though it may be, will never sell for what we paid for it. Rather, this is a LIFE and DEATH matter. Who would put a dollar value on my life? Who would make so bold as to tell Mary that her life was worth saving, but not Jane's? Who? Let's not be coy about it. Health Insurance and the access to it, is about living and dying. Nothing else. We've heard foolish talk about the government setting up death panels and other such nonsense, but what is an insurance company that denies me coverage because of a congenital condition, if not a death panel? By denying me coverage, you deny me treatment options except I have cash in hand which many of us don't. So basically, you've decided that I should be denied treatment. Sounds like a DP decision to me.
What is often ignored in the 'cost' discussion though, is the cost of lost intellectual capacity. Does that cost not weigh on the economy? There is no way to quantify that which is lost, but that doesn't gainsay the fact that something precious was in fact, lost. Perhaps we haven't thought that far? Maybe we should. The loss of an Einstein or a Hawking isn't the only loss that is felt throughout the system. When other, lesser mortals die potential is lost there as well. Perhaps if we genuinely believed that every individual brought something unique and valuable to the planet we might feel differently about simply letting folk fade away because they can't afford expensive treatments or even the inexpensive tests, that would preclude expensive treatment down the road.
Shortage of healthcare professionals
Of the three complaints, this is surely the weakest. Some would suggest that by giving more people access to care, the lines will be longer and we will all have to wait for treatment. This suggests that either my doctor is so dumb that he won't know what needs to be addressed urgently and he will therefore take a 'well there's no rush posture' resulting in my demise OR that I will automatically have to wait because more people are going to need to be seen. I'm not entirely sure that I buy either argument. Frankly, if my doctor didn't feel the same sense of urgency that I felt regarding my ailment, I would get another doctor. Simple. I might have to wait, but don't I have to wait for appointments now? Some doctors aren't even taking new patients. If I must, I would look around until I found a doctor who met my needs and was free to see me. I would certainly not expect a doctor to be sitting around waiting for me to show up. If all else failed, I would go to the emergency room for immediate treatment. Options abound once I have insurance. Not so much, if I'm without it.
The second argument though is more nefarious. At its core, it holds that my treatment - my immediate treatment - is more important than yours. Far be it for me to have to wait to see a doctor. There can be no waiting time as my need is urgent. But if everyone has a right to care, everyone has a right to be seen urgently. Then the only fair way to ensure access for all, is on a first come, first served basis. We only dislike this approach when we're not first. Does anyone else see a problem with this approach? We can't always be first. I know that first is the only place that seems to matter, but really it isn't. Sometimes we need to let someone else go before us. Try it a time or two. You may find that you can stand the wait after all.
As I see it, the question we need to be asking ourselves is "What are the core national values?" Do we value life? If so then it must be ALL life that is deemed valuable. It's odd to me that pro-lifers would be anti-reform that aims to improve and lengthen lives. How can you be pro-life and claim that reform that gives 30 million people access to insurance and therefore care, is a bad idea? If you're pro-choice, you should be pro-reform, because it gives us all a choice in terms of our treatment options. No one has to just take the cheapest, lowest end treatment and pray that it works. We can all be as aggressive or as passive as we want in response to our ailments. What could be wrong about that? Or maybe I've missed something. Hopefully, someone will show me the error of my ways.
Now that the bill has passed (I'm publishing this on March 22), I'm having an odd exchange with an old friend who is rabidly pro-life and yet, can see no benefit to changes in the health care system. How is that even possible? If you believe so vehemently in the sanctity and value of life, surely you should also believe in the value of health care that may indeed prolong life? But no, her challenges are simply these: naturopathic medicine won't be covered; as a nation, we can't afford this; and there aren't enough doctors to support this change. Let me try to debunk each of these in turn.
