The Healthcare Debate

The national debate recently has been about health care. There have
been many myths surrounding many of the proposals that have been
submitted to congress. There have been many myths surrounding the
proposals backed by President Obama. The town hall meetings held
across the nation have seen fierce, even violent opposition by those
wishing to spread and perpetuate those lies. Herein, I would like to
dispel some of these rumors, and try to give you the perspective of a
lower class American, one whose experience has had its highs and lows,
and the disadvantages of the current system to such a person.
I would like to start off with a point that I think we should all be
able to agree on without too much back-and-forth, and that is the
proposal that insurance companies no longer be able to discriminate
against those with preexisting conditions, including but not limited
to pregnancy. I have been a Type I (Juvenile) Diabetic since I was 13
years old. I go in to the current system with the disadvantage that I
have had a preexisting condition since I was a child. There was
nothing I could do to prevent this from happening. Yet, I am
discriminated against for something I cannot help, anymore than I can
help the color of my skin or my gender. That aside, some people are
predisposed to having a high cholesterol count, hypertension, or any
range of other problems. Should we not try to help these people at a
disadvantage? What would you do in my shoes?
The most controversial of the proposals I've read about is the idea
of government-controlled universal healthcare. I think the reasons for
this are clear-cut, but others would see it in a different light. My
goal here is to point out the strengths of this idea, and hopefully
you will see that these will outweigh the perceived problems. First
off, this would automatically wipe out the notion of people going
without healthcare. People like me, who would never be able to afford
insurance due to preexisting conditions, would have the care we need.
Despite my medical problem, I am a productive member of society. I
work full time, I receive a pay check, I pay my taxes, and I am going
to college, hopefully to become a teacher. My saving grace right now
is a clinic that offers care at discount rates for those that qualify
by income guidelines. If I paid full price, my medicines would cost
hundreds of dollars per month, and my care would cost in the range of
$200-$300 every three months, assuming I have no illness or problems.
I pay about $40 every three months for my doctor visits, and $30 a
month for my medicine. While working minimum wage makes even these
amounts seem huge at times, I manage to pay them.
Secondly, there are ways to steer people away from the government
option. While some have suggested a penalty for those businesses that
do not offer insurance, I think a reverse on this course is needed.
Perhaps a gentle raise in business taxes, and offer tax credits to
those businesses that give their employees insurance options that are
affordable, and perhaps even bigger tax credits to those who make it
so that everyone can afford it. This way, there is no hurdle for small
businesses to jump if they expand and grow. We can have our cake, and
grow the bakery companies while we're at it. Those who would decry
penalties for stifling growth can be happy again. Against raising
taxes? We can look at it this way: You don't have to pay those extra
taxes if you have affordable health insurance. We can even target the
tax credits to the medium and larger sized companies as an incentive
to grow the business.
Another problem with the government option that has hit the news is
this misconception that government panels meant to oversee the program
are "death panels" or "euthanasia panels." I must say even at first
glance, this is a certainly large stretch of the truth. We have to
have a higher authority, staffed with knowledgeable people, to oversee
the program and make sure its running smoothly, and make decisions on
whether or not the lower levels of management are making the correct
judgement calls. I know some people have a very low level of respect
for government and elected officials, but I don't think any elected
official who wanted to keep his job would throw his hat in the ring
for such an idea. I like to think most people would have the humanity
to say no to an idea such as killing off our older loved ones to save
a dollar on treatment. I wouldn't even support an option of assisted
suicide, just for the simple fact that there is so much room for abuse
and bad judgment calls. Just a personal belief, and you can take it or
leave it, but I simply can't believe that any sane person could kill
themselves or someone else. Those people have to be disturbed in some
fashion or another.
Another problem is the cost. How do we pay for this government funded
health care? Very simple, the same way we pay for everything else. Pay
taxes. I know this might rankle some feathers, but things have a price
tag and must be paid for. We just got out from eight years of spending
without taxing. We went from surpluses to record deficits. If you
benefit from it, you should pay for it. If we followed one of my
earlier suggestions, taxing every business and awarding tax credits to
those offering affordable health insurance, then the taxes are paid,
and those not taking advantage of the government system will not have
to pay for it. How much simpler can we get with this?