Look, I don't talk politics, okay? I may chit chat with Larry about it sometimes, but that's only because he and I agree 95% of the time*. I try to talk about it with Michael, but even though we mostly agree, I tend to take it personally if he doesn't agree 100% and then I'm left trying to convince him; or else I'm in the mood to play devil's advocate just for the sake of a good debate. Either way, it never ends well, unless I'm talking to Larry, because we get each other when it comes to politics.
When it comes to the big issues, I often feel like I must not have paid nearly enough attention in school, because all I know is what makes sense to me, and going too in depth about all the pros and cons is very intimidating.
So with that said, let me now say upfront : I'm not saying that I know the answers to this issue, and I'm not saying that "socialized medicine" or "government run healthcare" is the answer. I'm not interested in debating this large complex issue as a whole. What I'm interested in saying is that I don't understand why so many people are so opposed to tax dollars paying for health care.
I believe that our health is more valuable than our education. I believe that our health is more important than a whole lot of other things that we pay taxes to cover. I think our health is more important than state parks, for example. I'm not seeing any public outcry about how awful it is that we pay taxes to ensure that every child receives an education. Why do we, as a nation, value education over health? We all believe that education is important. And we have the choice to use the public system, or to use public schools or home school. Most people have at least some amount of problems with our public school systems. Many are fed up with the corruptness of the system. But how many are saying, "the government has screwed this up so badly, and has no business being involved in this part of our lives!?" None that I've heard - even those of us who keep our kids at home value the public education system. Why is it that privatization of our school system is totally implausible, but the opposite is true when it comes to health care? We may not like the system, but we still believe that the education of our children is a basic right that needs to be extended, and that it's an investment worthy of our tax dollars.
Here is what I believe: Regardless of their parents' income, the health care of our children should be a basic right that is extended, and deemed worthy of our tax dollars. And because I believe that good health is important at all ages, I believe that should extend into adult hood.
Kids and pregnant women aren't the only ones who should be guaranteed access to medical care. Emergency medical attention shouldn't be the only type of health care that is automatically approved for all. A forty year old bachelor with a non-emergent health concern is no less deserving than a pregnant mother.
I don't know the answers. But I do think that the "we shouldn't have to fund their health care!" is a selfish attitude. We do fund "their" health care. They, being - the young, the pregnant, the old, the any age who shows up at the ER because they can't afford to just go to the doctor and they know that an ER can't turn them away. I think everyone is deserving of health care. I don't know how the system should be run, and I get that many are scared that the government will indeed totally screw it up. I'm not interested in helping work those details out, I'd probably only make matters worse. I just think that the welfare of my fellow man is a worthy investment. If someone needs help, and I'm capable of helping, I'd like to do so.
And by the way, I definitely am not a liberal, but I don't think that "liberal" is a bad word, either. I'd say I'm a conservative moderate, if there is such a thing.
Now, if you comment, keep it nice.
*This is not to imply anything about Larry's beliefs about health care reform or public education or taxes or anything else discussed in this blog!
***********************
Oh, and what prompted my thoughts on the health care crisis today?
The state of Georgia has only about half the amount of trauma centers that it needs, and the majority of them are clustered around Atlanta. Georgia voters don't want to pay an additional $10/year/vehicle to fund more trauma centers spread throughout the state. It's estimated that 700 lives a year could be saved with an adequate amount of TCs. A woman quoted in the AJC said of the southern half of the state, that we already fund their education, we shouldn't have to fund their health care too. That is the type of thing I'm responding to. Are lives in Atlanta somehow worth more than lives in south GA? Of course not. I find it very sad that the voters of my home state are okay with letting 700 people per year die, because they don't want to pay another $10/year. When you're the one who has a horrible car crash, say, on your way to Florida, you may wish that there was one closer, and not care whether that facility was funded by taxes or the private sector.
And of those existing trauma centers, only TWO are pediatric trauma centers. Egleston and Scottish Rite are both in Atlanta. It doesn't have to be that way. I was pleased to see a map of NC's TCs and find that while there are a few areas with less access, the centers are pretty evenly spread across the state.
10 comments:
***Applause***
I too can't understand the thinking of 700 lives being lost every year simply because people don't want to pay an extra $10. I can't rationalize it in my mind.
I like you (and you already know) - rarely discuss politics - and I don't know that I "vote" - I vote more common sense, than I do a particular party. And I'm not sure what you'd call that. Up until now, I had no idea that Egleston and Scottish Rite were the only two pediatric trauma centers in the state (And my sister has been an employee of CHOA for over 5 years). I guess it never occurred to me that there was a problem because thankfully we live about an hour south of both. But just like you said about the trip to Florida - it terrifies me to think what if, just what if on our trip to Florida earlier this month we were in need of a trauma unit? What would have been done? Would they have flown my children all the way to Atlanta? Or would we have been forced to take them somewhere in Florida? Scary, scary thought. I guess I've just always assumed that "we're covered" - frightening!
agreed agreed agreed!! I think it was you and I who had the "liberal" conversation this summer I'm always getting thown under the "left bus" just because I ask questions or see the perks when others dont. xoxo
I won't say much, other than there actually are quite a few people trying to get the Federal gov't out of the education business. There have been bills introduced (and shot down) to abolish the federal Dept of Ed. It's the same people who want to abolish the IRS, and other federal programs with no Constitutional basis.
