Whose beauracrats are running healthcare?

I have to admit something, I've become obsessed with the news. It's not unusual to walk into my home and find CNN or MSNBC on. I Tivo Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow every night. I have a subscription to The Nation. I voted against George W. Bush twice and voted for President Barak Obama. I think corporations are necessary, but are best NOT left to their own devices. Greed is bad. So, obviously I have a left leaning bent, although I would describe my politics as a fiscal moderate and social liberal. I want to be up front about all of this as I am about to begin a rant about healthcare and what I find to be the Republican hippocracy and frankly nonsenscal stand when it comes to the issue.

When speaking of health care reform there is one argument Republicans and conservatives love to trot out against a national health care system: the government should not interfere with the medical decisions between you and your doctor. Again and again the spectre of socialized medicine, rationed care, and waiting lines for lifesaving treatment are raised to scare us Americans into believing that, under a national health care system, we'll die of cancer as we wait six months for surgery.

What is their alternative to this: the free market. Yes, the free market will solve all our health care problems, allow everyone world class treatment at cut rate prices. If only the government would get out of the health care business, and well all business, then all would be well, because we all know that the free market ALWAYS comes up with the best solution.

My responce to both of these arguments is bumpkis and B.S.

First if all, I have personally experienced a national healthcare system when I spent three months studying in England, and for that time I was convered under the UK's health care system. I became ill and there were no issues with me being able to see a doctor or receive a prescription. There were student who got a cold and weren't prescribed antibiotics for it. This was not a problem since with all our knowledge there is still no cure for the common cold. I have never met anyone who has lived in a country with some for of national health care, be it a single payer system, mandates for health insurance, or govenment run system that has complained or wanted to trade their system for ours. This is all anicdoatal, but it's anicdotes that make me skeptical when I hear of the "horrors" of national healthcare systems.

But, what strikes me as the worst argument against reform is the statment, "you don't want the government beauracrats deciding your medical care. That's between you and your doctor." And yet, these same people have no problem with insurance company beauracrats interfering with medical decisions every day. I have self-payed health insurance, and it's crap insurance let me tell you, and is only good in case of a catastrophic accident or diagnosis. Also, my coverage is limited to certain hospitals and certain doctors. Certain services aren't covered by my insurance, selected based on what is cost efficient for the insurance company. My access and range of choice of healthcare is limited by what I can afford and what my insurance company says they will cover.

But, at least some services that are covered, right? Well yes, unless of course my health insurance company are able to deny my coverage based on any number of factors that are written into my plan. One example: a man was denied coverage of his ambulance transport because he did not receive pre-approval. The fact that he had been in a car accident, was unconscience, and unable to call the insurance company first was irrelevant. (See Sicko for the man's story.)

The fact is when it comes to paying for healthcare, a cost that can quickly become astronomical and often does not allow for costing out prices before receiving care, there is almost always a beauracrat looking through your records to decide if your treatment should be covered or better yet a way to cancel your policy. The way our system works now that person is working for a company that is looking to make a buck. And making a buck is the driving force behind the free market.

It would seem logical that providing the best coverage and care so that customers would sign onto your system would lead to insurance companies, doctors and patients all winning and a healthier society. That is simply not the case. Instead we have a system where premiums are rising, most bankrupcy in this country are due to health care costs, our industries's backs are being broken by the cost of providing coverage and are less competitive against other country's where health care is subsidized, and those who receive the best care are those with the most money.

The fact is the free market does not always provide the best products and solution, otherwise I would've grown up begging my parents for a new Beta deck instead of a VHS. The free market provides the best solution for a company to make the most money. Sometimes the needs of the company and the public intersect. Sometimes there is no intersection and the needs of the public are overun by the need for increased profit margins.

One way or another we pay for healthcare. One way or another we subsidize the poor receiving healthcare in ER's which is expensive and inefficient.

The question is not whether you and your doctor will decide on your are or a goverment beauracrat. The question is who do we want to have control over how much we pay for our healthcare: beauracrats whose goal is for us to pay the most amount of money with the least amount of coverage or beauracrats whose concern is the public well being?

Here We Go Again

For the 100th time I'm going to start blogging again. Alright that's a bit of an exaggeration. Let's see if I actually keep up with it this time, even if I begin working.