Constructive gadfly


With Gephardt out of the race and Kucinich going nowhere, universal, single payer health care is buried once again: its point to maintain a healthy nation as part and parcel of maintaining the nation's well-being as per existing social security for those sent out to pasture or for the millions of the ill-luck who are handicapped, or widowed with children did not need Harry and Louise this time to dump it. Once more in not espousing this principle, we defy the natural process, for the most part, of an enlightened nation. Further, the nation falls through the cracks in competing within a global economy because the morale and health of the worker and family are essential, but apparently only other developed nations are willing to pay for the precious entitlement to insure a highly motivated work force.


Before being hired by a large company or government, one must take a physical. The armed services want only the healthy: gays who do not falsify the psychology examination are rejected. There was a time the disabled were perceived as unhealthy and denied access to the work field until anti-discrimination law applied. Until the enactment of Medicaid and Medicare, the ill among the needy and the elderly were perceived as lepers. Most parents and all grandparents of senior citizens today had no such comfort as offered today — what short memories we have — but now it is perceived as an inalienable right. But God forbid that today's younger generations, oppressively taxed 14% of their gross income apart from income tax itself, should expect the protection of health care now, not just in their old age. No such financial obligation for today's golden oldies. Good old Lyndon handed it to them on a silver platter to insure against suffering and financial disaster in old age. True, since its inception the cost to seniors has risen, but in contrast to private insurance, modestly.


Every interest group that is already secure with plans — seniors, unions, government employees, and others lucky enough to be blest with good-will employers — ignobly failed to support Hillary's health care package, lest she tamper with existing plans in order to successfully obtain universal access to the 40 million Have-nots. The doomed outcome indicated that few who are comfortably in place with plans gained by choice employment or Uncle Sam are willing to pay more for their existing security to insure the same security for others.


Yet in a state of emergency like 9/11, hurricanes or floods, the sick and injured are cared for without regard to costs. Whether extracted from a mangled Lexus at the scene of an accident or rushed to the hospital from the bloody, drug-infested streets of L. A., one is suddenly perceived as equal. In the Fifties when Eisenhower had a heart attack, no taxpayer resented the medical bills. George, Barbara, Ronald and Nancy each was hospitalized and magnanimously America rose above pettiness. Then why be so resentful of others less fortunate? Many of the comfortable revel in nastiness, in self-righteousness. So what if universal access includes the pimp and prostitute, the child abandoned by parents, gay or straight with AIDS? — that's what universal means! When there is a shoot-out and the bloody drug criminals are rushed to emergency the county pays.


The frenzied pack against access defines national health as socialized medicine. One of our greatest presidents called it by that name — what's in a name if it gets the job done? But the problem is much deeper. The existing system — Hillary, Gephardt, Kucinich heroics notwithstanding — will ineluctably collapse and our children and their children will be without the primary act of Audrey Hepburn decency. How ironic, in an ostensibly enlightened nation that heard the cries of children across the seas and rebuilt Japan, Europe and later bestowed health care for the Somalians, Haitians, Bosnians, Kosovars, and now Iraqis, should turn deaf ear to its own. Be not holier than those of our own kind who are without, lest Audrey Hepburn rain tears from heaven.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 12, 2004
Brad Wardell- it sometimes is amazing that people survive. It sounds like your mother was a strong person! I will definitely read your article, but I do have one more question for you. I notice whenever you talk of unwed mothers, you never talk of the fathers. Would it not, in fact, be cheaper if the US ever went mandatory birth control, which we know I'd be in the lead parade against, to have the birth control be that every boy, by the age of, let's go ahead and say 13, be given a reversible vasectomy? Then, when he was responsible enough to have children, he could get it reversed? But, reversed only under the condition of passing numerous tests to prove his responsibleness. I think YOU should make up some of the tests, don't you? just kidding.
But I actually DO have a plan I'm proposing in my next blog that could possibly end the part about uninsured children. Maybe we can talk then about all the other uninsured, or barely insured.
Once again, this is a good article, stevendedalus!
on Feb 12, 2004
WiseFawn: Birth control for both sexes. Not just women or men.
on Feb 12, 2004
Oh geesh
on Feb 13, 2004

Like I said, society has to decide whether government is their mommy or not.

If the bulk of the uninsured are children that result from out of wedlock births, then it seems to me the most logical solution is to try to find ways to make that not happen.  I don't see why the rest of us should have to work more hours in servitude to the government each year to pay for the insurance for thoes who are irresponsible.  Moreover, the case hasn't even been made by anyone that health insurance is so critical to have that the federal government needs to provide it.

on Feb 13, 2004
Critical? Do you know anyone that's undergone cancer treatments? That has kidney dialysis or diabetes? Do you know that a lot of doctors don't even accept cash payments?If you don't have some form of insurance, they won't take you as a patient? My sister sat with the phone book in Cleveland and could NOT FIND ONE that took a cash paying patient! Have you ever walked into a "free" clinic? How about the price of medicine being so high that Americans are going to other countries for their medicine?
on Feb 13, 2004
Brad, I know you are moderate in many ways, but you do wing the right when it's related to big government--even smart government that cares. By the way, you and your mother apparently were blest that there were no health problems in the family. There are, you know, people who do have health problems, as Wise-Fawn indicated, and are in need of help. As for checking up on the uninsuired, I agree with you because i suspect there are many who can afford it and just think they can wing it until something catastrophic happens to them.

on Feb 13, 2004

Steve - I am right wing in some ways and I'm left wing in other ways. 