Having said that; I don't completely agree with you on this, but I'm not sure I completely disagree either. I just got kicked in the butt over lunch, reading someone's thoughts about what the Bible says about the poor. I think my problem is that I see the duty of Christians and the duty of gov't as two very different things. I have no problem supporting my neighbor (neighbor used in the Biblical sense, of meaning pretty much anyone). I have some problems with giving the gov't my money to support them. Their track record with this stuff is pretty terrible. Additionally, I don't see a way for such a thing to hold up Constitutionally. But then again, it's hard to justify welfare, SSI, etc from that standpoint, too (should we abolish those too? many say yes.)
So I'm still torn on this one. As with many of these types of issues, my views are ever evolving. I've lately been thinking on the things we, as Christians, are called to do, and how that relates to the government. I still firmly believe if the Church had been doing it's job, SSI, welfare, foodstamps etc would not have been needed, but today's church doesn't have a mechanism in place to handle this stuff, so what are we to do? I'm just not sure. I hate the idea of the government doing it. I also hate the idea that we are ignoring "the least of these".
Wait.. I thought I said I wasn't going to say much...
Hence the disclaimer!
Yeah, I can't say that I really "trust" the government to handle it well. However, obviously, the Church can't be trusted to handle it either. It's not something that we've made a priority, at least. I think if our churches did choose to make it a priority, it could work. But I also think that as a whole, we're pretty greedy. We've been told all about The American Dream, which is apparently, make as much money as you can and hold onto it as tightly as you can.
But I think that if we look at the current medical programs run by the government (can't speak for Medicare, but I've been on Medicaid and Tricare which is run by an insurance company funded by the DOD), we don't see the huge problems that we fear with "socialized medicine." So I have to wonder if it would really be such a bad thing.
Here are a couple of Christian organizations showing how it COULD work for the church to do this.
http://www.chministries.org/
http://mychristiancare.org/medi-share/
The first one is endorsed and used by Shane Claiborne, an author who was instrumental in starting to change the way I view our world, and the church. I strongly recommend his book "The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical" http://www.thesimpleway.org/index.php/store/product/the-irresistible-revolution/
But only if you're ready to get REALLY uncomfortable.
(Warning: Shave is not very fond of the current wars, and I doubt Michael would be impressed with what he has to say in that area. I find that I can enjoy an author even if I disagree with some things he says)
Will check out the links tonight or tomorrow sometime. Are they about some of the Christian insurance coop type deals?
I guess the first thing would be to agree with the on-going discussion that we, as the hands and feet of Christ are not doing our job.
As someone who has been a part of Tricare also, but in a LOT of different areas, I am not sure I can agree with you that they are doing such a fabulous job. Well, let me rephrase that. Tricare itself isn't doing a bad job. It's just that they pay such a small percentage that there are many doctors who can barely afford to take a tricare patient. The amount that they actually get paid barely covers their insurance, rent, electric, nurses, etc, I think that many people fear that doctors will not be able to afford to "stay in business" if the govt takes over all medical services. They won't even be able to pay for their years and years of medical school bills. So, the govt will then have to take over the insurance companies, subsidizing, or controlling it in some way. Well, then they will be upset that they are not making the profit they should be, will have to lay people off, who will then be needing even more govt assistance.
That is my understanding of part of WHY people are so against govt healthcare. Because once the govt takes over one thing, it seems they have to take over another, and another....
For now I say we need to focus on being Christ's hands and feet. We can do that right now, without waiting for the govt, to fight about it.
I have to agree with you on the trauma center thing though. Being in the deep south here right now, well, sad times.
(I'm a facebook friend of Larry's who sent me to your blog :) )I have to agree with you on health care being important. I am an advocate for universal, single payer health care. I find for profit health care to be immoral and unethical. No human's life or well being should be beholden to the bottom line or a shareholder. Although you have not wanted to get into the specifics, I have done that for a few years, looking at the research and trying to understand systems that work outside our country. For example, those against government run health care point toward Canada, Britain as their examples of how the system would obviously fail. What they don't talk about is Germany, Switzerland, Hawaii and a number of other systems that work fantastically. Their waiting times for attention are either better or equal to our own. Their doctors are paid well and do not have to do pay per service (meaning they don't have to get a certain amount of patients into the books to make ends meat). Also, on average, the cost of health care premiums in the US is 13,000 per person per year. That includes the subsidized health care that companies give their workers. Now, in places such as Germany, etc, the costs is equal to about $6,000 per person. Ok, so the money comes out of your taxes (that is, that part that is not subsidized by your employer), but you get to keep half if those numbers pan out. How is that a bad thing? Government does many things correct and well, so I'm not sure why people think the doctors that we currently see would be worse under a government program where they get to spend more time with patients and not be worried about insurance companies ripping them off or giving them kick backs for certain treatments or drugs. They would get to be doctors (health insurance gets inbetween the patient and doctor far more than any government run system would).
Let's just say that the health care lobby and big pharma have done their best to misinform the public and, well, sadly it worked. I would be glad to pay less for health care and get better attention like in Germany, Switzerland, France, etc. In the end, we are the US. We are supposed to be the innovators. Why can't we take all the best the world has proven that works and make it better?
(my name is Jason by the way)
By the way, I used to be a conservative like yourself. I changed when I found out, in my own research, what this guy has summarized so well.
http://bunkinthewest.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/republican-democrats-national-debt-and-fiscal-responsibility/
It's a well researched article and I encourage at least one read through. If anything, it may provide simple food for thought.
Bethany, I agree with you about Tricare. I had to skim back through - I don't think I touched on Tricare at all?
Post a Comment