Health Care is Not Funny (And Don't Even Think About Patch Adams)

I apologize for the rambling nature of my previous post. This is what happens when you don't work with an editor, and you just fire things out stream-of-consciousness style. So broad points are made in hopes that something sticks (mainly in an attempt at humor), without really constructing a well-crafted argument. Not to worry, it's not as if I've been spending most of my time the past few years trying to get into law school or anything...

The point that I was trying to make was that the immigration debate by and large has been totally misrepresented. And to tie it into the introduction to this series, even though it is a problem that we should solve, it is not a crisis. Do you need evidence? Well, we didn't pass the legislation. It's probably going to be a long time for legislation to actually get passed, since it takes time to draft it and vet it and so on. And we're still standing, though I do believe we have a few additional pickup trucks selling fresh fruits along our beautiful highways.



The demagogues have been silenced. They have found their victory. It was not in actually succeeding in getting anything done that would fix the problem, no, that would make too much sense. They are content in relaxing now that the process has stalled. That really makes sense.

Bah, enough of that. How about a real problem? Try our nation's health-care system.



The argument has boiled down to two different systems: 1) the private-insurer system that is in place now, done usually through one's employer OR 2) single-payer state-run system that is similar to that of W. Europe and a good portion of the world. Each have their advantages and drawbacks, and they have been rehashed numerous times. Each side decides to repeat the same claims, without taking the time to listen to the other. It's really productive, as you can clearly see.

Well here's my slightly educated contribution.

With the private-insurer system, we have over 12% of our population without any coverage, and with countless more that have limited and insufficient coverage. But we also have the finest medical technology, qualified and well-compensated professionals, among other things.

The irony is, that though we have a market-driven system, it is completely inefficient. In the US, we spend more per-capita than any other country on health care, yet we rank 37th in terms of quality of care (as has been oft-repeated in reviews of Sicko). We are not getting our bang for our buck; in fact we're getting screwed. There is a failure somewhere that is not being corrected.



The single-payer method allows for universal coverage and great service, but the expense is long waiting lists, and well, expenses. Higher taxes, that's the way you got to pay for them. My question is, considering that we already have an abundance of medical facilities and professionals that have the ability to staff these facilities, if we switched the method of payment shouldn't we be able to account for these lines? And how much more inefficient can taxes be, considering that we get so little for what we pay for these days? Shouldn't redistributing some of that burden help out a bit, AND allow for more people to fall under coverage?

My point is that we already know what works and what doesn't in these systems. Why don't we do something like adopting a hybrid--allow for a baseline coverage for all, and allow some to opt out if they choose?

The status quo is crap. We can do something, one way or another. We just need to demand change.



And thanks to both Mr. Zhuang and Joe Reefer, for bringing back the funny. I'll join in again soon.