Proponents of universal, government-run healthcare cite Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration (V.H.A.) as model examples in terms of coverage, cost and quality that can be provided by such. Yet, Medicare is on the verge of being a bankrupt program, and is a prime example of the need for change. The V.H.A., on the other hand, has been under fire in recent years concerning routine administrative failures and proper care given to veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. These are the standard-bearers held up as paradigm in reshaping healthcare? Good luck.
Predictably, a major tenet of the leftist agenda is at the heart of healthcare reform: entitlement. There are those in American society who believe that government is a tool for providing, and should provide, citizens with the necessities of life, without taking any personal responsibility for acquiring such on their own. Yet, the preamble of the U.S. Constitution simply states “…promote the general welfare…”; though it may, debatably, “insure domestic tranquility,” nowhere does it stipulate the specific provisioning of such, nor the outright requirement thereof, by, of or for “We the people of the United States.” This is, and has been, a major source of contention over the course of this nation’s existence, and a constant rallying point between liberals and conservatives.
Nonetheless, by essentially throwing in its hat as a potential insurance provider – the taxpayer funded “public option” – the government’s intention is to offer a competitive alternative aimed at decreasing cost. According to Factcheck.org, however, any alleged savings are extremely exaggerated by the Obama Administration. More than likely, it will add yet another layer of federal bureaucracy to an already bloated and convoluted system rather than much needed simplification and streamlining. Instead, restructuring, or outright elimination of, certain regulatory mechanisms that inherently increase cost – most notable being healthcare taxes, the monopolization of drug patents and frivolous malpractice lawsuits – would allow individuals and employers alike to afford private insurance without the need for governmental interference and a complete overhaul of the system.
Undeniably, there are other underlying, yet fundamental, issues in the mix as well that unnecessarily exacerbate the very societal concerns – welfare, housing, healthcare – currently at the forefront of debate. The healthcare system cannot be cured without addressing these root causes, many of which will never be expressed openly, particularly by those setting policy, due to their implications. One is the matter of overpopulation. Certainly, fertility treatments that yield multiple conceptions, beyond and against the Darwinian reproductive model, only compound the problem. One would think, as a moral and biological antithesis, that Creationist and Evolutionist could find common ground in opposition to such practices.
Again, it is about personal responsibility. The so-called obesity “epidemic” is due in large part to people eating unhealthily and without proper exercise. Taking the time to learn how to prevent diseases, especially in the purchasing of harmful and non-nutritious products, along with bans on products that cause disease in the first place, the impact on the healthcare system could be greatly reduced. But in a world of selfish crybabies who run off to the emergency room at a sneeze, there is little room for such commonsense.
In the end, if “Obamacare” does come to pass – with or without the divisive elements currently threatening to sink it – the government will simply be replacing one broken system with another. Until the associated periphery problems are dealt with first, it will not solve the healthcare “crisis.”
©2009 Steve Sagarra