It basically boils down to the fact that I don't think it's the government's job play the role of mother.

The system works pretty well for most Americans.  I do not see why we should have to pay more taxes so that others can get a free ride.  I hate to be callous but at some point, natural selection takes its toll.  People die all the time in many tragic ways. It's very sad. But it happens and at some point you have to recognize that there are real limits to how much good any entity can provide.

Do you know how many children die each year from consuming a poison of some kind? Thousands. I am sure that with enough money spent we could somehow come up with a way to solve many if not most of those.  Should we though? Should we spend billions each year to solve that problem? Where do you want to draw the line? 

The government isn't some magic place where problems are solved magically. They cost money. That money has to come from the people. Money that is spent on one thing is money not being spent on another thing.

Tell us WiseFawn, since you brought it up, how many uninsured children died last year from Diabetes? Do you even know? Yet you would spend billions of dollars to solve a problem that might only help a couple thousand people each year.

And behind you is a whole bunch of people waiting in line for their turn to ask the government to solve a problem.  Drinking and driving causes lots of deaths too. Perhaps the government should mandate every car have a way to detect whether we have too much alcohol in our system before the car will start. 

From your vantage point maybe the government can do everything. But from mine, I see it as a very limited tool that can only really do things with brute force. I don't considered uninsursured Americans a problem that needs to be "solved". Or at least, not solved anymore than the federal government needs to mandate cars not start if the driver is intoxicated.

on Feb 13, 2004
There are people everywhere with problems. I really don't want it to be the government's purpose to solve everybody's problems. It would be nice if we lived in Candyland with lollipops and sunshine on every corner, but life's not as nice, and the government can't play God and try to make it as nice, because it can't control things that affect life, such as luck and will.

If people know that they can make mistakes without any real consequences, what's to compel them not to make those mistakes again and again?
on Feb 13, 2004
I am left speechless again.

stevendedalus - I've been reading your articles about a more tender and gentler nation. You have good ideas. I can't help but hope that enough people can come up with enough ideas to create compromises and solutions.
on Feb 13, 2004

It's easy for those who don't have to actually pay for the utopia to come up with ideas.

At work, I get game submission from "game designers" on a regular basis. They think they're doing a great thing giving me game designs.  But the proof is in the pudding -- the guy actually doing the work to maek the thing possible matters a heck of a lot more than the person with the nice intentions.

Those of us who have to pay for these pie in the sky ideas have an incentive to try to see if the money is being effectively used. And you know what? It turns out it often isn't and what's worse, it sometimes does harm.  The government can't save everyone. And while I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to spend every penny earned by others to make a good attempt at saving every person, the reality is, you can't.

I believe in a kinder gentler nation -- one in which people are more free than they are today.  Free to succeed or fail but free. People are more likely to reach their true potential when they are free to make decisions knowing that the consequences for failure are real.

on Feb 14, 2004
wow, even if he is unemployed, retired or disabled, or whatever the case may be, he has a voice, an opinion, and actually a great right if he is any of those. The ones in the system know much better how the system works than those who aren't. Asking for health care is not a question of success or failure at life. Muddle through, though.
on Feb 14, 2004
Brad was talking about freedom, to succeed and to fail, fair enough, but does failure mean being ill and not cured and live to die? Without universal health care that is going to happen regularly. One thing I find choking more than everything else is that US spend around 14% of PIB for health much more than any other country (europe highest is between 10 and 9 % and almost everybody is covered) but manage to let one tenth of the population withou health care. Well, there is an obvious mismanagement of money here...
on Feb 14, 2004

This is probably going to come as a shock but for thousands of years humans have lived without government provided health care. No really, it's true! Somehow, some way, people managed to do it.

You say without universal health care people are going to die regularly without it. People die regularly with it. But tell me, how many people died last year as a result of not having health care.  It can't be too fatal since the number seems to be 40 million and growing at roughly the same rate as the population of the United States. If people were dying enmasse, the problem would..kind of take care of itself.

As for why the US spends so much on health care -- that's because it's not provided for by the government. As a result, we have a LOT more freedom on what procedures, medications, etc. that we can choose from.  I have a lot of Canadian friends and there are all kinds of restrictions on them on when and what they can do.  We Americans are, culturally, addicted to having access to the latest/greatest medical technology regardless of the cost. The net result is much higher health care.

on Feb 15, 2004
Yeahhhh, um, who cares about the "handful" of people without healthcare? Brad Wardell doesn't. In fact, it is plain to see on this, and on most of his blogs, that he has very, very little compassion for his neighbors whom are a couple of steps lower on the food chain than himself, especially where his wallet is concerned. In his USA, it's every man for himseelf, and screw the "unfortunates" including the little bastard children who never asked to be born to an "unwed mother under 21". Brad Wardell IS one callous dude.
on Feb 16, 2004

Using that (ahem) "logic" let me make a proposal:

Each year thousands of Americans die from choking. I propose that all Americans be required to eat via government supplied feeding tubes. If you oppose this measure, you must be in favor of people choking to death. You monster.

Please.

 

3 Pages1 2 3