An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
It’s Not MY Job to Provide YOU With Healthcare!
Realistic solution for health-care costs is consumer responsibility
By JAMES K. RONE, M.D.
Dr. John Sergent respectfully disagreed with the politician who opined it was not the government’s responsibility “to provide womb-to-tomb health care.” He also implied most Americans don’t care about the uninsured (“Government could provide health insurance for all,” Aug. 11). I respectfully disagree. Caring does not equal government responsibility. I care about many things with no expectation that a nanny government give them to me.
In “Free antibiotics just a start, mom says” (Aug. 12), mom declared, “It shouldn’t be up to businesses.” Again, I disagree. Businesses, people and government share the blame and responsibility for our health-care crisis.
Is health care a right? Not according to the Constitution. One unalienable right, however, specified in the Declaration of Independence is “Life,” which one could equate to “health care.” At least enough health care to maintain life. Analogously, the government provides food stamps to those in need — but not to all. Where do we draw the line?
American taxpayers cannot pay for everything medicine can do to maintain, prolong and improve life. Even if they could, medical costs are a moving target. Each advancement, each better drug or technology, raises the price and demands new lines. Only the free market can react to this volatility. If the government tries to, it will go broke, or suck taxpayers dry — ironically providing “Life” at the expense of “Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Unacceptable. Patrick Henry said in 1775, “Is life so dear … as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”
Dr. Sergent believes the only “realistic” solution is a national single-payer system.” I disagree. The only realistic solution is one forcing the consumer to take responsibility. Responsibility for healthy living, and for making decisions about what to pay for. Government insurance would be worse than the present chaos. It would further divorce the beneficiary from the cost of the benefit. Foolish not to avail oneself of a free benefit, right? Even more so a benefit already paid for with one’s taxes. The run on services would be disastrous for the payer. This happened with TennCare. Effective limits are key. Sadly, I have no confidence in Washington ever agreeing to, let alone deploying, anything reasonable. Limits neither too restrictive, nor too lax.
Having said that — I abhor all payer-imposed patient-care restrictions. They are at times dangerous. In my opinion, government health insurance should provide relatively unrestricted care for specific groups — such as the truly impoverished on Medicaid and the elderly on Medicare. Limit beneficiaries, not benefits.
The rest of us should be covered by a reformed private-payer system. One that interfaces with the patient more than the doctor’s office, and can never refuse coverage based on existing or preexisting conditions. This system must incentivize patients to be active in deciding how health-care dollars get spent — based upon personal circumstances and values — and to self-pay when possible. We’re all too used to virtually free heath care, whether from an all-powerful government, or an all-powerful insurance industry.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
I’ve said this before and I’ll keep saying it:
A “right” is something that you already have and would continue to have if you were the only human being left on earth. Rights can be taken away, but never granted.
Universal healthcare would be an entitlement, not a right.
They ought to call it “I’m too lazy to work to pay for my own health care” instead of ‘universal’. Or, “I didn’t bother to show up for school to learn to read and write health care”. Until we start supporting Martians, ain’t nothing universal about it.