Ever since Roosevelt and Truman were shot down in their efforts to institutionalize health care, the US has been wary of “socialized medicine.” That Medicare in itself was passed is owed to JFK — nostalgia and legacy. Slowly, however, the nation is more wary of the monolithic determinism of the AMA, the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies dictating the terms of health care. They abhorred Medicare because it acted as a check and balance against the laissez-faire profit motive in assessing costs.
The AMA did a thorough job in weeding out the GP mentality of humane practice that most doctors possessed in the past. At the same time, in its quest for specialization , the profession unquestionably enhanced quality, but also made doctors entrepreneurs at the expense of a caring practice. Pharmacology, thanks to many unheralded but dedicated scientists — many of whom did their research under auspices of universities — has become an extraordinarily profitable behemoth in the marketplace.
The insurance leviathan in crowding out the once Blue Cross low cost premiums, has always been profitable by striking fear into the medical landscape of the consumer as well as the providers. In so doing, however, the motive is not to keep cost at a reasonable level but to increase profits. Putting aside fraud and hypochondria, the vast majority of care recipients are indeed ill and see their doctor reluctantly. The premise that humanity cannot be trusted when seeking health care is the theme of these profiteers and as a result their unique policing methods are astronomically costly and self-defeating, particularly when the co-payment is ever increasing — a sufficient deterrent in its own right.
The ludicrous “medical savings account” often proposed is driven by the same excessive paranoia of prevailing fraudulent practices existing and the self-righteous who believe that their self-styled good health habits will reap rewards monetarily, rather than being satisfied with the simple luck of staying healthy. Moreover, no savings will ever cover catastrophic illness. Alas, there will always be with us the holier-than-thou proclivity adding to the will to divide and conquer the common good.
The common good in health care has always been in jeopardy from the moment Medicare for the agéd was instituted, in spite of its clear need: old people require more health care. Medicare should have been the logical step to Medicare for everyone. In the 60-70s, however, when jobs were real jobs and companies cared more for employees to offer them attractive medical insurance, the need for universal care was not apparent. In this very different era of escalating medical costs, exportation of jobs, and relentless mergers, the health of the nation swings in the balance.
The fact that Medicare payroll tax knows no age barriers, it would seem logical that the young in lieu of being taxed only on its future ills should be entitled to health care now. Granted, the tax would have to be increased for those without insurance, it would at least erase from the conscience of the nation the scar of over 40 million uninsured, and worse, the alarming numbers of the underinsured enduring unprecedented hardship and bankruptcy. Further, businesses that are suffering by still carrying insurance could get relief and perhaps begin again to pay decent living wages. That today’s average wage is below that of the 70s — let alone working longer hours — is another scar to be erased from the nation’s conscience.
Moreover, the current move to prescription drugs for seniors is another form of segregation which politicians shamelessly exploit with the ultimate result: that of further resentment from the younger who feel shut out and therefore fall prey to the profiteers who really want privatization and no taxes but for war of choice.