Constructive gadfly
Published on November 29, 2003 By stevendedalus In Politics

 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.
Comments
on Nov 29, 2003
I agree with you. I have been a medical laboratory technologist since 1980 and I can tell you that this situation is getting worse and worse. People without insurance will wait until the last possible minute to get the proper care because of the cost, ending up more ill. We as healthcare workers care about the people we are caring for. Unfortunately, it has become all about the money instead of the patients (for administration, that is)....overworked healthcare workers rushing through your procedures/testing (like that??) because you are working with a skeleton crew because it's too expensive to hire enough people....and it is extremely dangerous to rush, ask me, I recently accidentally stuck myself with a needle because of it...and I'm not the only one....also, "batching" of tests (all in the name of saving money)..."Sorry Mr. Jones....we only do that test on Monday and Wed, and since it's Thursday, I guess you'll have to wait."...and "my" hospital is not unique, this is a country wide problem. Recently, our hospital's Medicare reimbersment rates have been dropped by over 2 million dollars for the coming year (the state decided not to group us in with the metroploitan area, who get a higher rate..too bad for our small rural hospital). I have no clue where we would begin to insitute "socialized medicine", but my question is, when is this country going to start caring for it's people?
on Nov 29, 2003
Dear Hippy Girl,

Thank you so much for the support; I was afraid too many people are so apathetic to this crisis that changes for the better will never be a reality. We seem to go on accepting mediocrity. I laud you for your most important work that seldom is rewarded.
on Dec 01, 2003
Living in England, I pay nearly 10% of my salary each month into the National Health System. This gives health care to everyone in the entire country irrespective of age, race, sex, income or religion. Many people also take out private health care on top of this to give increased benefits, but the fact remains that everyone can get the care they need when they need it (well, except for the waiting lists obviously).
I support such a system as it treats everyone equally. I personally as a young male would be much better off just paying for private medical insurance but I support the principle so long as it's not discriminary. It could do with some modernising and be better run (with far less managers), but in general it's good,

Paul.