Naturopathy
Naturopathic treatments are currently not covered nor will they be under the new law. Is that a reason to dismiss the law out of hand? I don't think so. What percentage of the population currently uses naturopathic approaches? Clearly not enough to create the pressure on the system to have the interventions supported in health insurance. I'm not sure that you can lay the blame for that at the President's door. But if you must, feel free. Do naturopaths have a lobby? Who is speaking on their behalf? Clearly whomever it is, isn't speaking loudly enough. And if no one is speaking, let's be clear that silence is not the way to being taken seriously in this society. Silence buys you nothing. Without loud voices calling for their inclusion in the provisions of any health insurance reform package, naturopaths and their work will continue to languish on the sidelines. But I ask again, is that reason enough to dismiss the reform package? I think not.
Cost
Cost however is a significant concern for many, myself included. I, however, am governed not by the 'cost' notion but rather by the notion of 'value'. Too often we allow ourselves to be stymied by cost rather than do the necessary analysis to see whether the value of our purchase outweighs its cost. Health reform is not a car that will begin depreciating as soon as we start the engine, nor is it a book that valuable though it may be, will never sell for what we paid for it. Rather, this is a LIFE and DEATH matter. Who would put a dollar value on my life? Who would make so bold as to tell Mary that her life was worth saving, but not Jane's? Who? Let's not be coy about it. Health Insurance and the access to it, is about living and dying. Nothing else. We've heard foolish talk about the government setting up death panels and other such nonsense, but what is an insurance company that denies me coverage because of a congenital condition, if not a death panel? By denying me coverage, you deny me treatment options except I have cash in hand which many of us don't. So basically, you've decided that I should be denied treatment. Sounds like a DP decision to me.
What is often ignored in the 'cost' discussion though, is the cost of lost intellectual capacity. Does that cost not weigh on the economy? There is no way to quantify that which is lost, but that doesn't gainsay the fact that something precious was in fact, lost. Perhaps we haven't thought that far? Maybe we should. The loss of an Einstein or a Hawking isn't the only loss that is felt throughout the system. When other, lesser mortals die potential is lost there as well. Perhaps if we genuinely believed that every individual brought something unique and valuable to the planet we might feel differently about simply letting folk fade away because they can't afford expensive treatments or even the inexpensive tests, that would preclude expensive treatment down the road.
Shortage of healthcare professionals
Of the three complaints, this is surely the weakest. Some would suggest that by giving more people access to care, the lines will be longer and we will all have to wait for treatment. This suggests that either my doctor is so dumb that he won't know what needs to be addressed urgently and he will therefore take a 'well there's no rush posture' resulting in my demise OR that I will automatically have to wait because more people are going to need to be seen. I'm not entirely sure that I buy either argument. Frankly, if my doctor didn't feel the same sense of urgency that I felt regarding my ailment, I would get another doctor. Simple. I might have to wait, but don't I have to wait for appointments now? Some doctors aren't even taking new patients. If I must, I would look around until I found a doctor who met my needs and was free to see me. I would certainly not expect a doctor to be sitting around waiting for me to show up. If all else failed, I would go to the emergency room for immediate treatment. Options abound once I have insurance. Not so much, if I'm without it.
The second argument though is more nefarious. At its core, it holds that my treatment - my immediate treatment - is more important than yours. Far be it for me to have to wait to see a doctor. There can be no waiting time as my need is urgent. But if everyone has a right to care, everyone has a right to be seen urgently. Then the only fair way to ensure access for all, is on a first come, first served basis. We only dislike this approach when we're not first. Does anyone else see a problem with this approach? We can't always be first. I know that first is the only place that seems to matter, but really it isn't. Sometimes we need to let someone else go before us. Try it a time or two. You may find that you can stand the wait after all.
As I see it, the question we need to be asking ourselves is "What are the core national values?" Do we value life? If so then it must be ALL life that is deemed valuable. It's odd to me that pro-lifers would be anti-reform that aims to improve and lengthen lives. How can you be pro-life and claim that reform that gives 30 million people access to insurance and therefore care, is a bad idea? If you're pro-choice, you should be pro-reform, because it gives us all a choice in terms of our treatment options. No one has to just take the cheapest, lowest end treatment and pray that it works. We can all be as aggressive or as passive as we want in response to our ailments. What could be wrong about that? Or maybe I've missed something. Hopefully, someone will show me the error of my ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment