Quote:
|
Down to Earth: Decisions must be made. Rationing on the basis of who can pay means health is something you buy. I'm okay with yachts and mansions falling into this category, but if health becomes essentially unachievable except for those with yachts and mansions, then America will have moved quite a bit closer to the "winner take all" society we should fear. To the winner should go the spoils. But there will also be losers, and we are forced to decide whether our impressive and robusts medical services community should be bothered with their situation.
|
I think we're already there. The situation noted in "As Good as it Gets" describes it perfectly. With greater government control I think we'll move even further in that direction as costs will go up, we will support an entirely new bureacracy and lawsuits have not been limited in any way. Those with the means will pay; those without will get "government" or second tier, decidedly lower quality, care.
Does everyone have a right to healthcare? Not IMO. Do I, and I think the majority of citizens want the government to develop a "safety net" to provide health care for the less fortunate? For me the answer is yes and I suspect that would be true of the majority. But do they want it to be run by the government, require over 2,000 pages of legislation, be bartered by backroom deals and exempt cronies and other special interests (such as unions, the State of Louisiana, GM etc. that the current administration favors) from its mandate? I think the last election answered that question.
I sure don't know all the answers but I would rather see the government take a nominal amount of tax dollars from all of us to fund such a system and compete it to a bidder on a best value basis (and have it recompeted every five years). Users would have a means based deductible. While it would still be second tier healthcare I think it would be much better and far more efficient healthcare than the direct government control currently looming. I would also add one more thing- anyone availing themselves of that system would consent to exempt the provider from all liablility. Within or ancillary to the contract that is let, there would have to be a separately run arbitration board to act on behalf of the victim in the event of negligence or malfeasance. The decisions of that board would be final and binding on all parties.
I don't want to buy health care via a Government mandate and I don't think the Government has the right to make me do that. But they do have the right to tax me and I would support the government levying a tax to provide healthcare for the less fortunate (not everyone) via reasonable, cost effective methods. If we could do it with the present amount being taxed (let's face it the Government could spend our money a lot more effectively) I'd be even more supportive.